It’s come to that fun time of year when revision starts, and i missed a whole load of school for one thing or another, so I’m missing some notes… I have managed to catch up most of it but i seem to have a massive history gap entitled Mussolini’s corporate state, was just hoping that someone might be able to tell me what it was, what it did, significance, anything like that. I tried wikipedia with little luck
cheers
sara
I hope this paltry little sub-moronic essay might be of some use to you, even simply the bibliography. Hope it gives you a little over view.
My conclusion is horrifically luke-warm and democratice…I actually see a lot of validities in the political philosophy and politic that is fascism!
cheers 
What has been generic to the Fascism, if anything?
Historically, Fascism is perhaps the most renowned and controversial political concept, theory and practice of the 20th Century; it is synonymous with unbridled authority, ultra-nationalism, violence and immense human cruelty (Heywood, 2003). Yet, in reality fascism as a universal ideology, with definite theoretical parameters and aims, is largely unfounded. Fascism has a plethora of manifestations in many different nations and regimes and none are the same, most involve right wing political ideas, the main question is to what extent the fascist phenomena has a generality of purpose, or, whether in fact it is to broad an abstraction, trying to refer to a multiple of different political experiences and systems of governance; and the conceptual complexities of defining and explaining fascism as a single phenomena.
What is Fascism?
Fascism, or the original Italian fascismo, is historically the political philosophy of Benito Mussolini before and during the Second World War, however, the term fascist, is often applied to any totalitarian state: any state which is excessive in force and counter to Liberal or Marxist ideologies, however, Gilbert Allardyce (Kallis, 2003, p: 51) states, “…Fascism is not a generic concept. The word fascismo has no meaning beyond Italy…†Indeed, Benito Mussolini wrote the original political tract on fascism “Fascism: Doctrines and Institutions†(1935) whereby he seeks to explain his conception of Italian totalitarian fascism. Though, since the Second World War Fascism has become an umbrella concept used to describe a much more complex set of ideas, systems and practices, but seeking general characteristics and parameter regarding what fascism is is to focus purely on theoretical abstraction, rather than, the action which took place under the term fascism.
Let it be stated that there are no general principles of fascism. Fascism is Italian totalitarian political philosophy and theory. Nazism is German totalitarian philosophy and theory. Though comparisons can clearly be made between Italian Fascism and German Nazism and other examples of totalitarian militant politics, it is best to understand these phenomena separately: as distinct approaches, infinitely bond by history. Aristotle A. Kallis (Kallis, 2003, p: 47) restates this idea “…the importance of understanding fascism not simply in ideological terms, but also in its transformation from ideology to movement…†Indeed, it is perhaps more difficult to draw complete to pin-down precisely.
Despite the insistence that there is no generic fascism per se, can there in any way be drawn up a characteristic of totalitarian politics? In abstraction, of course, general characteristics of comparison can be made, but the limitations must be acknowledged; to subsume every militant and unpopular politic under fascism – is to make the word itself redundant and somewhat unintelligible.
In a most general explanation, certain dynamics of the fascist doctrine can be uprooted as Bell and Dagger explain here; “Fascism is a reactionary ideology; it took shape in the years following War World One as a reaction against the leading ideologies of the time, liberalism and socialism. Unhappy with the liberal focus of the individual and the socialist emphasis on contending social classes, the fascists provided a view of the world in which individuals and classes were to be absorbed into an all-embracing whole – a mighty empire under the control of a single party and supreme leader.â€
The broad characteristics of totalitarianism, of which fascism and Nazism are derivative, summed up rather too simply by Bell and Dagger; a detailed analysis of four characteristics shall now put under scrutiny, as follows: Fascistic thinking and philosophy from early 19th century, stemmed from a variety of sources, indeed many of the social uproars (World War One) and social ideas of the early Enlightenment became the epicentre for fascistic, militaristic thought. Perhaps the most interesting and unique characteristic was fascisms opposition to mainstream ideas, its antithetical essence, being generally, counter-enlightenment (Heywood, 2003) – where enlightenment thinkers saw the age of rationality and order, equality and freedom. Fascism instead provided “…a mythic, emotional and therefore more direct form of communication.â€(Kallis, 2003, p: 4) rather than seeing human beings as exclusively rationally orientated, it stressed the fundamentally irrational nature of human instinct, emotion and desire for power and mastery. “… Fascism overturned values in the name of struggle, leadership, power, heroism and war…†(Heywood: 1997.). Fascism knew that as a group people needed something higher to believe, this irrationalism, stresses that individuals act differently within a group: and thus can be controlled, encouraged and manipulated within the herd of peoples. The emphasis on irrationalism in human nature meant that higher men needed to bring new found order and authority too the people; it provided ground for mass human consensus and organisation, but theatrical political show, manoeuvring and manipulation.
Fascism is also bound directly with nationalism too, often ultra-nationalistic, for national-identity is bound with community and culture: and fascism wanted to bind and strengthen the two forever. Nations-states are unique and distinct, morally, culturally and economically, so are the populace within it: if one is a nationalist ones nation is ones family, an organism; at this level one protects, provides and fortifies for national health. In extremities nationalism and patriotism legitimated ultra-racism and even, in the case of Nazi Germany, vehement anti-Semitism. The Nation was an organic community, and the natural population, the Germans, where a type of species thus the species must be kept pure by mating only with its own species as Hitler says in Mien Kampf “…Every animal mates only with a member of the same species…the result of racial crossing is therefore in brief as follows…a- lowering of the level of the higher race. b- Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness…†(A Hitler, 1924 P: 258-9) This is clearly a controversial statement, crossing biological-determinism and genetics with crude racism. This reveals the passionate insistence of nationalism and national identity in fascism, but also the insistence on preserving a higher race of people.
Along with this trenchant nationalism and the belief in human irrationality and foolishness, came the inevitable elitism. Fascist elitism is a cornerstone of the movement. Quite simply it advocates the superiority of powerful individuals over the weak majority. The exclusivity of the executive genius of the body politic was best exemplified in the hierarchical structure of fascist societies, and the populaces’ commitment to the state and its decree: all power was down-going from the Leader to the people. Fascism was a holy privilege: leaders and rulers were almost respected as deities; with their noted charisma and heroic determination, expressed in speeches, to improve the living standards of the nation, expand empire and walk steadfast into the future. These sentiments could ignite the passion of a populace: bringing with it a goal, a faith, and direction, thanks to the outstanding accomplishments the work of the Fuehrer or Mussolini would bring.
These four theoretical characteristics; counter-enlightenment, irrationalism, nationalism and elitism; form the bedrock of fascist thought: but, perhaps the most interesting factor is actually how these characteristics differ from case to case, indeed, how in fact they overly-simplify fascism and represent fascism as a generic concept. The following section shall look at fascism in practice, as a technique of government, in both Italy and Germany: and how these accounts bring conflicting and disparate views on fascism.
Fascism and praxis: Ideas and Implementation
Italian Fascism: The Soul State
Mussolini, or Il Dulce, was the key promoter of fascism, indeed, he wrote the original fascist text. Mussolini’s fascism was one of warrior-ethics, heroism, devout loyalty and the supremacy of the state, in the past present and future. Indeed, Mussolini, states in Fascism: Doctrines and Institutions that “…War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it.†Indeed, Mussolini, was extreme but they provided a centralised authoritarian State based on mass support (Kallis, 2003, P; 279). Indeed, organisation was perhaps initially more important than extremism. In its initial growth as a Party in 1931 its popularity was not that high, Mussolini had focuses on organisation the work place, but realised the importance of subsuming leisure and culture under the State system. Mussolini writes of the State “…the key-stone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State….for the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.†By taking absolute control of every aspect of peoples social-political lives it became easier to convince and therefore accrue consensus, or the illusion of. Indeed, Kallis states that “… though lectures, films, folklore, sporting activities and so on instilled ….a greater sense of patriotism, nationalism, or manly virtues…â€
What we have here is a rather organised, bureaucratic system of fascism: which had the support of large sections of the middle classes: which supported it as a viable, state in working order. The middle class support strengthened the myth that mass consensus was enthusiastic. In short, the social engineering of the Italian fascist’s project brought about, at least in mythological terms, the loyalty of the national population in total.
The most striking thing which challenges any generic notion of fascism is the way by which the population reacted to it, ideologically, morally and so on. It is problematic to generalise about working, middle classes as a whole: there are significant geographical, economic and generational holds amongst its member which allow different responses to Fascism, from active resistance to political indifference
Another most important distinction against any notion of generic fascism in the period between World War One and Two is the difference of policy in Italy and Germany regarding race. Indeed, they both shared the insistence of devout, even fanatical nationalism, as a restorative cure for previous national historical failures. Indeed, Mussolini’s regime did in fact posses a certain race core (Kallis, 2003) - what is puzzling is his attitude toward Jews- its shift from apparent acceptance to discrimination and persecution, this shift perhaps has more to do with keeping in with Nazi Germany – indeed Kallis states that initially “…according to fascist principles, Croats, Slovenes, Germans, Jews and even Arabs and Ethiopians could all be assimilated into Italian culture, in which moral consciousness based on a common historical identity, not on blood purity, was accepted as the criterion for establishing the legitimacy of the regime.†These contradictions are perhaps understandable, even though nationalism was somewhat a prerequisite for fascism this did not mean that internationalist aims were discarded, it seems that perhaps Mussolini did seem to have an internationalist scope but Hitler’s War plans and expansion of power before World War Two gave Mussolini the opportunity and incentive to stay in line with German Power: thus a racial policy against Jews would be put in place.
Mussolini had organisation and bureaucracy well oiled as State mechanisms; however, support and resistance, in short, uncertainty in fascisms aims were wider than in Nazi Germany. The race issue is perhaps one of opportunism and control rather than trenchant anti-Semitism, which is synonymous with Nazism.
German Nazism: The Higher Race
Hitler’s Germany is perhaps the most infamous state in the History so-far. Often described as a behemoth monster, demonised in every degree, it is perhaps not unfounded to say that Hitler had a stronger form of fascism, called, Nazism. Indeed, Kallis states that Nazi Germany is “…incompatible with any rational political philosophy…National Socialism has no political theory of its own….but techniques of domination…†This statement again suggests that fascism is not a generic concept: but perhaps the only general concept needed is that of Power, from that all else follows: power gives ultimate opportunity.
Indeed, coercion and control, where the main figure heads of Nazi-ideology, even if they didn’t know it. Religious loyalty was to be expressed to the German State – but the state was the embodiment of the Higher Race, the Aryan race, of which Germany, due to certain unique genetic characteristics, was. To be a German was to be of the master race – this involves fanatical nationalism and racism – any German convinced by this or who succumbed to this, would inevitably become fully integrated and indoctrinated in the Nazi ideologies of control and power. This power would corrupt and violence became almost a central policy – the Gestapo where the police force of Germany, but they were also a result of paranoia, for they sought to eliminate Jews and Communists and any resistance to the regime: seen generally as an “omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient forceâ€. However, in reality, the secret police were far from all pervasive relying on voluntary denunciations of resistance and an inconsistent web of paid or unpaid informers. This reveals one all important fact – it shows how successful Nazi propaganda was in cultivating the impression that the Gestapo was omnipotent. It allows reveals how ordinary German citizens became willing participants in the terror perpetrated by Nazism. (Kallis, 2003)
Hitler did improve German society, in terms of infrastructural, but morally or ethically, hypnotised mass society with propaganda: he convinced them that self-subordination and personal allegiance were the sole necessities of the Aryan Race: faith in the State and its aims would secure the Reich for another thousand years. At this level, Nazism is clearly fanatical on the Jewish-racial question – it provides the backbone to most of German policy: on homeland issues and in foreign policy. The final solution of the Jewish question is perhaps the largest difference between Italian Fascism and German Nazism. Indeed, the conditions in Germany were clearly suited to what finally became the holocaust. Indeed, perhaps the actual outcome of the holocaust reveals something more about the Nazi fascist state – that it had, by in large, mass support. Indeed, anti-Semitism was predominant throughout Europe; Hitler used this to harness support, to gain a community of understanding in German.
The similarities between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy should not be over stated. The differences can be crudely put as; Italian fascism was predominantly a form of Authoritarian Statism, while Nazi Germany was a mythological state of re-birth and eventual Aryan purity and worldly superiority. Each state has a level of opportunism. And being counter to mainstream ideas – it is not so farcical to admit – that within these states anything could go. Set ideology and set policy were useful guides, but ever open to revision.
What can be concluded from this investigation? That Fascism is organic – that is – it has a wealth of types, it cannot be contained within the limits of precise definition, as a generic concept: though in modern society and social conscience fascism is synonymous with crude authoritarian power and tyrannical human cruelty; and indeed, history provides support for such judgements. Fascisms prerequisite is power, fascism, in retrospect fascism is fundamentally regressive, maniacal and vindictive in nature, and the short-term prosperities that Germany or Italy felt during its reign, wherein the long-run, hugely destructive forces: but, the lessons learned from history have hopefully been remembered. But modernity does not escape the animality of men in politics, as new forms of fascism and fundamentalism come to fruition Islamic and Christian religious fundamentalism, and even the domination of the mass media in modern capitalist society, these perhaps bring new concerns and questions regarding human freedom, choice and lifestyle. Let us keep alert.
The sleep of reason brings forth monsters - Goya
Bibliography and Reference:
Aristotle A Kallis, 2003, the Fascism Reader, Routledge
Andrew Heywood, 2003, Political Ideologies, Palgrave foundations
Andrew Heywood, 1997, Politics, Palgrave foundations
Peter Marshall, 1993, demanding the Impossible: a history of Anarchism, Harper Collins
Adolf Hitler, 1924, Mein Kampf, Pimlico
Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrines and Institutions
it was ina more general, did mussolini create a nation of fascists sense, so thank you!!! but not so much ina what the hell is the corporate state sense…
but!! i think I kinda found out, apparently it was some system whereby employers and employees worked together ina system of corporations to sort out there issues, and as a result worker strikes were banned, and it had soem kind of governement intervention. (this is all a bit vague sorry), except apparently in some way this was supposed to benefit the country as a whole, like in terms of policy direction?? (huh, how?). so as you can see, i’m still a bit stuck, can anyone telll me if i’m on the right track and perhaps fill in the gaps… also some book i was reading said it was basicallya myth, and that it never really happened per se, like it was a propagand athing rather than an economics thing. I’m not sure I see how this works, could anyone fill me in on that
thanks
sara
As far as I recall, Mussolini had more support from the Middle Classes, than the working classes…the working classes wereto a large extent…indifferent to Mussolini…
You might discover more about Mussolinis ‘type’ of politic by comparing Nazism and Fascism…of course, this might be way of topic…but hey, it could be worthwhile.
A large part of Mussolini’s reign was based on ‘myth’ so was Hitler’s state - Fascism, Nazism and Mythology - funny enough - these three topics are what have inadvertently greated our modern mass society! I could go on…
Robert was talkin’ with me 'bout national socialism today.
(4/22/2006)
He’s said things very badly about Democracy.
But me, I’m not that much a lefty; I think that it should be possible for elites and inferiors to act in a more united and cooperative style.
Besides that, opression of the superiors isn’t “equal rights for all”.
Would you like to talk more about National Socialism vs Democracy?
Or perhaps something better and new?
(I ressurected an old thread instead of starting a new one, here)