IL DUCE OF THE LAST IMPERIUM. PART V.

The informative Mussolini sketch continues, with my comments in red.

Mussolini’s Fascist state, established a decade before Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, would provide the model for Hitler’s future economic and political strategies. Both a movement and a historical phenomenon, Italian Fascism was, in many respects, an adverse reaction to both the apparent failure of laissez-fairism in economics and fear of international Bolshevism (a short-lived Soviet was established in Bavaria just about then), although trends in intellectual history such as the breakdown of positivism and the general fatalism of postwar Europe were also factors. Fascism was a product of a general feeling of anxiety and fear among the middle-class of postwar Italy, arising out of a convergence of interrelated economic, political, and cultural pressures. Italy had no long-term tradition of parliamentary compromise and the public discourse took on an inflammatory tone on all sides. (The reference to “international Bolshevism” in this paragraph needs to be properly understood. With the establishment of the Soviet power in Russia, a continuation of the revolution would have been suicidal for the new system. “Bolshevism for export” would from now on become Trotsky’s brand, very successfully marketed at that. Let us not underestimate the successes of Trotskyism in modern times, not just limited to the Third World, but very prominent in Western Europe and even to a larger extent in the United States.)

Under the banner of this authoritarian and nationalist ideology Mussolini was able to exploit fears regarding the survival of capitalism in an era, in which postwar depression, the rise of the militant left, and a feeling of national shame and humiliation, stemming from its mutilated victory at the hands of the World War I peace treaties, seemed to converge. Italian role in the Aegean and abroad seemed impotent and disregarded by the greater powers, and Italy lacked colonies. Such unfulfilled nationalistic aspirations tainted the reputation of liberalism and constitutionalism among many sectors of the Italian population. In addition, such democratic institutions had never grown to become firmly rooted in the young Nation-State. And, as the same postwar depression heightened the allure of Marxism among an urban proletariat even more disenfranchised than its continental counterparts, fear regarding the growing strength of trade unionism, communism, and socialism, proliferated among the elite and the middle class.

In a way, Benito Mussolini filled a vacuum. (Obviously, the question of tags – socialism, communism, or fascism – was not as important as the question of personality, according to the leader principle. Mussolini was a colorful, charismatic, smart leader, and he shot up to the top on the strength of those qualities.)

Fascism emerged as a “third way,” as Italy’s last hope to avoid an imminent collapse of weak Italian liberalism or communist revolution. While failing to outline a coherent program, it evolved into a new political and economic system, which combined corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, and anti-communism in a state designed to bind all classes together under a “capitalist” system, but a new capitalist system, in which the State seized control of the organization of all vital industries. The appeal of this movement, the promise of a more orderly capitalism during an era of interwar depression, was not isolated to Italy, or even to Europe alone. (What Mussolini introduced in Italy was state capitalism. Make no mistake, at the heart of it, state capitalism is hardly what people call capitalism, and in a basic sense, those who call it socialism have a good point.)

At first Mussolini was supported by Liberals in parliament. With their help he introduced a strict censorship and altered the methods of election so that in 1925-26 he was able to assume dictatorial powers and dissolve all other political parties. Skillfully using his absolute control over the press he gradually built up the legend of Il duce, a man who never slept, was always right, and could solve all problems of politics and economics. Italy was soon a police state. The 1924 assassination of the prominent Socialist Giacomo Matteotti began a political crisis in Italy, which did not end until the beginning of 1925, when Mussolini asserted his personal authority over both the country and the Party, and established a personal dictatorship. But his propaganda skill was such that he had surprisingly little opposition to suppress. (By its basic logic, totalitarianism presupposes a one-party system and the cult of the leader. People join the one Party to show their support of a cohesive State, free from internal conflicts presupposed by the multi-party system. It must be stressed again and again that the totalitarian system offers its citizens stability and security in return for political diversity and personal freedom. The ruin of both the Mussolini regime in Italy and the Hitler regime in Germany was ironically Hitler’s war against the USSR, which more than anything else put together led them both to utter defeat. Ironically, Franco’s fascist regime in Spain would survive World War II only due to Franco’s reluctance to commit himself to Hitler’s military adventurism, the lethal mistake made by an otherwise reluctant Mussolini.)

To be continued…

IL DUCE OF THE LAST IMPERIUM. PART IV.

The informative Mussolini sketch continues.

Italy was a member of the Triple Alliance, thereby allied with Imperial Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It did not join the war in 1914, but did in 1915, as Mussolini wished, on the side of Britain and France. (Unfortunately, this fact is virtually ignored by commentators of history. Mussolini saw the old regimes of the Hapsburgs and the Hohenzollerns as retrograde and reactionary, in need of being abolished. In his opinion, the Italian monarchy, of fairly recent origin, had retained the revolutionary elements of the struggle against Austrian occupation, and he saw it as no hindrance to fascist rule in Italy. It goes without saying that the role of the King was to be purely ceremonial and completely subservient to the fiat of Il Duce. Ironically, in 1943 the king would also rubberstamp Mussolini’s removal from power… No wonder the prestige of the Italian Monarchy by then left everything to be desired, and the utterly disgraced monarchy was promptly abolished soon thereafter, with not a tear shed over it.)

Called up for military service, Mussolini was wounded in grenade practice in 1917, and returned to edit his paper. Fascismo became an organized political movement, following a meeting in Milan on March 23, 1919. (He founded the Fasci di Combattimento a little earlier, however, on February 23 of that same year.) After failing in the 1919 elections, he at last entered the Parliament in 1921, as a right-winger. The Fascisti formed armed squads of war veterans, to terrorize socialists and communists. (A rather misleading, but not an entirely inaccurate statement. The Fascisti were nationalists, and nationalism is quite compatible with socialism, as the name of Hitler’s Nazi Party convincingly demonstrates. Mussolini himself was by no means alien to socialism. Ironically, nationalism does not go too well with capitalism, for the reason of the latter’s internationalist leanings. As for communism, in one of its political extremist definitions, it is also an internationalist movement, in which sense it is a variation of Globalism. I must add that the USSR under Stalin used the name “communism” for its international appeal, but, other than that, it was a bogus name. The real nature of the Soviet power was socialist, and it was Russian nationalism, rather than some kind of internationalist ideology, that won World War II. Returning to Mussolini, he was not fighting against either socialism or communism. He was engaged in a power struggle with his political rivals who called themselves “socialists” and “communists.”)

The government seldom interfered. In return for the support of a group of industrialists and agrarians, Mussolini gave his approval (often active) to strikebreaking and abandoned revolutionary agitation. (Clearly his revolutionism had by then outlived its usefulness as a political tool of taking power. It was now time for institutionalization of power. Revolution is an activity to destroy the ruling power. Having attained that status, no power should be suicidal enough to continue a revolution. Trotsky’s “permanent revolution” was goods for export, it was never meant for internal consumption.)

When the liberal governments of Giovanni Giolitti, Ivanoe Bonomi, and Luigi Facta failed to stop the spread of anarchy, and after the Fascists had organized the demonstrative and threatening Marcia su Roma on October 28 1922, Mussolini was invited by King Vittorio Emanuele III to form the new government. He became the youngest Premier in the history of Italy on October 31. (Rather than symbolically, this was not a seminal date in Italian history. Mussolini’s struggle for power had already been won. And this was merely a statement of fact.)

To be continued…

IL DUCE OF THE LAST IMPERIUM. PART III.

The Mussolini story in this posting combines parts of his Wikipedia biography (in teal font) with my rather extensive comments (in red font).

Mussolini (born on July 29, 1883 -- executed on April 28, 1945) ruled Italy dictatorially from 1922 to 1943. He created an anti-democratic fascist state through the use of propaganda; through total control of the media he disassembled the existing democratic government system. (Nota bene! The primary mission of the media is not to spread salacious or purely sensational news, but to preserve democracy by the power of its public voice. Quidquid latet, apparebit! What’s going on with today’s media? I often doubt that it continues to serve democracy at all. All the news that is fit to print? What is the modern definition of fitness?)

Mussolini’s father Alessandro was a blacksmith, and his mother Rosa Maltoni was a teacher. He was named Benito after Mexican revolutionary Benito Juárez. (See B. Juárez in my Mexico entry in the Nations and Their Heroes section.)

Like his father, Benito became a socialist and later, a Marxist. (This typical transition from Marxism and socialism to fascism is of the greatest interest. Wrong are those who in the wake of the fall of the USSR and a projected rule of Globalism in the “New American Century” have dismissed Marxism as an outdated thing of the past. In fact, Marxism is the best tool today to explain the destructive processes tearing the world apart in the twenty-first century and undermining the presumably sanctified political stability of the free world.)

He was influenced by Nietzsche and another doctrine that was in the air was the syndicalism, espoused by the French writer Georges Sorel (1847-1922). (See my very important entry Syndicalism And Its Apostle Sorel in the Wishful Thinking section. And also, have you ever asked yourself why so many great minds of the last one hundred years plus have been so much “influenced” by Nietzsche? As for me, for instance, Nietzsche has greatly stimulated the thinking capacity of my brain, but the only direct influence he has had on me was to never be influenced by any authority whatsoever, but to keep an open mind and think for myself at all times.)

He qualified as an elementary schoolmaster in 1901. In 1902 he emigrated to Switzerland. (Why?) Unable to find a permanent job there, and arrested for vagrancy, he was expelled, and returned to Italy to do his military service. After further trouble with the police, he joined the staff of a newspaper in the Austrian town of Trento in 1908. At this time he wrote a novel, afterwards translated into English as The Cardinal’s Mistress. Mussolini had one brother Arnaldo (1885-1931, died prematurely of a heart attack, following the death of his son) who became an important fascist theorist.

Mussolini broke with the Socialists over the issue of Italy’s entry into WWI. In November 1914, supported by his then mistress Margherita Sarfatti (this is not a gossipy trivium: the question of where he obtained the money for this venture is indeed important!), he founded the new newspaper Il Popolo d’Italia, and the pro-war group Fasci d’Azione Rivoluzionaria. He coined the term fascism from the fasces carried before Roman magistrates. (Apparently his personal involvement in the development of “fascism” in Italy was far greater than Hitler’s parallel role in the emergence of German fascism. Let us remember, though, that “fascism” is a clever word, but merely a reflection of the political term “totalitarismo,” developed, although not coined, by the Italian humanistic philosopher Giovanni Gentile.) These were the ancient Roman symbol of the life and death power of the State: bundles of the lictors’ rods of chastisement which, when bound together, were stronger than when they were apart, reflecting the intellectual debt fascism owed to socialism and presaging the symbolism of the renewed Roman Imperium Mussolini promised to bring about. (This is also the old story told by many nations, East and West, North and South, about a father, or in other cases a mother, showing the sons how important it is to stick together.) Mussolini claimed that this would help strengthen a relatively new nation (united only in the 1860’s in the Risorgimento), although some would say that like Lenin he wished for a collapse of society that would bring him to power. (Lenin in this case was not the originator, but a good student of the great Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, whose idea of total destruction as the first step to creation was influenced by the Biblical Creation “ex nihilo.” I do not find any similarity here with Mussolini’s thinking. His fascism grew out of the old monarchy, preserving the continuity of the State, rather than striving to destroy it.)

To be continued…

IL DUCE OF THE LAST IMPERIUM. PART II.

The story of Mussolini’s rise to power, and also the relevant facts of his general biography, are little known to the general practitioners of modern political science. I am afraid that he is not taken seriously by those whose job is to take such things seriously. Pity!

Why is Mussolini so terribly important? Because he was a timely response to that part of timeless human nature that demands a Mussolini at a time when all other answers fail, just when nations great and small demand an answer. Today’s America, today’s Europe, and other countries of the free world, all experience a severe crisis of leadership, feeling nostalgic for the leader principle at almost any cost. That’s why Mussolini is so glaringly important today. That’s why he must be studied to the minutest detail, and it’s such a great shame that such a study is so outrageously wanting!

Am I making my point clear? Each and every great power of today is explicitly or implicitly in search of a Mussolini. Some have already found him, others continue shopping, against all myopic odds.

That reminds me of the story of Field Marshal von Hindenburg, the last President of the Weimar Republic. At the time of Hitler’s political ascendancy, in the early 1930’s, Hindenburg was strongly advised to assume dictatorial powers, to prevent Hitler’s otherwise unstoppable rise to power. The old soldier, who had previously amply exhibited strong dictatorial tendencies, refused to suspend the Weimar Constitution. He chose democracy, and Hitler was the answer.

Benito Mussolini was Italy’s democratic answer to her woes… Mussolini is a better example than Hitler, in the sense that his rise cannot be explained away by the world’s Great Depression.

Don’t tell me that he imposed himself on Italy on the crest of the Great War, and obviously we are not at war on that scale today, or are we? Terrorism, with its ISIS, or Al Qaida, or whatever, is scaring people, of course, but can we seriously call it a war? Had it been a real war, I bet the world would have defeated ISIS and the rest of them a long time ago, leaving the cleaning up of the mess to police action.

Indeed, we do not have a World War III today, at least not yet, but the people’s anxiety, “rumors of war,” supported by a lethal rash of minor wars in the Middle East and elsewhere, still running amok with a vengeance in the twenty-first century, no end in sight, and effectively tracing back to the destabilization of the world in the wake of the disintegration of the USSR, has matched and probably raised the anxiety of World War I, that had given rise to Mussolini.

This is truly a key point of mine that the source of all problems of the past, leading to the two world wars, as well as of the present, leading to only God knows what, is the disruption of the status quo, the upsetting of the balance of power in the world, the rapacious desire of some to take advantage of it and the pathetic incompetence of others to remedy the situation getting out of control.

So that there is no misunderstanding, Russia is not at fault here, in my firm judgment. If one can blame the Russians for anything, it is for kowtowing to the West after the fall of the Soviet Union. It was the West who wished to rub Russia’s nose in the dung, gloating over the perceived demise of the erstwhile super-adversary, failing to understand that even though Russia had fallen, she would surely get up with a sense of great disappointment in the nobility of her rival, at that.

It goes without saying that the West had never attempted to correct the unimaginable wrong. All those pats on the shoulder and other gestures of utter condescension were contributing to the damage already done. The old lesson of Japan, whose humiliating “friendship” with the US had resulted in Pearl Harbor, had never been learned. The big difference is that Japan was eventually militarily defeated, whereas with Russia the same thing cannot work.

Russia does not need America’s friendship. She would rather aspire to the title of America’s “noble enemy” (to use Nietzsche’s expression). Indeed, great powers can never be sincere friends. They have too many conflicts of interest to be friends. To put this in even starker terms, there can be no friendship between great powers. It is honest rivalry at best, or subservience of the weaker to the stronger, which puts the whole issue of greatness of the weaker side (the United Kingdom, Germany, etc.) into question.

Russia is unquestionably a great power, a superpower, if this term still has any meaning. In other words, the only thing Russia needs from America is respect. The Russians had American respect during the Cold War, but none in the last quarter of a century. The outcome of this injustice is predictable, once we show our capacity to think rationally and study diligently the lessons of the past. It is most unfortunate, though, that respect can only be possible from people who understand the meaning of this word. A proponent of world hegemony, having not too much to show for it, cannot be expected to own up to this qualification…

This is why the Mussolini lesson is so important. After all, we are dealing here with the DNA of the great Roman Empire. Do not dismiss Italy on the mere account of her falling from historical greatness.

To be continued…

IL DUCE OF THE LAST IMPERIUM. PART I.

(This entry continues the subject of Italian fascism, naturally flowing into the subject of German fascism before we can proceed with the more general aspects of totalitarianism.)

The following two multi-part entries, ostensibly written about two infamous individuals, Mussolini and Hitler, are, in fact, the embryonic beginnings of an involved study of how and why each of them was called forth by their respective societies to lead them, according to the leader principle, at that particular day and age. For this reason, these two entries rightfully belong in the Collective section.

At this stage, both of these entries are typical stock items and ought not to be expected too much from. I am going to return to them whenever I have more time on my hands, to deal with them with proper diligence. Ironically, “dealing with them with proper diligence” means writing a book about them. But for now a few posted entries will have to do.

Whether this intent on my part is feasible or not at all, time will tell. But it is one of my essential points that it is most imprudent to discard an important political event of the past merely on the grounds of its stigma. The present situation in Europe, and to some extent in the United States, supports my view that whatever is swept under the rug in tribute to political correctness, is sure to come back with a vengeance to haunt us, all the more viciously for the reason of being dismissed with such ease and carelessness.

In order to understand the objective reason behind a particular leader coming to power in a nation, we must understand the nation which had brought him forth. But quite often our understanding of this nation is inadequate, in which case we resort to the opposite: by studying the leader we have a good chance to learn more about the nation.

The following material, set in teal font, is stock for a future involved study of Italy’s most important leader in the twentieth century and perhaps in all her history, one Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (1883-1945). Another key figure to understand Italy of that era is the Italian humanistic [sic!] philosopher and theoretical champion of fascism and totalitarianism Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944) who is presented in my philosophical section Significant Others. It must be noted that in putting together Mussolini’s stock biography, I am by and large keeping the exact language of the source intact, as studying what is said about a man in such cases may be no less important than any objective facts of his biography.

To be continued…

PARTEIGENOSSE CITIZEN

In my erstwhile entry Parteigenosse Philosopher (posted on this blog on April 7^th, 2013) I was making a legitimate point about philosophy and philosopher being necessarily non-partisan, except in times of great turmoil, when the urge and the social responsibility of being a politicized citizen outweighs contemplative detachment. As an argument to eloquent authority, I gave a most enlightening quotation from Marcus Aurelius’ Thoughts (Book I): “From my governor (I learned) to be neither of the green nor of the blue party, nor a partisan.”

Indeed, in times of relative peace and stability, it is much better for a thinking person to be politically independent (or an “Independent,” if you like), than to chain himself or herself to a political party with its obnoxious yet obligatory agenda, which tells you how to think and what to say, whether you like it or not, just because you have chosen to join that particular political party.

In some cases, especially when you have a clearly established government party and the opposition, joining a party may acquire a symbolic significance. It’s not about sharing your views with a certain political party, but whether you wish to show your support for the government, in which case you become a ruling party member, or else, you may wish to oppose it as a matter of principle, regardless of the party’s political platform, in which case you call yourself the opposition, and join some political body accordingly.

But let us talk now about a citizen who wishes to become Parteigenosse Citizen not as a symbolic act, but as a purely patriotic gesture. (You are overwhelmed by a desire to participate in the political life of the nation more actively than just through the voting process.)

How do you now go shopping for a party of your choice (unless party membership is a family tradition that you are unwilling to break, or for some other reason which has nothing to do with politics)?

Suppose you like a particular party’s stand on an issue which is of interest to you. You rush to join before you realize that there is another issue that concerns you, on which the party you are joining holds an opposing view. What then? Do you bail out, or adapt?

I say that bailing out is the only way of preventing a citizen from committing the repugnant act of hypocrisy. The only way of preserving personal integrity. (At least, for the time being!..) The only way of avoiding the slippery slope of becoming a so-called “establishment politician.”

So, what is an alternative for a public office-hungry Mr. Smith who wants to go to Washington?

It’s the hard way of not joining, but rather of becoming an independent promoter of your heart’s and mind’s cause, an independent seeker of public office.

All this is a result of my longtime contemplation on the American political process, leading me to the conclusion that in the USA today it is, I repeat, better to be an Independent than a party member.

Political parties are stupid in making up long lists of positions to be held by a party member. But why does it have to be from A to Z, when it could be a less ambitious selection distinguishing one party from the others? Let us remember the simple rule: the longer the list of dos and don’ts, the less diversity is allowed within the party for aspiring party members.

In this respect, major political parties are trying to play a pontificating Roman Catholic Church in making up such long lists of issue allegiances, but without the necessary Divine authority behind them. Thus politics becomes religion without a foundation in absolute morality. An impostor religion.

But let us make things simple and less ridiculous. If I want to be committed to a cause, it is quite probable that I am less anxious to be committed to a broad range of causes. There may be some sense in distinguishing a “liberal” from a “conservative,” but even in this case one cannot be a 100% one or 100% the other, especially when the list becomes too long.

Incidentally, we have seen an explosive reaction to the political business-as-usual, both in the United States and in Europe. Established political parties have discredited themselves enough to cause a genuine revolt among the citizenry. People are by no means stupid. They realize that the traditional distinction of classic liberals and classic conservatives is no longer in vogue. Both species within the political establishments of free countries have been surreptitiously, or not so surreptitiously, taken over by the so-called “neoconservatives” and the so-called “neoliberals,” who have somehow succeeded in rendering the classic terms meaningless by infecting them with the disease of Globalism, making the establishment parties suspiciously look alike, and leaving anti-Globalist traditional conservatives and liberals effectively locked out of their respective parties.

No wonder that the free world is increasingly becoming radicalized, with the people everywhere throwing their support behind controversial anti-establishment parties and candidates, with a frightening possibility of unintended consequences looming large on the horizon.

Where can a traditionally-minded conservative or liberal go to these days? Well, I said it before and I'll say it again – become an Independent.

But wait, that may no longer be enough…

The only alternative to a world chaos of radicalism and unpredictability may be – just may be – unless it’s too late – to take those traditional parties back, and make the so-called “establishment” people-friendly…

Is that too much to ask for?..

A FAIRYTALE WITH A DRAGON

Trying to flee the obnoxious Dragon, the fair maiden Isabella finds an escape into the future, by means of a time warp. She is now in the twenty-first century AD, thank you. Very much relieved to find herself among some awfully kind and gentle people, very soon, however, she discovers that she has absolutely nothing in common with these people, and, next, luckily being able to reverse her original journey via the time warp, she escapes back to her vicious Dragon, who no longer seems to her as vicious as he had seemed before.