babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
The Fascist style
February 8, 2017 - 7:34am
*****
It seems to have something to do with a lack of self-confidence:
https://aeon.co/essays/the-macho-violent-culture-of-italian-fascism-was-...
As Nietzsche expressed it "Thou goest to woman? Do not forget thy whip." Little boys...
Interesting. And scary.
The Russian Futurists, such as Mayakovsky, were leftwing though.
Of course Italian fascism preceded the German variety, but the latter proved far more lethal.
And the Italians did have far better style, something the Nazis definitely tried to copy, with mixed success.
I am not trying to joke here. Philosophically they might have had roots in futurism, and the uniforms they adopted were very modern, but much of the imagery, art, and archtecture were classical, for a reason. It was something everyone would understand.
Also, part of the reason why German fascism was so much more lethal was because it developed in far more bloody circumstances than in Italy. And there was not the same siege mentality as there was in Germany between the wars (and at points a very real siege and occupation) . People were not starving to death in the streets. Nor was there the same degee of anti-Semitism, which gave Hitler his biggest target.
From J.G. Ballard's review (written in 1969) of Mein Kampf:
http://www.jgballard.ca/non_fiction/jgb_reviews_hitler.html
There are plenty of comparisons between Trump and Hitler, and certainly some of the tactics he is using can be called fascist. But really the two men could not be more different. Even Trump's greatest supporters do so while holding their noses. And while he is being enabled by the Republicans (who also tried initially to reject him) he did not take power like the Nazis. By 1933 they had a shadow government in place, with gauleiters in every district, and blockwarts on every street.
Well, the black SS uniforms designed by Hugo Boss certainly had style; there have been essays on the elegance of evil (though obviously not all SS men lived up to that standard; I'm sure some looked more like Trump or Bannon). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1975/02/06/fascinating-fascism/ Susan Sontag
Antisemitism was a very minor factor in Italy; there wasn't a large Jewish population, and the existing Jewish population was very well-integrated. There were Jews prominent both among fascists (before the Racial Laws) and antifascists, the latter including the Rosselli brothers, Carlo Levi, Carlo Ginzburg and Natalia Levi-Ginzburg. Primo Levi was younger, he was a partisan but a rank-and-file one and arrested in a maquis. Several bourgeois Jews saw the (pre-alliance with Hitler) fascist regime in a positive light.
The cowardly fascists went along with the so-called Racial Laws and the rest of the crap, but the real destruction of Jewish communities in Italy was after the Nazis took direct control along with their puppets in the Republic of Salo.
Except for the modern factories in Turin and some other Northern cities, Italy remained a far more agrarian society, and fascism was more a matter of "catching up" via authoritarian measures than repairing the damage caused by the deeply harmful exactions the Great War victors imposed on Germany.
Those interested in babble archaeology might want to look up the House Beautiful story on Hitler's Alpine retreat overlooking both Bavaria and his native Austria, and some of the visitors from other countries...
The fascists might have used futurism as justification for their actions, but there are much older examples for what they are really all about.
Pasolini nailed it when he used Sade's story of the priest, the banker, the businessman, and the politician to make his very difficult to watch film Salo. Most of it was straight from the book, and he said he consciously made the victims seem weak and hateful in order to show how fascism worked. But then, Pasolini lived in the Salo Republic, so he knew the subject matter. I can't think of a better artistic indictment of fascism, and he was almost certainly murdered because he made that film.
I have not yet read the article and I will.
Couple general comments about relevance for today. You see lists of Fascist attributes. Often they are made directly to make the comparisons to today. The most instructive for me are the descriptions of what was Fascism from the time.
When looking at it today, what I find most useful when you look not just what is common between 1930s Facists and what is happening today, looking at both general trends (what things are widely in place now) and specific attributes unique to a particular person, movement or party. So rather than a list comparing Trump to Fascists I would prefer to see a 1930s-1950s description of the attributes of Fascism compared against both the general practices of today and the specific ones of the comparison we are interested in to identify what is actually unique in our era to a particular example and have that come from a source from then.
To me this is a more scientific basis that avoids any confirmation bias.
If one wants to learn about fascism, what better place to start than with someone who had to battle it directly.
Fascism: What It Is And How To Fight It.
Trotsky? Really? They guy who used this strategy?
Different side of the same coin, near as I can see.
His description of Fascism under Fascism -- What Is It? is unhelpful and repetitious. Sorry if this is an unpopular opinion.
A new (sort of) twist on it:
https://bostonreview.net/politics-gender-sexuality/daniel-penny-milosexu...
And in case it isn't clear where this troll stands:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-rights-have-made-...
I am glad to see you are keeping up with the times and are now posting from Breitbart. Its good to see you keep up the good work of spreading the current elites message.
Stylish to a fault.
As a warning? You bet I am spreading it.
I think it is important to hear where he stands on gay rights, especially considering, as the first article says, some are confused because of the fact he is himself openly gay. In fact, there is nothing to be confused about at all, as his words should make clear. He is an opponent of LGBT rights.
And especially since he is getting some sympathy after the riot that happened at Berkeley earlier this week.
thanks for the article with Susan Sontag quotes in it.
i've never read a thing of hers and her words explained so much to me......in fact learning about this Milo guy explains even more.
i think the Briebart link isn't needed and should be removed
i never went there. didn't need to. the Boston Review article laid it out and quotes Brietbart itself anyway.
I have read some of hers but not nearly enough. At times I remind myself to find more and then I forget until the next time someone mentions her.
Of course Franco was the only one to survive that period.
Salazar in Portugal did too, though he kind of kept his distance from the Nazis.
Another unsourced, rather spurious quote. This seems to becoming a habit with you.
The repitition is a result of the overall article being a compilation of different articles, all addressing the same thing. There is bound to be a certain amount of overlap. I'll grant that it does slow the reader down a bit.
But, unhelpful? Trotsky knew more about fascism than any ten other authors of his time, and was there as it grew from a fringe group to the worldwide threat it became.
His warnings about fascism turned out to be right on the money, but unlike present day analysts, he didn't have the benefit of hindsight. He was writing in the 30's, as fascism was growing into the threat it became. Surely such an analysis is worth reading, to gain that direct knowledge.
Outside of his own declaration, how do we know he's gay? After all, he does seem to have invented a few different versions of himself, including declaring his mother, or his maternal grandmother (your choice) to be Jewish.
In fact his birth name is Milo Hanrahan. He may just be an entertainer, with his own shtick.
By the way, the article posted, written by hiim, displays an complete lack of understanding of evolution, and practically everything else he says. I think he belongs to the school of 'just make stuff up'.
@ Rev
I have cited (with source) that quote a few times, so I didn't think it was necessary, but you just have to ask. It is from a statement he made in 1918, quoted in The Eternal Revolutionary.
But thanks. I hadn't seen this wikiquote page before. The one after it about the guillotine (which I had not seen before) also gives you an indication of where he was coming from.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky
Not to mention how that whole thing went sideways, even if he got purged in the process.
As for Yiannopoulos, that is kind of an odd question, but it really isn't the one that matters. The real problem is that because he is gay some people get bamboozled into thinking he is some sort of progressive. In fact, I don't think it really matters whether he believes (and he might) the things he says in his article. The whole thing is so over the top that his "gay exceptionalism" (and anti-lesbianism) isn't really the point. He clearly isn't being serious because none of the things he is talking about actually add up (as two of those he mentioned, Wilde and Turing, found out). I agree with you completely about him just making it up.
The point is that it is just a foil for right-wing trolling of those who do stand up for LGBT rights. It runs all through that article.
There are plenty of others who spin themselves as victims of progressive reform. And as some sort of libertarian progressive. Breitbart, Gamergate, MRAs, the good professor at the U of T, to name a few. What does this have to do with the subject of this thread? Because while they may not be fascists, they promote (in varying degrees) the same things that fascists used to gain support: the powerful casting themselves as victims, an appeal to traditional roles, scapegoating, a rejection of the rule of law when it is in their way, division and discrimination, and in some cases promotion and use of violence.
Here are a couple more well-groomed victims. I suppose the subtle message is that women don't really belong at university anyway. But like the futurist message, that part will come when conditions are ready for it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/white-students-union-posters-taken...
That is part of the message, but Fascist art has always been strong on the beauty of young, athletic men. Even with a homoerotic subtext, though Fascism is also homophobic andhas persecuted and killed gay people.
I think that what Trotsky wrote about the class nature of fascism and the need to unite the different currents in the workers' movement is relevant, but Gramsci certainly had at least as much to say about it... from inside its jails.
Remember that no military leader in a civil war could be angelic or democratic - that is true for the Anarchists in Spain as well. But it is true that ruthlessness too easily becomes a method. Trotsky wrote about fascism when he was already a "prophet outcast" (Isaac Deutscher).
And their whole health and fitness thing.
I don't know if anyone here has read Timur Viermes' book Look Who's Back (Er ist Wieder Da) or seen the movie. But it is kind of a wry joke on that that when Hitler returns in the 21st Century the party he feels the greatest kinship to is the Greens because they focus on issues like food and earth, something everyone understands which is easy to exploit.
As for the contradiction, it isn't that much different than Ann Coulter saying openly that she thinks things would be better if women were not allowed to vote.
And that same crew just love her for it too.
Well, there are all kinds of "Greens" from far left to far right.
It's useful to remember that the Nazis had a talent for "getting into the juice" in Stephen Gaskin's phrase. They liked to batten on any issue that moved the public and use that political energy for their own purposes. They behaved rather like a wolverine rubbing his rump over a food cache and making sure that no one else would want to use it.
Socialists might take a good look at the phrase "National *Socialist* German *Workers'* Party. Same principle.
In other words, you are accepting the statement of a third party as to the accuracy, or even existence of said quote.
For others who may not be familiar, 'The Eternal Revolutionary' was not a book written by Trotsky. It is a book written by Dmitri Volkogonov, who claims to have reviewed millions of documents of the Soviet Union made available after during the period of glasnost. There is no evidence the quote you posted is a real quote of Trostsky's.
Yeah, just some so-called researcher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Volkogonov
Well if he was, he was a very well-placed and well-informed one and, until he had a change of heart, the most committed of supporters.
There were plenty of accusations levelled against him, like "traitor". No one has suggested he fabricated that directive by Trotsky because there are plenty enough examples in Trotsky's other writings and actions where he shows himself to be a ruthless authoritarian.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm
Rev Pesky don't bother. After all he's Russian so of course 6079 thinks he is evil. A nasty man compared to someone like Bandera who we all know was not a fascist. 2 + 2 = 5