A Leftist Confronts Fascism - The Pre-Cum Baby of Nationalism and Socialism

30/05/2023, 20:53 A Leftist Confronts Fascism part 2: The Pre-Cum Baby of Nationalism and Socialism by Lain OS – Futurism Forever
Futurism Forever
Futurism Forever is a Union of Egoists, not a formal political group. So any of the views expressed in
any article reflect the views of the person who wrote it. Not everyone who has ever contributed
anything to the blog or podcast. We don't tow any political line collectively and our contributors
come from many different backgrounds and lifestyles. A love for modern art in general, and
especially Futurism is what we all have in common.
A Leftist Confronts Fascism part 2:

The Pre-Cum Baby of Nationalism
and Socialism by Lain OS
https://futurismforever.com/2022/05/20/a-leftist-confronts-fascism-part-2-the-pre-cum-baby-of-nationalism-and-socialism-by-lain-os/ 1/15
Detail from Jose Clemente Orozco’s The Clowns of War Arguing in Hell, 1944
3 Pre-Cum Baby of Nationalism And Socialism
There is more to Fascism than Gentile. That would be kind of a reddit

understanding of things. If you really look at it liberalism did not just pop up with
Hobbes, Locke, Smith and Ricardo. German sociologist Werner Sombart finds a
proto-Liberalism existing long ago in Italy saying things like “The idea of the
modern state, I imagine, was born in the Italian tyrannies of the 13th and
14th centuries” and “Florentine cloth-making, perhaps the first capitalistically
organized industry in the world”. Sombart even points to the position of natural
law as a similarity with Liberalism. Now, what Sombart is pointing to is incredibly
different from Liberalism he is not saying it’s the same, and we can also find
proto-Liberal economics in Islamic medieval economic thought. Didn’t
Machiavelli want like the goal of the Risorgimento: the creation of the Italian
nation? With this proto-Liberalism and proto-Nationalism the “proto” part must
be made clear. There is still very good reason we call Nationalism and Liberalism
children of the enlightenment. We can’t say Machiavelli’s proto-Nationalism is
the same as what would follow after the French revolution and Werner Sombart
makes this clear in his book on German Socialism. So, when you speak of Mazzini,
D’Annunzio, Sorel and Hegel you may say in some way proto-Fascist but not
Fascist. Because of how Fascism was birthed you can call the father of Anarchism
a proto-Fascist so proto-Fascist doesn’t mean much. And many of these proto-
Fascists like D’Annunzio are much more respectable than the Fascism that would
come after them. I will mostly talk about the birth out of syndicalism and we see
that both Nazism and Fascism were born out of trad-unions. I quote a man who
has been called the Marx of National Socialism Rudolf Jung;
“The unedifying conditions in the Pan-German movement, which was originally

conceived of as a grass-roots movement, inevitably led to the evolution of a
unique political and trade-unionist tendency. This tendency reached its
consummation in 1904 with the founding of the ‘German Workers’ Party.’ In its
principles, the thus-named Trautenau Programme, the party demanded – as the
National Socialists do today – a partial socialization in the form of economic
nationalization and provincialization.”
One would therefore be perfectly correct in regarding this program as a socialist

one.
This birth in trad-unions and both have roots in France are but some of the
similarities with Fascism and Nazism. They are kindred movements. The retarded
Oswald Mosley went as far as to say that they are the same. However, speaking of
Fascism and the more radical Syndicalism one may first point to Sorel and people
like one of his most loyal followers Édouard Berth who moved to Nationalism and
Royalism. What must be noted as Rocco put it “Fascism has created its own
syndicalism.” he adds;
“The time has now come when class self-defense also must be replaced by state
justice. To facilitate this change, Fascism has created its own syndicalism. The
suppression of class self-defense does not mean the suppression of class defense
which is an inalienable necessity of modern economic life. Class organization is a
fact which cannot be ignored but it must be controlled, disciplined, and
subordinated by the state. The syndicate, instead of being, as formerly, an organ
of extra-legal defense, must be turned into an organ of legal defense which will
become judicial defense as soon as labor conflicts become a matter of judicial
settlement. Fascism therefore has transformed the syndicate, that old
revolutionary instrument of syndicalistic socialists, into an instrument of legal
defense of the classes both within and without the law courts. This solution may
encounter obstacles in its development; the obstacles of malevolence, of
suspicion of the untried, of erroneous calculation, etc., but it is destined to
triumph even though it must advance through progressive stages.”
But how did we go from this radical Syndicalism to Fascist Corporatism? First, I
said that Fascism is a form of Leftism, and that is made more clear if we look at its
origins and its roots. This is were I disagree with my fellow leftist critics of
Fascism. Fascism, and many of the other kindred Nationalist movements are
forms of Leftism, but poor molested forms of Leftism. Fascists themselves will
not like me saying this. You can see how Gentile describes the right and left in The
Philosophic Basis of Fascism. Edmondo Rossoni before rightfully turning on
Mussolini said in The Significance of Fascist Syndicalism “Fascism was right to
remove all meaning from the old political jargon of ‘right’ and ‘left.'” Mussolini
said speaking on Senator Albertini “In my eyes the whole political and
journalistic terminology – Right Wing, Left wing, Conservatism, Aristocracy,
Democracy – is so much useless verbiage.” Fascism wanted to take from the left
and the right but I hold that it best fits in the camp of the left. And many Fascists
of the time would agree with me that it came from the left. This leftist leniency
can be seen more clearly in its first steps. To show that it was not a movement of
the right I quote historian Eugen Weber;
“The first Fascio di combattimmento was set up in Milan on march 23, 1919. The
ideas which it claimed to stand for were far from reactionary. […] The Fascios
wanted to dissociate themselves from the classical ‘red’ revolution, but their own
program was almost as radical: they would put an end to the monarchy; abolish
the Senate, the aristocracy, compulsory military service, banks and stock
exchanges; confiscate unproductive revenues; attack the money power;
decentralize the government; protect and educate the poor. although
Mussolini’s Popolo d’Italia changed its subtitle from ‘Socialist Daily’ to ‘Producers
Daily’ it continued to support the workers revolutionary agitation, and Mussolini
himself claimed he had remained a Socialist.”
Eugen Weber argues the same is true for other kindred movements. Speaking on
Hungarism he says “In many respects these nationalists of Szege could be
described as leftist, and they might so have described themselves if the term had
not been smeared for them by its associations with Socialism, internationalism,
and Jews.” Marcel Bucard viewed that Fascism’s spirit grew from the Left because
“being the opposite of marxism, it is much nearer socialism — understood in the
sense of social justice — than it is to bourgeois conservatism which it holds in
horror.” I hold that many of these movements were leftist, but not good examples
of leftism. Nationalism itself you can say came from the French revolution, and
the truth is never so simple but this is true. Eugen Weber pins Nationalism to the
Jacobins. It was this kind of nationalism that Fascism was a continuation of, and
French Fascists like Valois viewed Fascism as a continuation of the Jacobins. If
there is anything good to be said about Fascism and its kindred movements like
Nazism it is that it was the logical conclusion of Nationalism (which is actually a
weakness).
Thus we reach a point my fellow leftist critics of Fascism have trouble with. They
do not get how complex history can be, or even to do history. We can look at their
view of something like The Night of the Long Knives. They look to the fact people
like Ernst Röhm and Gregor Strasser were killed then ignore that people like
Robert Ley were not. Hitler as Rosenberg speaks of in his Memoirs did not want
Strasser to be killed. Then also conservatives and reactionaries like Edgar Julius
Jung and others who where loyal to Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen were also
killed in The Night of the Long Knives. The online right is just as bad at history
however. When they create a formula like “high-low vs middle” and try to
universalize that, or in many of the statements from Mike from Imperium Press
in an interview from pretentious Irish twink Keith Woods (you can see here).
Keith Woods has his own incoherent video on nationalism and closeted femboy
Giuli 333 did a video on nationalism where he doesn’t even defend nationalism.
And their definitions of nationalism do not work at all. Nationalism itself having
many Leftist implications. I would like to quote Eugen Weber;
“Men like Maurice Barrès in France described themselves as National Socialist.

They realized that national unity implied social justice, that national power
implied the planned use of national resources, that national harmony might
mean the equalization or the redistribution of wealth and opportunity and
economic power. Being doctrinaire, they did not feel the need to maintain the
established order at all costs. Putting the nation first and property second, they
found their theories were leading them toward Jacobinism — even while the
official left-wing heirs of Jacobins were moving in the opposite direction.”
Race-mixing Danish neo-nazi Povl Riis-Knudsen wrote National Socialism: A Left

Wing Movement. A few points may be weak however his definition of right and
left, and his main argument is strong. I take this a step further and say that
nationalism in it conclusions is leftist. However, this being true it is still
understandable why nationalism would be attractive to right-wingers and
conservatives like Maurras, Bismarck and Burke. Something that should be noted
speaking of that is that for example Bismark flouted the dreams of many German
Nationalist for the sake of the Hohenzollern family. If one looks at Nationalism
and especially Fascism and National Socialism one sees that is was the right-wing
from outside and from within that as stunted Nationalism. This can be shown in
the last chapter of Hitler’s Revolution by Richard Tedor, and this also shows one of
weaknesses of National Socialism;
“Unlike the Bolsheviks, Hitler did not oppress the aristocracy to promote labor.
He personally considered the role of the nobility ‘played out’. It would have to
prove itself to regain its former prestige, but only by competing against other
classes within the parameters of the Reich’s social programs. A tract published
for officers declared, ‘The new nobility of the German nation, which is open to
every German, is nobility based on accomplishment.’ Many from the country’s
titled families accepted the challenge. They enrolled in the NSDAP or the SS or
served with valor in the armed forces during the war. A small percentage,
concentrated in the army general staff and in the diplomatic corps, resented the
social devaluation of their high-born status. Rather than contribute to the new
Germany, they conspired against her. Together with a self-absorbed minority of
misguided intellectuals, clerics, financiers and Marxists, they intrigued to bring
down both the National Socialist government and their country as well.”
Hitler kept this reactionary class alive and so many and some even under the false
view of being better nationalists stabbed him in the back (the fact of their class
makes them worse nationalists). However, it was not just the right-wing from the
outside but also inside. Otto Wagener in his Memoirs shows things like how it was
Göring who convinced Hitler to put in the Liberal Schacht. Otto Wagener doesn’t
blame Hitler for a lot of the things that went wrong in Nazi Germany but subverts
like Himmler and Göring. The blame on Hitler, and I would go as far as to say that
the mass genocide that happened under Nazi Germany as evil and inhumane as
they were, can’t be put be put fully at Hitler’s door. We have quotes from
Himmler himself saying he is acting on his own and not on the word of Hitler. We
will see subsequently that, aside from several Gauleiter and other insignificant
personalities, such as Ribbentrop, Funk, Frank, Bormann, and so on — in the
main three men, acting according to their own diabolical characters, assumed the
terrible guilt of taking Adolf Hitler’s thoughts and conversations as well as his
actions and distorting or interpreting them quite unnaturally and covertly
exploiting them for immoral and illegal, even criminal, actions, at times even for
their personal advantage. These three men are Göring, Himmler, and Goebbels.
Göring’s pathological delusions of grandeur grew into megalomania,
accompanied by a persecution complex, which allowed him to turn to fraud and
the killing of hundreds. Himmler’s mongrel mentality and purely mechanical
intelligence interpreted his task — which was to safeguard the regime and the
person of the Führer — as carte blanche for orders and actions that ran counter to
every legal concept and bordered on the barbarous — yes, in the end even
culminated in inconceivable mass murders. And Goebbels covertly worked as an
agitator, whose scheming mind knew how to influence the Führer falsely. He
turned the deliberate lie and defamation into legal methods of propaganda and
national delusion, thus making sure that the incompetence and errors of the
regime and of his men were veiled from the public by a mist of verbiage and
statistics. Even if Goebbels was far from the right-wing of the Nazis I think this
shows a right-wing corruption from within.
I think all Neo-Fascists can agree that Mussolini made far too many
compromises. However, the point I am making is that the right-wing was just as
much an enemy if not more so than the reds. These were leftist movements, but
for forms of leftism. It may also be said that German Nazism was less dynamic
and less progressive than Italian Fascism from its start. However, both were
modernist, progressive and revolutionary. It may still be said that the birth of
French Proto-Fascism as this meeting of Nationalism and Socialism reads like
and was a meeting of left and right, and less so when you reach Italy. From Eugen
Weber’s article Nationalism, Socialism and National-Socialism in France;
“The first meeting of socialist and nationalist seems to have occurred in the
pages of a short-lived periodical, La Cocarde, which Barrès published from
September 1894 to March 1895. It grouped such unlikely companions as Rene
Boylesve and Charles Maurras (both later of the Academie Francaise), Frederic
Amouretti, Camille Mauclair (contributor, during the last war, to l’Appel of Pierre
Costantini’s Ligue francaise), and extreme syndicalists like Augustin Hamon and
Fernand Pelloutier. As resolutely social as they were national, we find the
editorial committee (Cocarde, Jan. 17, 1895) greeting President Casimir-Perier’s
resignation as ‘one of the moments of the Social Revolution that is slowly taking
place. […] and whose accomplishment no power can henceforth prevent.'”
This already starts to read like a meeting of left and right. At times as I will show
the birth of French Proto-Fascism reads like a movement from left to right. I
would first like to take more from Eugen Weber to show more of this meeting of
left and right along with the birth of Fascist Corporatism;The appreciation of the
young admirer, then an active follower of Charles Maurras, reveals one
characteristic of these nationalists’ social concern; interested above all in
national unity, they reject class war in favor of class integration, without,
however, approving a capitalist and bourgeois order they despise. It was this
rejection of bourgeois order and bourgeois democracy-that provided the basis of
the next significant rapprochement which took place at first in the ranks and the
tendencies of the royalist Action francaise, then between the monarchists and the
followers of Georges Sorel
This rejection of class war for nationalism may be said to be the birth of Fascist
Corporatism. Many of the old views of this anarchistic socialism can be seen in
Édouard Berth’s attack on a straw-man of Anarchism that opens with “the first
thing that must disappear is the State” he then will go on to say;Today it is
notorious that revolutionary patriotism is dead; something else has arisen to take
its place, a new feeling: the class idea which has replaced the idea of the
fatherland, defining the split between the people on the one side and the State
and democracy on the other. For with the appearance of revolutionary
syndicalism a strange opposition has arisen between democracy and socialism,
between the citizen and the producer, an opposition that has assumed its crudest
as well as its most abstract form in the resolute rejection of the idea of the
fatherland, which is identified with the idea of the State.
Édouard Berth however would not always hold this view and we may look to his
article Satellites de la Ploutocratie to see how many of these change. Before I bring
up the things I want to talk about in Berth’s article I should move back to Eugen
Weber to show bits that read like a movement from left to right. Weber writes
“This was followed on September 29, 1910, by an interview with Sorel, in which
the latter declared his turn towards ‘reaction.'” Here we see just how much
nationalism especially the Reactionary and Royalist nationalism of Maurras
molested syndicalism. We can see this even more when Eugen Weber speaks of
Édouard Berth; “Édouard Berth publishes Les Mefaits des Intellectuels, which
reveals nationalists and syndicalists at one upon the necessity of destroying the
capitalist regime, of restoring monarchy, and (on the way) of reconciling Sorel
and and Maurras in ‘a new and fertile synthesis.'”
Édouard Berth’s Satellites de la Ploutocratie is not translated. The only

“translation” that has been done is by H. R. Morgan (or as I call him HRT
Morgan). A look to HRT Morgan’s twitter will truly show you what the Fascist
new man looks like. HRT Morgan left little of the original article is left and anti-
semitism and all that is left is a few random uninteresting quotes. He was done
this with everything he has translated. However, you can find the original French
online. Édouard Berth in Anarchism And Syndicalism may have said “revolutionary
patriotism is dead”, but now he has changed his tune to “revolutionary
patriotism is not so completely dead as our masters imagine;” He would now

argue that those who ignore the national question must also ignore the class
question;Moreover, if anti-patriotism wants to reason and remain consistent
with itself, it leads straight to the negation of the class struggle, while wanting to
affirm it more energetically . The need for class independence is itself based on a
sentimental fact. Whoever finds the sentiment of national independence illogical
must find the sentiment of class independence just as illogical.
Berth is right to go against class reductionism. There is more than class and
intersectionality was right to point out that things like race, class, nationality and
gender do not exist isolated. However, what Berth says here is nothing but mere
rhetoric. And I do not think Berth would like it if I said that those who ignore the
battle of trans people must also ignore the national question. These words may be
said about a number of things, and is nothing more than mere rhetoric. More
interestingly he shows this article, that is mostly about anti-pacifism, that shows
the problem with the class collaborationism and nationalism (Mussolini would
also say stuff like what Berth said here). However, Fascism moved to class
collaborationism thanks to nationalism. With Fascism we see Nationalism with
all of its strengths and weaknesses.“on the contrary, I would say, the workers
have a fatherland even more than the bourgeois, whom one could consider as
being the true ‘without a fatherland’; for the rich are the truly ‘uprooted’ who,
everywhere in the world, wherever they find themselves, find themselves well,
precisely thanks to their wealth; while the man of the people, the poor, out of
place, uprooted, transplanted, given over to the double domination of capitalists
and foreigners, is doubly enslaved and unhappy. In fact, in history, it is the rich
classes who, most often, for an ignoble class interest, have sold the fatherland for
gold, semper auro vendiderunt patriam, while the popular classes defended it
with the most magnificent relentlessness.”
Berth does have a point. Fascist class collaborationism and thus Fascist
Corporatism was in itself a paradox. It keeps an enemy which it hates, and that
hates it. It wants to give more power to the proletariat, and hates the bourgeoisie.
Yet, it wants to give both equal representation in production. Fascist Corporatism
was the result of the radical anarchistic Socialism called Syndicalism being
molested and demasculinized by Nationalism. Yet, the bourgeoisie which must be
worked with is anti-national, and will work against the nation if it means larger
capital. This was a fact which the fascist knew yet the principal was collaboration
and compromise. And compromise is one way of saying you let the devil get his
foot in the door.
I will now show this same meeting of Nationalism and Syndicalism in Italy. This
is described well by William Welk professor of economics in the College of St.
Thomas in 1938 in his book Fascist Economic Policy, and in The Italian Corporative
State by Fausto Pitigliani in 1933. Both looking into Fascism and living during the
time of Fascism, and Pitigliani himself an Italian Fascist.
We start before the first world war and the rivalry of the more radical Syndicalism
and the weaker Christian Trade Unionist. These Catholic Trade Unionists took up
a kind of Corporatism. Pitigliani points this out speaking on them saying that
they “derived their sanctions from the well-known Encyclical Rerum Novarum of
Pope Leo XIII issued in 1891.” Pitigliani would then go on to say in the same
paragraph; “The Encyclical Rerum Novarum maintains the right of property and
consequently rejects Socialism, but prescribes for the various social classes
reciprocal duties with the object of effectively and permanently harmonizing
their relations.” There is one more thing to be noted when Pitigliani speaks of
these Catholic Trade Union;
“Catholic syndicalism further aimed at attaining internationalism which from

the field of labour should extend to the political field through disarmament,
international arbitration, etc.”
This also kinda brings me back to the interview from pretentious Irish twink
Keith Woods, and I am not really attacking Keith Woods here. This is a comment
Keith Woods made in a now privated video. I only bring it up because other people
think the same. He says that it is important to understand the economics of
Corporatism and how it came out of things like distributism. Keith Woods is also
wrong to say that the end result is an organic traditional society. Fascist
Corporatism grew in a bit of a rivalry of things akin to distributism. Moreover,
there is nothing traditional about Fascism. It is better to speak of D’Annunzio and
Syndicalism if we are going to speak of the birth of Fascist Corporatism.
On the other side you have the more radical and revolutionary Socialism. It was
not until the leadership of Aruro Labriola and Augusto Turati that that socialist
party started to progress having only six elected members in the Italian chamber
in 1892, then to 32 in 1900 and soon after Labriola left 40 members in 1910.
Labriola it may be said would never unlike Augusto Turati’s turn to Fascism, but
he left in 1906 to form his own independent labor movement. William Welk would
note;Although this early socialist syndicalist movement never reached sizable
proportions, its mention is important, for out of it evolved the Fascist
syndicalism of a decade or so later.On the eve of the World War, in fact, the
syndicalist movement founded by Labriola had attracted the attention of Italian
nationalists. Inflamed with patriotism and with a desire for social regeneration,
nationalist writers began to demand that Italian syndicalism ‘be freed from its
Marxian leanings and be made to serve the national cause.’ When the world
conflict broke out, a small company of patriotic syndicalists openly joined the
nationalists in their pleas for Italy’s entry into the war. In this group were Filippo
Corridoni, a young syndicalist of intensely nationalistic sentiments, Edmondo
Rossoni, the future head of Fascist syndicalism, and the present leader of Italian
Fascism, Benito Mussolini.
This movement was the same as Sergio Panunzio had called for. To quote
Panunzio;“Italy needs not only a new economic but also a new political
organization. The old syndicalism of the workers must leave its false proletarian
exclusivism and join the national cause.”
Thus Panunzio would speak positively of Fascism;“The social originality of

Fascism, rests in the fusion of proletarian syndicalism and nationalism.
Mussolini, the born statesman, has succeeded in obtaining the fusion of these two
ideological forces and in turning them to the use of the new Italian state.”
What made Syndicalism so weak to this movement, to nationalism, can be shown

in a quote from Hubert Lagardelle “all the noble feelings which patriotism calls
forth, heroism and self-sacrifice and unflinching obedience – the qualities which
form the eternal foundation of life – will not cease to exist, but on the contrary,
will continue to grow in the soul of the workers who are filled with the
revolutionary spirit.” Syndicalism even when Anarchist or at the very least
Anarchistic, cites itself as having similar drives to patriotism, and this can also be
seen in Édouard Berth. Thus it was not hard to take up patriotism then
Nationalism when you see that Nationalism has in it an Anti-Capitalism. So then
Hubert Lagardelle like Berth found himself moving in a direction akin to Fascism.
In taking Nationalism to its conclusion Fascism made radical syndicalism barely

any more radical than the Christian Trade Unions it started in opposition with.
From this Nationalism came the doctrine of compromise, and compromise is one
word for saying you let the devil get his foot in the door. Fascism turned
compromise into what was mere necessary into a principal. It is not hard to see
why Antonio Gramsci would say that the Fascist will soon compromise with the
freemasons. The whole history of Italian Fascism is one of compromise ending
with Mussolini in control of a mere German puppet state. Mussolini himself
would note that this was his biggest mistake. That Fascists would turn on
Nationalism itself was a dumb and almost satanic standpoint. First as I said
before it is the Individualism of the peoples. Nationalism like Individualism looks
too far into the particular. Nationalism can go two ways: one of brotherhood of
independent nation states, which isn’t going to happen, or what history has
shown it to do, the way of war and genocide. This is why I say Hegel gives a poor
Nationalist reply to Kant in §333-334 of the Philosophy of Right. Kant wants to
prevent war, and so, he wants a League of Nations to adjust and solve every
dispute. Hegel holds that when the wills of nations can not be harmonized the
only way now is war.
Thus the Nationalist Hegel proves right one of the attacks held by anti-
nationalists like myself. Fascism and its kindred movements prove this also to be
right. The genocide that took place under the Nazis is known to all. We can also
speak of the genocide of Serbs carried out by the Ustaše. Fascism was born out of
war, and Fascists speak romantically of war. And we can go on and on with more
and more examples. The point is nationalism creates an other and an enemy, and
the only way to respond to such an enemy soon becomes war and genocide. I
don’t think I need to get into why they are both evil. Nationalism is also
narcissistic and egoistic thus satanic. It puts itself first over all else.
Hegel was however right in saying that by “elevating above the universal the self-
will of private particularity” one becomes evil. Nationalism is the individualism
of the peoples and puts the particularity that is the nation first. Hegel himself on
war shows he is somewhat hesitant to truly actualize the universal natural will on
the geopolitical level, but if we actualize the universal natural will on the
geopolitical level we move away from nationalism. Hegel keeps geopolitics as the
game, where the strong do as they please and the weak suffer what they must.
Thus nations will elevate their own self-will of private particularity above the
universal natural will, and Kant wanted to prevent this.
The ideals of a universal moral law, of universal freedom, of universal truth and
of the one true human race starts to spit at nationalism. Moral law to be moral law
must be international, freedom must also be international and truth is
international. Politics should have the international universal moral law as its
goal not any particular nation state. Eugen Weber points out that nationalists
have a tendency to move to relativism, but when they do that they also lose all
moral ground to justify acting for the nation state.
And last we speak of D’Annunzio. D’Annunzio was a nationalist, but also one who
formed the League of Fiume. This was a project for the creation of a League of
Oppressed and had deep roots in D’Annunzio’s thought. This was a reply to the
Wilsonian League of Nations which like the modern UN aims to perpetuate a
corrupt and imperialist status quo. This could never play on the same level as the
Wilsonian League of Nations but it does start to show how D’Annunzio was a
more respectful figure than any Fascist, along with showing a slow movement
away from D’Annunzio’s nationalism.
D’Annunzio was not a Fascist but in fact an Anti-Fascist. D’Annunzio had his
impact on Fascism but an even greater impact on Anti-Fascism. It is known that
D’Annunzio and Mussolini were not really buddies, but it goes deeper. Although
throughout 1920 in Il Popolo d’Italia and after he had taken power, Mussolini had
spoken out in favor of the occupation of Fiume, this does not mean that
D’Annunzio was a Fascist. From the conflict of Fascists and Arditi, what is cited as
first anti-fascist organization Arditi del Popolo emerged, born in June 1921 as a
radical split from the Roman section of the nationalists Arditi d’Italia. But the
break between D’Annunzio and the fascists was long before that. This break
officially formalized by the legionary newspaper La Vigilia (now Fascists being
called “slavers”) in the 1921 article To the legionaries. I would also like to qoute
Argo Secondari;“As long as the fascists continue to burn the houses of the people,
houses sacred to the workers, as long as the fascist murders the workers
brother’s, as long as the fratricidal war continues. The arditi of Italy will have
nothing in common with them. A deep furrow of blood in smoking rubble divides
fascist and Arditi.”
I would like before my last words to speak of one little known Fascist text What is
Fascism by Georges Valois. Valois here creates a vague and not too clear definition
of Fascism, but also seems to hints that it is more of a movement that will be
proved by what it does. It is for Valois a movement and idea coming out of
historical necessity, and given time will prove itself. Fascism is dead now so it
clearly was not the next step in human history, plus we have for some time been
moving away from the time of Nationalism. And as far as what it did, a lot of
compromise ending with Mussolini in control of a mere German puppet state.
History has shown Valois was wrong to be so optimistic.
3.1 Last Words
If there is one word that could be said of Fascism that word would be degenerate.
Ignore for a second how this word has been misused, and you will see it is a great
word for Fascism. It took Hegelianism and degenerated it into a vulgar one-sided
idealism. It took Syndicalism and watered it down. It took Fiumeians and stripped
away its character. Fascism was also wrong to be Nationalist, and so many related
to Fascism started to move away from Nationalism.
Fascism is not hard to take down, and could be done in less words than are here.
Before I was done writing this, I was accused of looking too much at the online
movement, and I think anyone looking at this will see that is false. The online so
called “movement” was my motivation but it was not my goal. I normally don’t
care too much to preach about my own personal views as I am little more than a
retard on the internet who has read a few books. However, I wanted it to be clear
and be known that I am not a Nationalist, and I am not a Fascist.
I am not a Nationalist or a Fascist as is seen from above. I view Fascism as

degenerate looking to other doctrines and corrupting what they were. And that is
all for now.
giovannifascio / May 20, 2022

Futurism Forever / Blog at WordPress.com.

A Leftist Confronts Fascism - The Pre-Cum Baby of Nationalism and Socialism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Leftist Confronts Fascism - The Pre-Cum Baby of Nationalism and Socialism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

30/05/2023, 20:53 A Leftist Confronts Fascism part 2: The Pre-Cum Baby of Nationalism and Socialism by Lain OS – Futurism Forever

A Leftist Confronts Fascism part 2:

3 Pre-Cum Baby of Nationalism And Socialism

There is more to Fascism than Gentile. That would be kind of a reddit

“The unedifying conditions in the Pan-German movement, which was originally

One would therefore be perfectly correct in regarding this program as a socialist

“Men like Maurice Barrès in France described themselves as National Socialist.

Race-mixing Danish neo-nazi Povl Riis-Knudsen wrote National Socialism: A Left

Édouard Berth’s Satellites de la Ploutocratie is not translated. The only

patriotism is not so completely dead as our masters imagine;” He would now

“Catholic syndicalism further aimed at attaining internationalism which from

Thus Panunzio would speak positively of Fascism;“The social originality of

What made Syndicalism so weak to this movement, to nationalism, can be shown

In taking Nationalism to its conclusion Fascism made radical syndicalism barely

3.1 Last Words

I am not a Nationalist or a Fascist as is seen from above. I view Fascism as

giovannifascio / May 20, 2022

You might also like