intro: issues with intellectual history

Economics, Politics, Philosophy, History and Culture
Forum rules
Always add something of value to the discussion and have fun. Mind your language, no porn, no libel, no trolling and no personal attacks.

Please note, views expressed on the forum do not necessarily represent the views of Mises UK. the Mises UK Council, Mises UK Faculty or Mises UK members. Membership of this forum is open to anyone world wide who is interested in civil discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:11 pm

intro: issues with intellectual history

Post by William » Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:03 am

see here for what this about:


chapter 1, clearing the decks

1) the point of the book is to contest the notion that Fascism has no ideology or world view and is at best "the glorification of the irrational"

2) Some common pre WW2 accusations leveled against specifically Mussolini's fascism were : "nothing but a doctrine of violence and war", "orgasm anxiety", ""mystic intoxication", "the violent last gasp attempt of capitalism to overthrow the proletariat revolution while trying to arrest it's growing contradictions using deceitful terminology to cover up class rule and class exploitation".

3) during ww2 it was then muddied and jumbled a bit as a word also associated with the Nazi's and considered an enemy of every western ideal and enlightenment value.

4) by the 90's Pinochet, the french national front, Austrian Freedom Party, Russian Liberal Democrat Party, Italy's Alleanza Nationalz, and Muslim and "right wing" Tim Mcveigh styled terrorism were all considered "Fascist" without irony in spite of radically different worldviews. If anything unites these theories the author claims, is that Fascism is the anti-intellectual source for all "right wing" movements. And some have argued to try and identify all right wing movements have at their source an "Ur Fascism". The anti-intellectual and "mystic" nature of Fascism is linked to inherent violence, sexual frustration, and the propping up of ideology in the form of dogma/custom/mystification/subjective opinions of a ruling class as are all right wing definition. This is linked to every "extremist" group that could be categorized as "right wing" today (or at least at the time of the book's publication)

- As a consequence Italian Fascism is "treated as the antechamber to the scrutiny of political psychopathology". Fascist studies are treated as a "clinical study" of psychopathic behavior, and that's all "fascist studies" have amounted to in the current university system, claims the author.

5) The author states that it is extremley rare to see a systemic comparitive study between Italian Fascism, National Socialism (Nazi), Spanish Falangism, Portuguese National Syndicalism, Hungarian Arrow Cross, The Romanian Legion of the Archangel Michael, and so they are all grouped together with one broad stroke.

- I can't help but think for a Capitalist, this may be the worst thing ever, as to academia....these are all our dying violent last gasps to deal with "inner contradictions".

- This also sounds merely like a more in depth review of Orwell's essay on how Fascism has little meaning anymore

Some common psychopythological "diagnosis' either of an idividual, clinical, or "historic circumstantial" nature":

An ideology generated by modern industrial capitalism

- Gregor seems confused by this diagnosis. Italy was at best marginally industrial at the time Fascism rose. He notes Marxist seem to acknowledge this fact. Even Gramsci agreed with this fact.

Gramsci's View

- As with traditional Marxists, any individual, ideology, or movement that failed to take into account the immanent collapse of capitalism and the rise of the proletariat, was deemed irrationaly and not capable of the most elementary rationality. The ideology could only be contradictory. Anybody who thought otherwise we bereft of all rationality and morality

- Gramsci saw Fascism as a "contradictory" Middle Class movement attempting to avoid "proletariatization" in a cpaitalist environment. Mussolini was somehow fatally to assist in capitalism's historical development. According to Gramsci, Racism could not however assist capitalisms "historical function" and protect the middle class as the middle class is destined to sink more and more to the proletariat, this is fascisms "contradiction". Gregor doesn't buy this argument via empirical evidence over time, which seems irrefutable now...but you know...Marxism is "scientific truth, so Gregor MUST be reactionary.

- Gramsci's views tended to evolve over time. He seemd to first think that Fascism was not inherently "antisocialist", but started as an opposition to the international socialists opposition to WWI. It was only when later that Fascism started attracting capitalist supporters did it become a bourgeois "white guard" and posessed no "historic role" of their own but could simply act as Janissaries to the govt of Giolatti. Only later with Fascisms growth did Gramsci give Mussolini an "historic function". He first identified i's "historic role" as part of "Industrial Capitalism", then switched it over to the final lashing out of the petite bourgeois. . Either way, while he couldn't determine exactly what class or subset of class Fascism was in, he knew it was fated to the "dustbin of history" with all other reactionary thought. None of which have any intrinsic thought, merits, or demerits on their own.

6) Gregor states that an idea must be judged by it's own merit, especially in an informal discipline like "the history of ideas" rather than to take at value a preconcieved "theory of history" to be true...thereby rendering it must be necessary for Fascism to be "contradictory" and empty of substance. He says that this appears to do nothing but lead to a self serving search for "contradictions" (agree 100%). In stating a premise like "fascism is a by-product of late capitalism" it is presupposed by such an accuser that history is very deterministic, and deterministic towards the Marxist view.

7) pre WW2, Marxists deplored Fascism, American intellectuals (many on the left) were all over the place with their sentiments but usually acknowledged it as a modern and coherent set of beliefs.

8) the claim the book makes is that whatever Evola has to do with "right wing extremism, he has little to do with Fascism
I have come to feel strongly that the greatest service I can still render to my fellow men would be that I could make the speakers and writers among them thoroughly ashamed ever again to employ the term 'social justice'.
F.A Hayek

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:25 am

Re: intro: issues with intellectual history

Post by Physiocrat » Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:02 pm

This is good and interesting stuff. Keep it coming
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,


Post Reply