Aleksandr Dugin: Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and the Fourth Political Theory

Aleksandr Dugin: Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and the Fourth Political Theory

Modernità totalitaria

Modernità totalitaria

Luca Leonello Rimbotti

Ex: http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

Augusto Del Noce individuò precocemente la diversità dei regimi a partito unico del Novecento, rispetto al liberalismo, nella loro natura “religiosa” e fortemente comunitaria. Vere religioni apocalittiche, ideologie fideistiche della redenzione popolare, neo-gnosticismi basati sulla realizzazione in terra del Millennio. Questa la sostanza più interna di quei movimenti, che in tempi e modi diversi lanciarono la sfida all’individualismo laico e borghese. Fascismo, nazionalsocialismo e comunismo furono uniti dalla concezione “totalitaria” della partecipazione politica: la sfera del privato andava tendenzialmente verso un progressivo restringimento, a favore della dimensione pubblica, politica appunto. E nella sua Nuova scienza della politica, Voegelin già nel 1939 accentrò il suo sguardo proprio su questo enigmatico riermergere dalle viscere dell’Europa di una sua antica vocazione: concepire l’uomo come zoòn politikòn, animale politico, che vive la dimensione dell’agorà, della assemblea politica, come la vera espressione dell’essere uomo. Un uomo votato alla vita di comunità, al legame, alla reciprocità, al solidarismo sociale, più di quanto non fosse incline al soddisfacimento dei suoi bisogni privati e personali.

 

 

Lo studio del Fascismo partendo da queste sue profonde caratteristiche sta ormai soppiantando le obsolete interpretazioni economiciste e sociologiche che avevano dominato nei decenni scorsi, inadatte a capire un fenomeno tanto variegato e composito, ma soprattutto tanto “subliminale” e agente negli immaginari della cultura popolare. In questo senso, la categoria “totalitarismo”, sotto la quale Hannah Arendt aveva a suo tempo collocato il nazismo e il comunismo, ma non il Fascismo (in virtù dell’assenza in quest’ultimo di un apparato di violenta repressione di massa), viene recuperata con altri risvolti: anche il Fascismo ebbe un suo aspetto “totalitario”, chiamò se stesso con questo termine, aspirò a una sua “totalità”, ma semplicemente volendo significare che il suo era un modello di coinvolgimento totale, una mobilitazione di tutte le energie nazionali, una generale chiamata a raccolta di tutto il popolo nel progetto di edificazione dello Stato Nuovo. Il totalitarismo fascista, insomma, non tanto come sistema repressivo e come organizzazione dello Stato di polizia, ma come sistema di aggregazione totale di tutti in tutte le sfere dell’esistenza, dal lavoro al tempo libero, dall’arte alla cultura. Il totalitarismo fascista non come arma di coercizione capillare, ma come macchina di conquista e promozione di un consenso che si voleva non passivo e inerte, ma attivo e convinto.

 

Un’analisi di questi aspetti viene ora effettuata dal libro curato da Emilio Gentile Modernità totalitaria. Il fascismo italiano (Laterza), in cui vari autori affrontano il tema da più prospettive: la religione politica, gli stili estetici, la divulgazione popolare, l’architettura, i rituali del Regime. Pur negli ondeggiamenti interpretativi, se ne ricava il quadro di un Fascismo che non solo non fu uno strumento reazionario in mano agli agenti politici oscurantisti dell’epoca, ma proprio al contrario fu l’espressione più tipica della modernità, manifestando certo anche talune disfunzioni legate alla società di massa, ma – all’opposto del liberalismo – cercando anche di temperarle costruendo un tessuto sociale solidarista che risultasse, per quanto possibile nell’era industriale e tecnologica, a misura d’uomo.

 

Diciamo subito che l’indagine svolta da Mauro Canali, uno degli autori del libro in parola, circa le tecniche repressive attuate dal Regime nei confronti degli oppositori politici, non ci convince. Si dice che anche il Fascismo eresse apparati atti alla denuncia, alla sorveglianza delle persone, alla creazione di uno stato di sospetto diffuso. Che fu dunque meno “morbido” di quanto generalmente si pensi.

 

E si citano organismi come la mitica “Ceka” (la cui esistenza nel ‘23-’24 non è neppure storicamente accertata), la staraciana “Organizzazione capillare” del ‘35-’36, il rafforzamento della Polizia di Stato, la figura effimera dei “prefetti volanti”, quella dei “fiduciari”, che insieme alle leggi “fascistissime” del ‘25-’26 avrebbero costituito altrettanti momenti di aperta oppure occulta coercizione. Vorremmo sapere se, ad esempio, la struttura di polizia degli Stati Uniti – in cui per altro la pena capitale viene attuata ancora oggi in misura non paragonabile a quella ristretta a pochissimi casi estremi durante i vent’anni di Fascismo – non sia molto più efficiente e invasiva di quanto lo sia stata quella fascista. Che, a cominciare dal suo capo Bocchini, elemento di formazione moderata e “giolittiana”, rimase fino alla fine in gran parte liberale. C’erano i “fiduciari”, che sorvegliavano sul comportamento politico della gente? Ma perchè, oggi non sorgono come funghi “comitati di vigilanza antifascista” non appena viene detta una sola parola che vada oltre il seminato? E non vengono svolte campagne di intimidazione giornalistica e televisiva nei confronti di chi, per qualche ragione, non accetta il sistema liberaldemocratico? E non si attuano politiche di pubblica denuncia e di violenta repressione nei confronti del semplice reato di opinione, su temi considerati a priori indiscutibili? E non esistono forse leggi europee che mandano in galera chi la pensa diversamente dal potere su certi temi?

 

Il totalitarismo fascista non va cercato nella tecnica di repressione, che in varia misura appartiene alla logica stessa di qualsiasi Stato che ci tenga alla propria esistenza. Vogliamo ricordare che anche di recente si è parlato di “totalitarismo” precisamente a proposito della società liberaldemocratica. Ad esempio, nel libro curato da Massimo Recalcati Forme contemporanee di totalitarismo (Bollati Boringhieri), si afferma apertamente l’esistenza del binomio «potere e terrore» che domina la società globalizzata. Una struttura di potere che dispone di tecniche di dominazione psico-fisica di straordinaria efficienza. Si scrive in proposito che la società liberaldemocratica globalizzata della nostra epoca è «caratterizzata da un orizzonte inedito che unisce una tendenza totalitaria – universalista appunto – con la polverizzzazione relativistica dell’Uno». Il dominio oligarchico liberale di fatto non ha nulla da invidiare agli strumenti repressivi di massa dei regimi “totalitari” storici, attuando anzi metodi di controllo-repressione che, più soft all’apparenza, si rivelano nei fatti di superiore tenuta. Quando si richiama l’attenzione sull’esistenza odierna di un «totalitarismo postideologico nelle società a capitalismo avanzato», sulla materializzazione disumanizzante della vita, sullo sfaldamento dei rapporti sociali a favore di quelli economici, si traccia il profilo di un totalitarismo organizzato in modo formidabile, che è in piena espansione ed entra nelle case e nel cervello degli uomini con metodi “terroristici” per lo più inavvertiti, ma di straordinaria resa pratica. Poche società – ivi comprese quelle totalitarie storiche –, una volta esaminate nei loro reali organigrammi, presentano un “modello unico”, un “pensiero unico”, un’assenza di controculture e di antagonismi politici, come la presente società liberale. La schiavizzazione psicologica al modello del profitto e l’obbligatoria sudditanza agli articoli della fede “democratica” attuano tali bombardamenti mass-mediatici e tali intimidazioni nei confronti dei comportamenti devianti, che al confronto le pratiche fasciste di isolamento dell’oppositore – si pensi al blandissimo regime del “confino di polizia” – appaiono bonari e paternalistici ammonimenti di epoche arcaiche.

 

Il totalitarismo fascista fu altra cosa. Fu la volontà di creare una nuova civiltà non di vertice ed oligarchica, ma col sostegno attivo e convinto tanto delle avanguardie politiche e culturali, quanto di masse fortemente organizzate e politicizzate. Si può parlare, in proposito, di un popolo italiano soltanto dopo la “nazionalizzazione” effettuata dal Fascismo. Il quale, bene o male, prese masse relegate nell’indigenza, nell’ignoranza secolare, nell’abbandono sociale e culturale, le strappò al loro miserabile isolamento, le acculturò, le vestì, le fece viaggiare per l’Italia, le mise a contatto con realtà sino ad allora ignorate – partecipazione a eventi comuni di ogni tipo, vacanze, sussidi materiali, protezione del lavoro, diritti sociali, garanzie sanitarie… – dando loro un orgoglio, fecendole sentire protagoniste, elevandole alla fine addirittura al rango di “stirpe dominatrice”. E imprimendo la forte sensazione di partecipare attivamente a eventi di portata mondiale e di poter decidere sul proprio destino… Questo è il totalitarismo fascista. Attraverso il Partito e le sue numerose organizzazioni, di una plebe semimedievale – come ormai riconosce la storiografia – si riuscì a fare in qualche anno, e per la prima volta nella storia d’Italia, un popolo moderno, messo a contatto con tutti gli aspetti della modernità e della tecnica, dai treni popolari alla radio, dall’auto “Balilla” al cinema.

 

Ecco dunque che il totalitarismo fascista appare di una specie tutta sua. Lungi dall’essere uno Stato di polizia, il Regime non fece che allargare alla totalità del popolo i suoi miti fondanti, le sue liturgie politiche, il suo messaggio di civiltà, il suo italianismo, la sua vena sociale: tutte cose che rimasero inalterate, ed anzi potenziate, rispetto a quando erano appannaggio del primo Fascismo minoritario, quello movimentista e squadrista. Giustamente scrive Emily Braun, collaboratrice del libro sopra segnalato, che il Fascismo fornì nel campo artistico l’esempio tipico della sua specie particolare di totalitarismo. Non vi fu mai un’arte “di Stato”. Quanti si occuparono di politica delle arti (nomi di straordinaria importanza a livello europeo: Marinetti, Sironi, la Sarfatti, Soffici, Bottai…) capirono «che l’estetica non poteva essere né imposta né standardizzata… il fascismo italiano utilizzava forme d’arte modernista, il che implica l’arte di avanguardia». Ma non ci fu un potere arcigno che obbligasse a seguire un cliché preconfezionato. Lo stile “mussoliniano” e imperiale si impose per impulso non del vertice politico, ma degli stessi protagonisti, «poiché gli artisti di regime più affermati erano fascisti convinti».

 

Queste cose oggi possono finalmente esser dette apertamente, senza timore di quella vecchia censura storiografica, che è stata per decenni l’esatto corrispettivo delle censure del tempo fascista. Le quali ultime, tuttavia, operarono in un clima di perenne tensione ideologica, di crisi mondiali, di catastrofi economiche, di guerre e rivoluzioni, e non di pacifica “democrazia”. Se dunque vi fu un totalitarismo fascista, esso è da inserire, come scrive Emilio Gentile, nel quadro dell’«eclettismo dello spirito» propugnato da Mussolini, che andava oltre l’ideologia, veicolando una visione del mondo totale.

 

* * *

 

Tratto da Linea del 27 marzo 2009.

 

Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State

Paul Gottfried

How the British Constructed a New Woman’s Movement

A Book Review of Feminine Fascism

By Amanda Bradley - Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/

 

Julie V. Gottlieb
Feminine Fascism: Women in Britain’s Fascist Movement, 1923-1945
New York: I.B. Tauris, 2003.

“Feminine fascism” is a phrase that Julie V. Gottlieb uses to describe the forward-thinking, yet traditionally influenced, ideology embraced by Britain’s fascists. Their objective was not a return to the past, to a time when women were solely mothers and homemakers. Instead, the fascists in England combined traditional roles with the advances made in women’s suffrage and the workplace, and added a fascist bent of discipline and integrity.

Feminine Fascism: Women in Britain’s Fascist Movement is a chronological account of fascism in Britain, starting in 1923 with the country’s first fascist group, the British Fascisti, founded by Rotha Lintorn-Orman, a woman. The BF remained the predominant fascist organization until Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists (BU) was established in 1932. Feminine Fascism discusses the role of women in these two groups, details the unique form of feminism embraced by members, and ends with an account of the internment and trials of women fascists during World War II. The last quarter of the book provides brief biographies of the many women in fascist Britain.

Gottlieb, a senior lecturer in history at the University of Sheffield, has trouble wrapping her head around what attracted so many women to fascism, especially those who had campaigned for women’s suffrage. How could women embrace such seemingly different ideologies: women’s rights, on the one hand, and anti-democracy on the other? The answer is that fascism offered women the best of both worlds.

Britain’s fascists encouraged women to be traditional in many areas. Motherhood was valued and respected, as was homemaking. In fact, the Corporate State would include a Home Corporation, in which homemakers would have representation just like any other trade. An article in The Blackshirt explained, “only when women represent women will womankind attain its rightful influence.”

A primary goal of the fascist platform was allowing women to once again be homemakers, but they used forward-thinking methods to advance their ideology. Many British women were essentially forced into the workplace due to wage variances between the sexes. Employers preferred less costly female employees, which pushed many men out of jobs. All too many families experienced the trials of having a working mother, with the father at home tending the house and children, unable to secure a decent wage. The fascists knew that in the modern world, a platform that appeared to regress women’s rights would hold no sway. Thus, they supported equal wages for women, since equal pay would mean that more men could return to the workforce. As explained by Fascist Week:

Under Fascism women will not be compelled to resign, but encouraged to do so by the fact that, under Corporate State and the scientific methods of raising real wages, men will be able to afford to marry women—and women will not be compelled to earn their own living as they are at present. (125)

However, the fascists never insisted that career-minded women remain at home, recognizing that there were not only occupations suited to women, but also situations in which women would desire a career and need equal pay. Rosalind Raby, for example, claimed that fascism would allow the unmarried mother “to earn an honest living for herself and her child.”

But the biggest innovation in British fascism was its emphasis on character. Men were encouraged to have values of courage, strength, honour, and integrity. The aristocracy of money and class would be replaced in the Corporate State with a meritocracy. Likewise, British fascism presented an alternate form of femininity: one that included strength, courage, and fearlessness. During marches, women were not permitted to wear lipstick or wave at friends as if in a beauty pageant. These feminine fascists were described as healthy, attractive, charming, intelligent, and of strong character. They were motherly, but as wary of sentimentality as Julius Evola. A male writer described the women Blackshirts:

Nothing silly or soft about these women. They are nothing if not practical . . . and the happy carefree way in which they made themselves at home, was so refreshing after one has had their fill of the simpering little brats that democracy and Jewish films have produced. (95)

The combination of traditional and modern was seen in the BU women’s uniform of: a black blouse, grey skirt, and black beret. It was against regulations for women to wear trousers while on active duty.

Integrating Fascism into Everyday Life

 

British fascists grew in numbers, in part because they didn’t relegate their philosophy to just the political sphere, but participated in almost every aspect of members’ lives. Weddings included fascist regalia, and at some funerals a fascist flag was draped over the coffin. The Fascist Week printed the names of wedding guests just like the society pages of The Times.

Members of the BF organized Fascist Children’s Clubs, in which children were taught history, songs, patriotism, and given awards for homework. Other women had brooches designed with the BU lightning symbol, and made dolls dressed in the blackshirt for children. There also was a BU Women’s Choir. According to Gottlieb:

By celebrating each phase of life within a fascist framework, the BF in fact appropriated the functions once carried out by the Church and this substantiated their claim . . . that fascism was akin to a religion. (28)

In addition to the accolades given to real women, there were fascist heroines as well. The most notable was Queen Elizabeth, for her command of the nation and exemplary oratory skills. Another heroine was Lady Hester Stanhope, who worked as a housekeeper before traveling through the Middle East. E. D. Hart wrote:

Those women who, whether from choice or, as in the case of Lady Hester, from necessity, explore other walks of life, will find both assistance and encouragement. When, like her, they display the Fascist virtues of courage, self-reliance, and tenacity of purpose, we ascribe to them the honour which is their due. (97)

Blackshirts also banded together to disparage several less attractive types of women. One was the feminist with mannish, short hair, called the “bleating Bloomsbury.” Another was the “Mayfair Parasite,” who usurped the nation’s wealth and vitality by sleeping late and devoting her life to superficial pleasures. Being fit and healthy was considered a moral duty, for as one writer put it: “Far too many women consider it their privilege to be ill . . . just ill enough to pamper themselves and evade their share of the family work.” Communists often were referred to as “submen” and “subwomen.” Titled women did not escape criticism either. Those who earned money by advertising products were publicly chastised by BU members for degrading both themselves and their class.

Women’s Duties in Fascist Organizations

Women were involved in almost every area of Britain’s fascist groups, and made up about 25 percent of the membership. The Women’s Section of the BU was established in March 1933, under the leadership of Lady Maud Mosley. She said, “When my son married Lady Cynthia [Mosley’s first wife], she took her place by his side. Now she is dead and there must be someone to help him in this work and I am going to do my best to fill the gap” (52).

Mosley’s second wife, Diana, and her sister Unity Valkyrie Mitford became two of the best-known female fascists, but Feminine Fascism only lightly touches on their stories. Their aristocratic parents were extremely Right-wing and anti-Semitic, but when the 2nd Baron Redesdale supported England during the war, he and his Nazi-sympathizing wife permanently separated.

Diana was married to Bryan Guinness when she met Mosley, and soon became his mistress. Mosley’s wife died suddenly of peritonitis in 1933 (though he was plagued the rest of his life that infidelities and political stress might have been the cause). Mosley and Diana were married at the home of Joseph Goebbels in 1936, with Hitler as guest of honor.

Unity debuted the same year her older sister became Mosley’s mistress. The next year, Diana and Unity went to the 1933 Nuremberg Rally as part of the BU delegation, and saw Hitler for the first time. Unity returned to Germany the following year, eating at the same restaurant as the Führer for 10 months, until he finally asked her over. Unity wrote to her father of their meeting: “I am so happy that I wouldn’t mind a bit, dying. I'd suppose I am the luckiest girl in the world. For me he is the greatest man of all time.” Hitler, in turn, described Unity as “a perfect specimen of Aryan womanhood.” Their affections might have escalated, if not for a suicide attempt by Hitler’s mistress, Eva Braun. Though in love with Hitler, Unity devoted herself to making speeches, writing letters, distributing propaganda, and being one of Hitler’s intimate confidantes. On September 3, 1939, the day Britain declared war on Germany, Unity took a pearl-handled pistol (a gift from Hitler for protection) and shot herself in the head, unable to bear the thought of the two countries she loved at war. She survived and was eventually able to walk again, but never recovered her full mental capabilities.

While Unity was helping the cause on the continent, women Blackshirts in England spoke at meetings, organized children’s groups, sold newspapers, and participated in marches and canvassing. Study groups about fascism were established for women speakers, and women participated in public debates. But women did not forsake their traditional duties either: One woman reported that it was the fair sex who kept the BU headquarters clean and brewed tea for the men. Members who did not give five nights a week to the movement were denied the privilege of wearing the coveted blackshirt.

A relatively large number of women participated in local elections. In 1936, the BU ran 10 women candidates (10 percent of their parliamentary candidates), from a variety of backgrounds. (Six were unmarried, five were professionals, three were in their 20s, and two were from gentry families.) The various women received between 15 and 23 percent of the votes in their respective districts.

Women’s most valuable talents were said to be in public speaking, and numerous BU women were praised for their excellent oration and ability to move crowds. Other women were lauded for their ability to use personal stories in their speeches, which proved more powerful than simple recitations of facts. During a 1936–37 campaign, women decided to censor their speeches for tactical advantage. No speaker was allowed to use the word “Jew.” Instead, plain-clothed members were scattered throughout the audience to use the word instead, as the message was thought to be more rousing if coming from the public.

Women had roles to play in security and self-defense as well. Female members of several organizations were trained in ju-jitsu, for as Fascist Week reported, “no male member of the BU is permitted to use force upon any woman, and women Reds often form a highly noisy and razor-carrying section at fascist meetings. Thus we counter women with women” (66).

The Fallout During the War

As early as 1938, a division of MI5 was formed to place agents in subversive organizations. Three women agents provocateurs successfully infiltrated the popular fascist group, Captain Ramsay’s Right Club. After Britain entered WWII, the country started to resemble a totalitarian dystopia for fascist sympathizers. In October 1939, Anne Brock Griggs was charged with “insulting words and disturbing the peace” for saying in a speech: “If Germans don’t like Hitler they can get rid of him themselves. We do not need to send our sons to fight them. If ever a country wants a revolution now it is Great Britain” (236). She quit her BU post, but was still interned during the war.

Defense Regulation 18B(1A) went into effect in September 1939, and it allowed the Home Secretary to detain anyone suspected of being a threat to national security. That category included anyone who was a leader or member in a group that might be under foreign influence. Under 18B, 1,826 people were interned, including 747 BU members (96 of them women).

Sir Oswald Mosley was arrested in May 1940, the day after the Defense Regulations were passed. The BU was outlawed in June, and his second wife, Diana, was interned shortly after. She was denounced by both her sister Nancy (later a famous novelist and biographer) and her former father-in-law, and had to leave without her 11-week-old, still-nursing baby boy. Although the English public called for Unity Mitford to be interned as a traitor, she was allowed to return to the family home with her mother, since she was weak from her suicide attempt.

Interned women were given no special treatment in prison. When Miss L. M. Reeve was arrested, a group of armed guards came to take her from her home. One officer asked if he could have her dog, since she was “probably about to be shot.” One woman’s infant died while staying with her in prison, and another woman’s infant was pulled from her arms and placed in an institution. Part of the evidence against another woman was a photograph of her on vacation in Germany in 1939, seated at a table with bottles of German wine.

Fascists on the outside, though their organizations were banned, were still able to help their comrades via a registered charity founded specifically to help those interned under 18B. The charity helped pay for legal and medical services, provided assistance to detainees’ families, provided post-release counseling, and helped people find employment. Trials could only be held for those who could be charged with a tangible offense, so many men and women fascists were imprisoned for years.

The Impact of Feminine Fascism

 

The much-anticipated Corporate State never became a reality, and its philosophies and ideas were forced to the margins of history. Yet the lessons that can be learned from the events detailed in Feminine Fascism remain relevant to the leaders of future generations.

Eighty years ago, the fascists recognized that it would be impossible to shed the gains made in women’s rights. Rather than fighting against women’s “emancipation,” with which they ideologically disagreed, the fascists used it to their advantage. The result was a philosophy for women that honored the traditional, yet considered the needs of modern women. Fascists didn’t need to force women into the home or sell them on an ideology that contradicted the propaganda of the modern world; they realized that the moment women didn’t have to work the majority of mothers would return gladly to full-time homemaking. And given the precarious nature of homemaking as a profession, they planned ways for women to have representation and security in the Corporate State. The result was a platform that united women of various political persuasions, ages, and classes. Because it details the fascists’ unique outlook and strategy, Feminine Fascism makes a relevant handbook for those looking to learn from the successes and failures of history.

When Fascism Was On the Left

by Keith Preston

Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/

The conventional left/right model of the political spectrum holds Fascism and Marxism to be polar opposites of one another. Marxism is regarded as an ideology of the extreme Left while Fascism supposedly represents an outlook that is about as far to the Right as one can go. A title recently translated into English by Portugal’s Finis Mundi Press, Eric Norling’s Revolutionary Fascism, does much to call the perception of Fascism, conceived of as it was by Mussolini and his cohorts, as an ideology of the extreme Right into question.

This work was originally published in 2001 and author Norling, a historian and lawyer, is a native Swede who now resides in Spain. Norling observes that throughout the entirety of his early life, from childhood until World War One, Mussolini was every bit as much as man of the Left as contemporaries such as Eugene V. Debs. He was what would later come to be known as a “red diaper baby” (meaning the child of revolutionary socialist parents). As a young man, Mussolini himself was a Marxist, fervently anticlerical, went to Switzerland to evade compulsory military service, and was arrested and imprisoned for inciting militant strikes. Eventually, he became a leader in Italy’s Socialist Party and he was imprisoned once again in 1911 for his antiwar activities related to Italy’s invasion of Libya. Mussolini was so prominent a socialist at this point in his career that he won the praise of Lenin who considered him to be the rightful head of a future Italian socialist state.

When World War One began in 1914, Mussolini initially held to the Italian Socialist Party’s antiwar position, but in the ensuing months switched to a pro-war position which earned him an expulsion from the party. He then enlisted in the Italian army and was wounded in combat. The reasons for Mussolini’s shift to a pro-war position are essential to understanding the true origins and nature of fascism and its place within the context of twentieth century political and intellectual history. Mussolini came to see the war as an anti-imperialist struggle against the Hapsburg dynasty of Austria-Hungary. Further, he regarded the war as an anti-monarchist struggle against conservative forces such as the Hapsburgs, the Ottoman Turks, and the Hohenzollern’s of Germany and attacked these regimes as reactionary enemies who had repressed socialism. Mussolini also prophetically believed that Russia’s participation in the war would weaken that nation to the point where it was susceptible to socialist revolution (which is precisely what happened). In other words, Mussolini regarded the war as an opportunity to advance leftist revolutionary struggles in Italy and elsewhere.

When the Italian Fascist movement was founded in 1919, most of its leaders and theoreticians were, like Mussolini himself, former Marxists and other radical leftists such as proponents of the revolutionary syndicalist doctrines of Georges Sorel. The official programs issued by the Fascists, translations of which are included in Norling’s book, reflected a standard mixture of republican and socialist ideas that would have been common to any European leftist group of the era. If indeed the evidence is overwhelming that Fascism has its roots on the far Left, then from where does Fascism’s reputation as a rightist ideology originate?

The answer appears to be a combination of three primary factors: Marxist propaganda that has regrettably found its way into the mainstream historiography, the revision of leftist revolutionary doctrine itself by Fascist leaders, and the inevitable compromises and accommodations made by Fascism upon the achievement of actual state power. Regarding the first these, David Ramsay Steele described the standard Marxist interpretation of Fascism in an important article on Fascism’s history:

In the 1930s, the perception of "fascism"in the English-speaking world morphed from an exotic, even chic, Italian novelty into an all-purpose symbol of evil. Under the influence of leftist writers, a view of fascism was disseminated which has remained dominant among intellectuals until today. It goes as follows:

Fascism is capitalism with the mask off. It's a tool of Big Business, which rules through democracy until it feels mortally threatened, then unleashes fascism. Mussolini and Hitler were put into power by Big Business, because Big Business was challenged by the revolutionary working class. We naturally have to explain, then, how fascism can be a mass movement, and one that is neither led nor organized by Big Business. The explanation is that Fascism does it by fiendishly clever use of ritual and symbol. Fascism as an intellectual doctrine is empty of serious content, or alternatively, its content is an incoherent hodge-podge. Fascism's appeal is a matter of emotions rather than ideas. It relies on hymn-singing, flag-waving, and other mummery, which are nothing more than irrational devices employed by the Fascist leaders who have been paid by Big Business to manipulate the masses.

This perception continues to be the standard leftist “analysis” of Fascism even in present times, and goes a long way towards explaining why, for instance, American political movements or figures that have absolutely nothing to do with historic Fascism, such as the Tea Party or the neocon mouthpieces of FOX News or “conservative” talk radio, continue to be recipients of the “fascist” label by atavistic liberals and leftists.

The reality of Fascism’s origins was quite different. Its creators were an assortment of leftist intellectuals and political figures whose common reference point was their realization that Marxism was a failed ideology. As Steele observed:

Fascism began as a revision of Marxism by Marxists, a revision which developed in successive stages, so that these Marxists gradually stopped thinking of themselves as Marxists, and eventually stopped thinking of themselves as socialists. They never stopped thinking of themselves as anti-liberal revolutionaries.

The Crisis of Marxism occurred in the 1890s. Marxist intellectuals could claim to speak for mass socialist movements across continental Europe, yet it became clear in those years that Marxism had survived into a world which Marx had believed could not possibly exist. The workers were becoming richer, the working class was fragmented into sections with different interests, technological advance was accelerating rather than meeting a roadblock, the "rate of profit" was not falling, the number of wealthy investors ("magnates of capital") was not falling but increasing, industrial concentration was not increasing, and in all countries the workers were putting their country above their class.

The early Fascists were former Marxists who had come to doubt the revolutionary potential of class struggle, but had simultaneously come to regard revolutionary nationalism as showing considerable promise. As Mussolini remarked in a speech on December 5, 1914:

The nation has not disappeared. We used to believe that the concept was totally without substance. Instead we see the nation arise as a palpitating reality before us!...Class cannot destroy the nation. Class reveals itself as a collection of interests—but the nation is a history of sentiments, traditions, language, culture, and race. Class can become an integral part of the nation, but the one cannot eclipse the other. The class struggle is a vain formula, with effect and consequence wherever one finds a people that has not integrated itself into its proper linguistic and racial confines—where the national problem has not been definitely resolved. In such circumstances the class movement finds itself impaired by an inauspicious historic climate.

Fascism subsequently abandoned class struggle for a revolutionary nationalist outlook that stood for class collaboration under the leadership of a strong state that was capable of unifying the nation and accelerating industrial development. Indeed, Steele made an interesting observation concerning the similarities between Italian and Third World Marxist “national liberation” movements of the second half of the twentieth century:

The logic underlying their shifting position was that there was unfortunately going to be no working-class revolution, either in the advanced countries, or in less developed countries like Italy. Italy was on its own, and Italy's problem was low industrial output. Italy was an exploited proletarian nation, while the richer countries were bloated bourgeois nations. The nation was the myth which could unite the productive classes behind a drive to expand output. These ideas foreshadowed the Third World propaganda of the 1950s and 1960s, in which aspiring elites in economically backward countries represented their own less than scrupulously humane rule as "progressive" because it would accelerate Third World development. From Nkrumah to Castro, Third World dictators would walk in Mussolini's footsteps. Fascism was a full dress rehearsal for post-war Third Worldism.

During its twenty-three years in power, Mussolini’s regime certainly made considerable concessions to traditionally conservative interests such as the monarchy, big business, and the Catholic Church. These pragmatic accommodations borne of political necessity are among the evidences typically offered by leftists as indications of Fascism’s rightist nature. Yet there is abundant evidence that Mussolini essentially remained a socialist throughout the entirety of his political life. By 1935, thirteen years after Mussolini seized power in the March on Rome, seventy-five percent of Italian industry had either been nationalized outright or brought under intensive state control. Indeed, it was towards the end of both his life and the life of his regime that Mussolini’s economic policies were at their most leftist.

After briefly losing power for a couple of months during the summer of 1943, Mussolini returned as Italy’s head of state with German assistance and set up what came to be called the Italian Social Republic. The regime subsequently nationalized all companies employing more than a hundred workers, redistributed housing that was formerly privately owned to its worker occupants, engaged in land redistribution, and witnessed a number of prominent Marxists joining the Mussolini government, including Nicola Bombacci, the founder of the Italian Communist Party and a personal friend of Lenin. These events are described in considerable detail in Norling’s work.

It would appear that the historic bitter rivalry between Marxists and Fascists is less a conflict between the Left and the Right, and more of a conflict between erstwhile siblings on the Left. This should come as no particular surprise given the penchant of radical leftist groupings for sectarian blood feuds. Indeed, it might be plausibly argued that leftist ”anti-fascism” is rooted in jealously of a more successful relative as much as anything else. As Steele noted:

Mussolini believed that Fascism was an international movement. He expected that both decadent bourgeois democracy and dogmatic Marxism-Leninism would everywhere give way to Fascism, that the twentieth century would be a century of Fascism. Like his leftist contemporaries, he underestimated the resilience of both democracy and free-market liberalism. But in substance Mussolini's prediction was fulfilled: most of the world's people in the second half of the twentieth century were ruled by governments which were closer in practice to Fascism than they were either to liberalism or to Marxism-Leninism. The twentieth century was indeed the Fascist century.

Who's a Fascist?

 

Who's a Fascist?

by Paul Gottfried

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com/

Having participated this weekend in an Internet discussion courtesy of Paul Craig Roberts, it seems to me that "fascist" is bandied about on the right in the same careless way as one finds on the left. Note that the anti—New Deal American Right in the thirties fell over themselves denouncing FDR and his minions as American Mussolinians. The Old Right associated the fascists with a corporatist economy, welfare programs, and military rearmament, all of which they despised. The fact that the New Republic and other American leftist organs then raved about the virtues of Latin fascism and often considered it soft Communism may have contributed to the illusion that big-government boosters at home were fascists in a state of denial. Recently the Old Right has revived the same charge of fascism and hurled it at the neoconservatives. Because neocons are imperialists, militarists, and enthusiasts for centralized government (all of which they admittedly are), they must also be fascists. After all, didn't Mussolini teach his nation to do everything for the state and nothing against it? How is this different from Bill Kristol's view that to be an American patriot one must love the American state?

While Kristol's "state" does not differ from Mussolini's fascist creation by being truly lovable (God knows it is not!), it may be possible to point out certain palpable differences between the two forms of state worship. Neoconservatives and fascists do not share the same historical context; nor are they reacting against the same enemies. Fascism was an interwar phenomenon and one bound up with a reaction against the revolutionary Left in Italy, Spain, Austria, and other European countries. It was also profoundly reactionary, in the sense that it valued certain classical conservative principles, like hierarchy, patriarchy and the restoration of antiquity, but believed it was only possible to bring about what it wanted through a constructivist project. Therefore Mussolini and his counterparts created a neoclassical version of a pre-bourgeois society, which was cobbled together with Roman republican and Spartan models. Fascists also stressed the organic unity of the nation, something that points to the semantic problem incurred by critics of the neoconservatives who wish to see them as "multicultural" fascists. Although not all fascists were racialists (the German case was the lunatic exception), most of them were avowed anti-internationalists and would not have approved of anything as destabilizing as immigration expansion. In the 1930s the Italian fascist government even tried to make sure that government workers would marry ethnic Italians.

Peter Brimelow was correct to observe in last weekend's Internet chat that neoconservatives believe not in fascism but in "Goldbergism" when they push for open borders and an aggressive foreign policy in the name of human rights. Jonah Goldberg, one of their major political theorists, has explained on NROnline that European conservatives like Joseph de Maistre were really on the left, seeing that they rejected "human rights," which is the essence of a conservative belief system. No matter how silly Goldberg's interpretation may seem, what he enunciates is the current neoconservative dogma that justifies imperial expansion. And it is hard to grasp anything fascist about Goldberg's redefinition of conservatism. Goldberg arrives at his view from reading the English social democratic historian Isaiah Berlin, who plays up the derivation of fascist thinking from Maistre's attack on the universalism and abstract ideals of the French Revolution. Although Berlin overstates this connection, he is nonetheless justified in perceiving the fascists as being connected to European counterrevolutionary traditions. The neoconservatives are not only not connected in any way to such traditions but are clearly on the side of what Michael Ledeen calls the "creative destruction" of the social and cultural traditions of other peoples.

Without judging the merits of this project, it seems that those who pursue it are not definable as fascists. They may in fact be far more destructive but are not a subgenus of interwar fascists who have landed up in our society. Depicting them as such depends on an underdetermined definition that serves strictly polemical ends. Just because all modern Western industrial states have large administrations that socialize the family and feature public education does not make them "fascist." Fascists took advantage of a political paradigm they shared with non-fascist modern governments, in order to achieve in some cases counterrevolutionary ends. But they did not initiate the welfare state, which flourished without the fascists, on the Euro-American left. Nor were the fascists unique in having military dictators and wars of expansion. Both Tom Woods's The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Tom DiLorenzo's study of the Great Emancipator as state-builder provide illustrations of Lincoln's authoritarian manner that show bad European habits could crop up here as well. But that happened generations before there was a fascist movement.

It is not accurate to refer to Abraham Lincoln as a "fascist," because he applied military force to quell the Southern secession and ruled as a military dictator. Political leaders can do things that are open to condemnation without being fascists. It would also not be irrelevant to cite the case of one of Lincoln's precursors, Oliver Cromwell, who also slaughtered secessionists, to reunite the United Kingdom, and whom the young Lincoln saw as someone he wished to emulate. Yet curiously the two men, long viewed as being alike in their nationalist fervor, connection to an Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture, and role as social modernizers, have contributed to very different cults. After being identified for centuries with republicanism and Protestant sectarians, Cromwell became a hero for rightwing English nationalists, including the fascist followers of Sir Oswald Mosley in the late thirties. Lincoln, by contrast, has become a god figure for the Left, from the communist Abraham Lincoln Brigade fighting in the Spanish Civil War down to the civil rights movement and his current apotheosis, as the incarnation of global democratic ideals. My friend Tom Di Lorenzo has made this last point clear by debating Lincoln-admirers, who invariably bring with them leftist agendas. But neither Cromwell nor Lincoln produced the twentieth-century cults that sprang up around their putative achievements. The Irish are certainly entitled to dislike Cromwell and his son-in-law for devastating their land during the English Civil War and like Paul Craig Roberts, I cannot find any sane reason for a Southerner whose family suffered during Lincoln's invasion of the South to revere this brutal nationalist. But neither figure belonged to the twentieth century or to its ideological wars; and both have been co-opted to symbolize battles that are no longer theirs. Like Cromwell, Lincoln was neither a fascist nor a neocon.

December 2, 2004

Paul Gottfried [send him mail] is Horace Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College and author of, most recently, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

The Fascists of Peru

The Fascists of Peru

 

Ex: http://xtremerightcorporate.blogspot.com/

One of the most prominent Peruvian leaders, often regarded as a fascist whether justly or not, was Raúl Ferrero Rebagliati. He was born on September 20, 1911 to an Italian father and Peruvian mother in Lima; Alfredo (a native of Turin, Italy) and Amelia (Rebagliati) Ferrero and was the fourth of six children. An academic and lawyer by trade he served as Dean of the Faculty of Law at the Catholic University of Peru, Dean of the College of Abogados de Lima and as a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration of la Haya. He became known as an admirer of European fascism, not surprising considering his half-Italian roots and a supporter of Peruvian nationalism and broader national mobilization. Rebagliati was an early member of the ‘Revolutionary Union’ which was a political party founded in 1931 by Luis Miguel Sánchez Cerro to support his presidential dictatorship.

When Sánchez Cerro was assassinated in 1933 Rebagliati took over leadership of the Revolutionary Union and began to move it in a more recognizably fascist direction. He worked to mobilize mass support for the movement, adopting populist nationalist oratory, the Roman salute and even organized a paramilitary force of Blackshirts such as had brought Mussolini to power in Italy. However, electoral defeat in 1936 caused public confidence in the Revolutionary Union to drop and the movement soon faded away though Rebagliati himself remained a political presence of some note, serving as Prime Minister from 1966 to 1967, during the presidency of Fernando Belaúnde Terry and later as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Shortly after his movement began to dissolve he married Yolanda Costa, daughter of Carlo and Livia (Elice) Costa, in 1937 and by whom he had three children; Maria Elena, Raul Enrique and Augusto Ferrero. He died in Lima on April 22, 1977.

The only other Peruvian fascist of note was José de la Riva-Agüero y Osma who was born on February 26, 1885. He was the descendant of one of the early revolutionary leaders of Peru who, after seizing power, was the first to use the title of “President”. He studied at the National University of San Marcos and the University of Lima where he earned a PhD and then worked as Professor of History at San Marcos. History had always fascinated him, particularly the stories of dynamic national leaders like the Holy Roman Emperors and Napoleon Bonaparte. His entry into politics came in 1915 when he helped to found the moderate Democratic National Party. In 1919 he went to Europe for a time where he met many members of the rising Catholic radical right and read the works of right-wing Catholic nationalists like Jacques Bainville and Charles Maurras. He became convinced that their ideas where the proper basis on which the country should be organized and when he returned to his homeland he endeavored to put them into effect.

In 1930 Riva-Agüero returned to Peru and in 1933 was appointed Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and Minister of Public Education during the presidency of General Oscar R. Benavides; a former Peruvian field marshal, moderate conservative and enemy of communism. This gave him some political credentials but it was still insufficiently right-wing for Riva-Agüero and so he organized his own hard-line, far-right Catholic national movement called ‘Patriotic Action’ in imitation of the movement of Charles Maurras, ‘French Action’. Delving deeper into the social-political roots of Catholic corporatism he soon changed the name of his organization to the Peruvian Fascist Brotherhood. He probably had a more broadly recognized national image than any other figure advocating for the Catholic far-right and voicing support for the fascist regimes in Europe, namely Mussolini in Italy and General Franco in Spain. Although not as imitative of these regimes as some, his was a more traditionally based fascism suited to the place of Peru in the world.

For example, Riva-Agüero was a strong supporter of Hispanidad or the community of Spanish-speaking nations that had once made up the Spanish colonial empire. The inspiring success of General Franco and the Falange in Spain had caused a new vision to arise across Latin America which imagined the formation of strong, Catholic, nationalist (call it fascist/falangist as you like) across the nations of the former Spanish Empire to form a powerful economic and political Hispanic bloc that could be a major force in the world. It was a grand and praiseworthy vision but one, alas, not destined to get very far in the realm of reality. Riva-Agüero himself, after reaching a considerable degree of support and public notoriety began, like so many other fascists, to follow more the rising star of Nazi Germany and adopt strange and extreme ideas that seemed to have nothing to do with the situation in Peru which naturally began to turn people off.

In due time Riva-Agüero became increasingly anti-Semitic in his speeches and writings, something that had never been much of an issue in Peru where most people had never seen a Jew and had no idea who or what they were; as well as becoming an outspoken supporter and defender of Adolf Hitler. Not surprisingly, most of what Peru heard about Hitler they were not inclined to like. His exaltation of Germany meant nothing to them and his praise of racial purity was not likely to attract widespread support in a country dominated by a racially mixed population. Yet, Riva-Agüero was never a real Nazi and differed with Hitler on a number of points. For instance, whereas Hitler had stated his wish to abolish all class distinctions, Riva-Agüero supported the idea of the aristocracy and revived the use of the title of Marquis de Aulestia for himself, an old Spanish title of nobility that had long since fallen into disuse in his family. Rumors of increasingly odd behavior also put people off and his support soon faded away. The fascist career of Riva-Agüero officially came to an end in 1942 when Peru nominally entered World War II on the side of the Allies though he continued to defend his support for Hitler and the Axis nations until his death on October 26, 1944.

Der Staat in interiore homine: Die Staatskonzeption Giovanni Gentiles

Der Staat in interiore homine: Die Staatskonzeption Giovanni Gentiles

Giovanni B. Krähe

http://geviert.wordpress.com

Giovanni Gentile war bereits in den Jahren um den Ersten Weltkrieg eine Leitfigur des italienischen Geisteslebens. Als der Faschismus zum Regime wurde, wurde er im ersten Kabinett Mussolinis Erziehungsminister (Oktober 1922 – Juni 1924) und führte eine tiefgreifende Reform der Schulen und Universitäten durch (Canistraro 1982; Fossati 1998; Ragazzini 1998). Als persönlicher Vertreter Mussolinis verfasste Gentile die faschistische Staatslehre (Dottrina del Fascismo, 1928-1929) und leitete L’istituto fascista di cultura (1925), so dass er lange Zeit die führende Persönlichkeit der Intellektuellen blieb, die sich für den Faschismus entschieden hatten. Als die militärische Niederlage des Faschismus bereits offensichtlich war, hielt Gentile dem Regime Treue und nahm an der von Mussolini gegründeten Repubblica di Salò (1943-1945) teil, bis er am 15. April 1944 von kommunistischen Partisanen erschossen wurde. Nach Campi (2001) war der gewaltsame Tod von Gentile für die Kommunistische Partei Italiens notwendig, wenn sie eine neue politische Hegemonie nach dem Sturz des Faschismus durchführen wollte. Dieses hegemonische Projekt „era finalizzato ad imprimere al Partito comunista Italiano una base ideologica nazionale ed a sostituire l’egemonia crociano-gentiliana con quella marx-gramsciana …” (Campi 2001: 152). Die theoretische Grundlage der Staats-philosophie Gentiles und damit die Ideen über die Rolle des Staats als politische Institution wurden aber von Gentile formuliert, bevor der Faschismus als solcher existierte. Tatsächlich schrieb Gentile seine ersten politischen Schriften während des Ersten Weltkriegs. Seine Überlegungen über den Zusammenhang zwischen Philosophie und Politik hatten damals einen besonderen Stellenwert in Gentiles politischem Denken:

La realtà nota alla filosofia moderna è lo spirito inteso come quella realtà appunto che il filosofo attua filosofando … E però filosofare è precisamente conoscere (e quindi costruire) non una generica personalità politica e il sistema al quale essa può appartenere, ma la propria personalità attuale nel sistema della politica del proprio paese. E soltanto attraverso la determinatezza di questa individualità storica si fa strada l’universalità del concetto, a cui la filosofia oggi aspira (Gentile 1918d: 153-154).

Der Krieg, an dem Italien seit 1915 auf Seiten der Entente teilnahm, wurde von Gentile nicht als der Sieg oder die Niederwerfung konkurrierender Nationen, sondern als symbolisches Ereignis sowie moralische Pflicht aufgefasst, der sich niemand entziehen durfte. Der politische und geistige Zusammenschluss der Italiener, der in Friedenszeiten nicht möglich wäre, wurde nach Gentile durch die außergewöhnliche Anstrengung der Kriegszeit erreicht: „Politisches Endziel bleibt die Verpflichtung aller auf das nationale Interesse und insoweit die Schaffung einer einheitliche Gemeinschaft im Gegensatz zu einer zersplitterten Gesellschaft“ (Schattenfroh 1999: 101). Diese totalisierende Konzeption des Kriegsereignisses, die den Anstoß, so Gentile, zu einer politisch-moralischen Erneuerung des Lebens in Italien gibt, übernimmt eine integrative Funktion, indem das Schicksal jedes Einzelnen mit dem Schicksal der Nation verflochten wurde: Der Bürger wird mit seinem Staat durch den starken Charakter des Kriegserlebnisses politisch identifiziert und der Staat wird gleichzeitig durch Ontologisierung zum Garanten dieses Identitätsprinzips. Darin, dass Gentile dieses  Identitätsprinzip mit dem Kriegserlebnis als moralischer Pflicht gleichsetzt, liegt die erste Grundlage des Staatsbewusstseins als Garanten der Einheit zwischen Gesellschaft und Staat, d.h. als Stato etico (ethischer Staat) (vgl. Gentile 1918b: 13). Sowohl die Nationsidee als transzendente Einheit aller politischen Fraktionen (Gentile 1919a, 1919b), als auch die Tendenzen zum aktiven Veränderungswillen als  Handlungsmodell setzen sich in den ersten philosophischen Überlegungen Gentiles fort (vgl. Gentile 1918b: 17; 1918c).

 

In Gegensatz zur klassischen liberalen Staatskonzeption, die in der modernen gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung eine unterscheidbare sowie autonome Zivilgesellschaft sieht, integriert Gentile die Staatlichkeit als organische Leitidee in das Bewusstsein des Individuums. Daraus aber resultiert, dass der faktische Staat als politische Institution und damit sein Machtapparat den Einzelwillen nicht auflöst, insofern als der Staat als verinnerlichte soziale Institution ein Lebenszweck des Individuums wird:

Lo Stato non è inter homines, come pare, ma in interiore homine: non è niente di materiale, ma una realtà spirituale, che è in quanto vale; e vale nella coscienza del cittadino. Il quale non riconosce fuori di sé la società, di cui è parte, se non in quanto la instaura dentro di se medesimo, come parte essa stessa, della sua vita morale (Gentile 1919c: 113 Hervorhebung von mir).

Die These der Identität von Staat und Bürger leitet sich  aus den philosophischen Grundlagen der aktualistischen Ethik Gentiles ab. Die „Philosophie des Akts“ bzw. „der aktualistischen Idealismus“, kurz „Aktualismus“, fokussiert das Interesse auf die Struktur des menschlichen Geistes, der als Denkprozess betrachtet wird (Gentile 1987).

Auf einer erkenntnistheoretischen Ebene folgert Gentile tatsächlich alle Wirklichkeit aus der Tätigkeit des Denkens, indem die Außenwelt dem menschlichen Geist in Form des „absoluten Ichs“ zugesprochen wird (Gentile 1987: 18 ff.). Die Außenwelt als Produkt des menschlichen Geists wird aber in einem Subjektivismus nicht aufgelöst, insofern als das Verhältnis zwischen absolutem Ich und Individuum nicht unmittelbar ist. In Gegensatz zu den philosophischen Voraussetzungen des klassischen Idealismus, erweist sich der Aktualismus „als eine totalisierende Philosophie des menschlichen Tuns an sich“ (Schattenfroh 1999: 64), insofern als sich die Tätigkeit des denkenden Ichs nicht auf das Objekt, sondern auf den praktischen Akt des Willens, auf den „pensiero pensante“, stützt (Gentile 1987: 44).

Durch die zentrale Stellung des „reinen“ Akts als philosophisches Prinzip entsteht aber ein spezifisches Verhältnis zwischen dem „absoluten Ich“ Gentiles und dem Individuum: Das  „absolute“ Ich kann sich als Tätigkeit des Denkens eines partikulären Individuums nicht erweisen – wenn ja, würde daraus resultieren, dass die Erkenntnis der Außenwelt nicht total durch den Akt, sondern partial durch das relativistische Verhältnis Objekt-Subjekt, wie beim klassischen Idealismus geschehen würde. Im Vordergrund der Begriffsbildung Gentiles steht also der Mensch als solcher, nicht die konkreten Individuen. Gentile nennt individualistische Konzeptionen sowie ihre politischen Erscheinungsformen – Liberalismus und Sozialismus – unterschiedslos „Materialismus“, da sowohl eine abstrakt-theoretische Einheit (die Pluralität von Individuen), als auch ein Telos (der Kommunismus) von beiden Denkströmungen monistisch  vorausgesetzt werden:

L’idealismo assoluto e il materialismo storico sono tutti due monismi e per la forma e per la sostanza. Tutto è continuo divenire: monismo della forma. Tutto è essenzialmente idea … o materia, monismo della sostanza (Gentile 1957: 148).

Auf einer sozialphilosophischen Ebene sieht also Gentile nicht im dialektischen Prozess der verschiedenen individuellen Akte, sondern im Moment des menschlichen Willens als Akt des absoluten Subjekts die Entstehung der Gesellschaft. Am Ausgangspunkt der Staatskonzeption Gentiles wird die Pluralität von Personen ausgeklammert, da die Gesellschaftlichkeit mit der Universalität des aktualistischen Willens als überindividueller Wille gleichgesetzt wird. Die Individuen werden durch diesen überindividuellen Willen als Staat in interiore homine aufgelöst, der Spiegelbild des faktischen Staates ist.

Der faktische Staat ist aber für Gentile ständiger Prozess eines nie ganz vollendeten idealen Staates. Auf der Tendenz zur Einheit von Einzel- und Gemeinschaftswillen durch ein normatives Staatsmodell – den ethischen Staat -  beruht  der politische Charakter der Pädagogik Gentiles und dadurch die Rolle der kulturellen Sphäre in der Gesellschaft (Gentile 1925a, 1927). Der Zusammenhang zwischen Politik und Kultur, zwischen politischen Institutionen und gesellschaftlichen Zeichenpraktiken beruht auf der Möglichkeit, dass ein vollendeter ethischer Staat zu einem Erzieherstaat werden kann. Nach Gentile kann der Staat Bestand haben, wenn er ein kollektiv-einheitliches politisches Bewusstsein durch ein politisch-edukatives Programm ermöglicht (vgl.Gentile 1925b). In Gegensatz zum klassischen Liberalismus, der die freie individuellen Entfaltungsmöglichkeiten betont, hebt Gentile die Überwindung der Trennung von subjektivistisch-individueller sowie entpolitisierter „Kultivierung des Geistes“ und überindividuellem Willen als idealer Kulturstaat in interiore homine hervor:

E noi, in mezzo al popolo italiano e tra le scuole in cui esso ha incominciato a rinnovarsi e temprarsi al nuovo ideale della vita nazionale, vogliamo levare una bandiera che possa richiamare e raccogliere intorno a sé uomini di pensiero e uomini di azione in una società che faccia sentire al pensiero la sua immanente responsabilità pratica e all’azione la sua segreta scaturigine nei sentimenti che il pensiero educa e alimenta  (Gentile 1925a: 65; vgl. dazu 1918a).

Im Erzieherstaat als Schöpfer jeder Semantik in der Gesellschaft erschienen klar die hegemonischen Elemente von Gentiles Staatsideen. Durch die Überwindung der Trennung von Kultur und Politik/Staat wurde so das politisch-edukative Programm Gentiles zur Hegemoniekonzeption des italienischen Faschismus.

 

Fossati, Roberta (1998): Giovanni Gentile. In: Alberto di Bernardi/ Scipione Guarracino (Hrsg.): Il Fascismo. Dizionario di storia, personaggi, cultura, economia, fonti e dibattito storiografico. Milano: Mondadori.

Ragazzini, Dario (1998): Riforma Gentile. In: Alberto di Bernardi/ Scipione Guarracino (Hrsg.): Il Fascismo. Dizionario di storia, personaggi, cultura, economia, fonti e dibattito storiografico. Milano: Mondadori.

Schattenfroh, Sebastian (1999): Die Staatsphilosophie Giovanni Gentiles und die Versuche ihrer Verwirklichung im faschistischen Italien. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang Verlag.

Gentile, Giovanni/Mussolini, Benito/ Volpe, Gioacchino (1932): Dottrina del Fascismo. In: Enciclopedia Italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti. Bd. XIV. Roma: Treccani. S. 847-884.

Gentile, Giovanni (1918a): L’unità della cultura. In: Giovanni Gentile: Fascismo e cultura. Hrsg. von Istituto nazionale fascista di cultura. 1928. Milano: Fratelli Treves Editori. S. 1-15.

-  (1918b): Il significato della vittoria. In: Giovanni Gentile: Dopo la vittoria. Opere. Bd.  XLIV. 2., erweit. Aufl. 1989. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 5-18.

-  (1918c): Lo spettro bolscevico. In: Giovanni Gentile: Dopo la vittoria. Opere. Bd. XLIV. 2., erweit. Aufl. 1989. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 27-30.

-  (1918d): Politica e filosofia. In: Giovanni Gentile: Dopo la vittoria. Opere. Bd. XLIV. 2., erweit. Aufl. 1989. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 138-158.

-  (1919a): Stato e categorie. In: Giovanni Gentile: Dopo la vittoria. Opere. Bd. XLIV. 2., erweit. Aufl. 1989. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 69-72.

-  (1919b): Ordine. In: Giovanni Gentile: Dopo la vittoria. Opere. Bd. XLIV. 2., erweit. Aufl. 1989. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 31-34.

-  (1919c): L’idea monarchica. In: Giovanni Gentile: Dopo la vittoria. Opere. Bd. XLIV. 2., erweit. Aufl. 1989. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 108-118.

-  (1919d): Liberalismo e liberali. In: Giovanni Gentile: Dopo la vittoria. Opere. Bd. XLIV.   2., erweit. Aufl. 1989. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 120-131.

-  (1925a): Discorso inaugurale dell’istituto nazionale fascista di cultura. In: Giovanni Gentile: Fascismo e cultura. Hrsg. von Istituto nazionale fascista di cultura. 1928. Milano: Fratelli Treves Editori. S. 17-37.

-  (1925b): Contro l’agnosticismo della scuola. In: Giovanni Gentile: Fascismo e cultura. Hrsg. von Istituto nazionale fascista di cultura. 1928. Milano: Fratelli Treves Editori. S. 39-43.

-  (1927): I propositi dell’istituto. In: Giovanni Gentile: Fascismo e cultura. Hrsg. von Istituto nazionale fascista di cultura. 1928. Milano: Fratelli Treves Editori. S. 77-81.

 -  (1957): La filosofia di Marx. Studi critici [zuerst 1899]. In: Giovanni Gentile. Opere. Bd. XVIII. Firenze: Sansoni.   

 -  (1987): Teoria generale dello spirito come atto puro [zuerst 1916]. 7., bearb. Aufl. In: Giovanni Gentile. Opere. Bd. III. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 1-86.

Canistraro, Philip. V. (1982): Giovanni Gentile. In: Ders. (Hrsg.): Historical dictionary of Fascist Italy. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.Campi, Alesandro (2001): Giovanni Gentile e la RSI. Morte “necessaria” di un filosofo. Milano: Asefi.

Storia della cultura fascista

Storia della cultura fascista

di Luca Leonello Rimbotti

Fonte: mirorenzaglia [scheda fonte]

È appena uscito un libro eccellente sul Fascismo e la sua importanza come moderno movimento rivoluzionario: non esitiamo a considerarlo un vero e proprio manuale di base, in grado di rompere gli steccati del conformismo vetero-ideologico e di porsi come strumento di contro-cultura di qualità: su di esso può essere ricostruita pezzo a pezzo tutta la storiografia del nuovo Millennio sul Fascismo. E con esso si può finalmente buttarsi alle spalle la lunga e avvilente stagione in cui a dominare la scena erano gli intellettuali codardi e opportunisti, i gestori della menzogna storica, i grandi camaleonti allevati in gioventù dal Regime, da questo messi in pista e poi, alla prova dei fatti, rivoltatiglisi contro come un groviglio di serpi rancorose, subito asservite ai nuovi padroni del dopoguerra. L’eccezionale uscita editoriale si chiama Storia della cultura fascista (il Mulino) di Alessandra Tarquini, una giovane ricercatrice di scuola defeliciana che già conoscevamo come ottima storica di Gentile e del gentilianesimo. Di questo libro bisogna parlare alto e forte. Deve essere da tutti conosciuto, studiato, divulgato. Non foss’altro per quella compostezza ed equanimità che, a distanza di quasi settant’anni dalla fine del Fascismo, è il minimo che si possa richiedere ad uno studioso di oggi.

Fatti i conti con i vecchi rottami della faida ideologica, appartenenti a una stagione ingloriosamente trapassata, la Tarquini passa in rassegna tutte le componenti che hanno costituito l’anima del movimento e del Regime fascisti: l’uno e l’altro sono da lei giudicati essenzialmente come soggetti politici rivoluzionari portatori di modernità e di cultura innovatrice. Viene così rovesciato l’assunto propagandistico di quanti avevano per decenni irriso il Fascismo, dicendolo privo di una sua originale ideologia, di una sua peculiare cultura, di una sua spinta modernizzatrice. La studiosa – in questa che è propriamente una storia della storiografia sul Fascismo – precisa che, per la verità, negli ultimi decenni già si erano avuti i sintomi di un generale ripensamento degli storici in materia. I tempi dei Quazza, dei Bobbio, dei Santarelli, dei Tranfaglia e compagni, una volta crollato il comunismo sovietico e prontamente liquidata la sbornia marxista che aveva dettato legge soprattutto negli anni Settanta, ha lasciato campo a posizionamenti più seri. Le boutade sul Fascismo reazionario e sul Mussolini pagato dai padroni capitalisti, le pedestri generalizzazioni sugli incolti picchiatori, tutte cose che comunque rimangono a testimonianza di un’atmosfera italiana popolata da studiosi sovente di rara bassezza qualitativa, vengono sostituite con l’analisi che oggi «gli storici hanno capovolto i loro giudizi e sono passati dal negare l’esistenza della cultura fascista al ricostruire i suoi diversi e molteplici aspetti considerandoli non solo importanti, ma addirittura decisivi per capire il fascismo».

Quando, negli anni Sessanta, uscirono gli studi capitali di Mosse e De Felice, la canèa antifascista fece di tutto per spingerli ai margini. Poi, mano a mano, si aprivano spiragli, si notavano marce indietro. Poterono così aversi i libri, per dire, di Isnenghi, Turi, Zunino, che, pur non rinunciando alla polemica ideologica anche fuori posto, tuttavia dimostravano che la repubblica delle lettere si stava rendendo conto che il Fascismo era stato un fenomeno ben più complesso che non “l’orda degli Hyksos” immaginata da Croce e sulla cui traccia si era gettata la muta degli storici marxisti o di scuola azionista. Poi, soprattutto dall’estero, arrivarono in successione un Gregor, uno Sternhell, un Cannistraro, ma specialmente poi un Griffin, e su questa scia si è potuta avere in Italia la densa produzione soprattutto di Emilio Gentile, ma anche di tutta una serie di nuovi storici, che nell’insieme hanno prodotto con risultati notevoli indagini anche minute sul Fascismo come combinazione di mito e organizzazione, di totalitarismo e modernità.

Intendiamoci, il rigurgito passatista è sempre dietro l’angolo: e ogni tanto ancora escono libri che sembrano scritti, e male, quarant’anni fa, e pur sempre i vecchi Tasca o Salvatorelli continuano qua e là a far pessima scuola. Ma, in generale, le nebbie si stanno diradando e il Fascismo comincia a vedersi riconosciuti alcuni tratti fondamentali. Che, come la Tarquini ben precisa, furono essenzialmente la modernità, la centralità del popolo e la cultura. Il tutto, incardinato sul principio del primato della politica, dette vita ad una autentica rivoluzione. Anzi, come la storica puntualizza, si trattò proprio di una sorta di rivoluzione conservatrice, che se da un lato proteggeva quanto di buono vi era nel tessuto sociale tradizionale, dall’altro si presentava con un massimo di proiezione sul futuro. Ciò che la Tarquini, riferendosi ad esempio a Sternhell, ha sottolineato nel senso che il Fascismo fu un fenomeno politico «dotato di una propria ideologia rivoluzionaria non meno coerente del liberalismo e del marxismo, che aveva espresso la volontà di creare una nuova civiltà e un uomo nuovo». Fu infatti anche una rivoluzione antropologica, un tentativo di rifare l’uomo accentuandone le disposizioni alla socialità e al solidarismo, infrangendo così sia l’individualismo liberale che la massificazione collettivista marxista.

La Tarquini riassume gli ambienti che erano alla base della concezione politica fascista: i “revisionisti” (guidati da Bottai, con elementi di spicco come Pellizzi);  gli “intransigenti” (con Soffici, Maccari, Ricci come punte di lancia); e i “gentiliani” (Cantimori, Spirito, Carlini, Volpicelli, Saitta fra gli altri). Tra queste posizioni si muovevano uomini ai limiti dell’una o dell’altra cerchia e talvolta si avevano passaggi non contraddittori, trasversali, come ad es. un Malaparte o un Longanesi, vicini sia a “Strapaese” che a “900″ di Bontempelli.

Grazie a questi gruppi venne assicurata la centralità del popolo nella visione del mondo fascista, il popolo come “pura forza”, cioè «un soggetto depositario di valori positivi», per il quale, come scrive la Tarquini, gli scrittori politici «si impegnavano nella società del loro tempo sostenendo la costruzione di un nuovo Stato nazionale e popolare». Qualcosa che accendeva la modernità. Le veloci pagine della studiosa ricordano che il Fascismo fu cultura, e anzi alta cultura, sin dagli inizi del Regime vero e proprio, con il “Manifesto degli intellettuali fascisti” voluto da Gentile nel 1925 e che vedeva schierati alcuni pesi massimi della cultura italiana del Novecento, fra i quali Pirandello, Volpe, Codignola, Ungaretti, Soffici, che si andavano ad affiancare ai D’Annunzio, il “primo Duce del Fascismo”, ai Marinetti, ai Cardarelli, ai Papini, etc. E siamo in attesa di qualcuno che ci dica quale altro regime si sia mai avvalso di una così potente schiera di aperti sostenitori.

Ma la Tarquini è anche originale, laddove traccia percorsi nuovi: ricordando l’influenza che il filosofo Giuseppe Rensi (in anni recenti al centro di un processo di rivalutazione, dopo un lungo oblìo) ebbe sul Fascismo e sulla sua idea di autorità; oppure sulla figura di Emilio Bodrero, storico della filosofia e docente alla Scuola di Mistica Fascista, secondo il quale, sin dal 1921, il Fascismo doveva «mobilitarsi come forza rivoluzionaria, per conquistare il potere e dare vita a un nuovo ordine politico».

La Tarquini ricorda anche l’avanguardismo giovanile, fulcro incandescente di elaborazione ideologica e di spinta rivoluzionaria il cui programma, sin dagli esordi del 1920, esprimeva un massimo di moderna socialità, dato che proponeva di «adeguare i programmi scolastici alle esigenze professionali dei ragazzi» e di «abolire il voto in condotta, di sostenere gli studenti più poveri e di rendere obbligatorio l’insegnamento dell’educazione fisica». E poi c’erano le donne. E che donne…da Ada Negri (prima donna nominata all’Accademia d’Italia, nel 1940), alla Deledda (che partecipò alla stesura del testo unico per le scuole medie), fino alla Sarfatti, regina incontrastata del modernismo fascista in politica, in letteratura e nelle arti.

E, a proposito dell’arte e della sostanza del Fascismo come «politicizzazione dell’estetica» e volontà di «socializzazione degli intellettuali» (e in campo artistico basti ricordare la passione fascista di un Sironi, di un Severini, di un Primo Conti, di un Piacentini, di un Terragni, etc.), l’autrice rammenta la presenza massiccia di artisti e letterati di primo piano nello squadrismo (Rosai, Maccari, Malaparte-Suckert, ma potremmo aggiungere lo stesso Marinetti, oppure Lorenzo Viani, Gallian, etc.), così come non manca di scrivere che l’enorme fermento ideologico e culturale messo in moto e catalizzato dal Fascismo si presentò, come avevano già indicato i vari Nolte, Mosse e Del Noce, come «un fenomeno politico figlio della modernità», così da «esprimere una forte spinta alla modernizzazione dell’economia, della società e della cultura». Il senso della missione dei giovani, il progetto di un destino comune, l’esaltante prospettiva di un popolo unito e socialmente avanzato furono il cuore dello sforzo culturale messo in campo dal Fascismo, che poté usufruire di un vero e proprio esercito di intellettuali d’alto e non di rado altissimo livello: ad un impietoso confronto, l’odierna incolta e rozza liberaldemocrazia mondiale – priva di intellettuali che superino il quarto d’ora di celebrità mediatica – ne esce distrutta.

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

The Fascist Past of Scotland

The Fascist Past of Scotland

Ex: http://xtremerightcorporate.blogspot.com/

Today, Scottish nationalism is associated mostly with the left. Traditional, conservative nationalism such as produced the Jacobite wars was long in going but seems gone for good at this point. However, Scottish fascists have long been involved in the troubled life of what goes under the blanket-term of ‘British fascism’. Nonetheless, it is important to note the history of nationalism in modern Scotland, which of course existed when Scotland was an independent nation but which survived after the union with England and was never seen in a more pure form than in the Jacobite uprisings that are so famous. Although not often considered, the Jacobite restoration efforts were actually very corporatist at heart. Just to refresh, at its core, corporatism is nothing more than the organization of society based on corporate bodies and the use of those corporate bodies in exercising power for the nation as a whole. This was, in a real sense, what the Jacobite risings were all about and in a very traditional way, upholding the ancient values of western civilization.

It was, from the beginning, the intention of the Jacobites to maintain the distinct nationalism of the three kingdoms individually. We saw this with the declaration of independence following the landing of King James II in Ireland. It was a principle reiterated by King James III in 1715 and Prince Charles III in 1745. The system they were fighting for, that they intended to restore, was very traditional and very corporatist. That was for a union of the distinct kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland under one Crown. Furthermore, particularly concerning Scotland, it was also a fight to maintain the established, traditional clan structure. Power in Scotland had always been very corporatist in nature, based on the power of the chieftains of the various clans, united by their common loyalty to the House of Stuart and a divinely based monarchy. For Scotland, the clans were the basic corporate bodies of society.

 

Of course, the Jacobites were ultimately unsuccessful and it was, of course, no coincidence, that the Hanoverians (English or Scottish) who sought to wipe out Scottish nationalism specifically by destroying the clan system (which was most significant) as well as all of the outward signs of Scottish nationalism such as the Gaelic language, kilts and all the rest. A sad event to be sure, but it happened and one must move on. Fortunately, some of this was to be restored in time as the Jacobite threat to the government in London faded into history and Scotland came to see itself fully as a part, as a partner, of the glorious achievements of the British Empire and these were certainly considerable. Even as early as the late 18th Century the Scots dominated in the high command of the British army and the highland regiments became among the most feared and fearsome in the world on battlefields from North America to India. The Scots were, very early on, just as committed to British greatness as anyone and this is seen in the number of Jacobite exiles to America who fought for the British Crown against the American revolutionaries who were set to partition British North America.

In modern times, however, liberalism began to creep in and ever since as far back as the 1830’s Scotland has tended to be dominated by the leftist party (Whig, Labour, etc). In 1934 the Scottish National Party was founded, bent on the division of Great Britain and at least some degree of independence for Scotland. Socialist parties also sprang up. These, of course, had an influence on what was considered far-right politics as it would anywhere else but nonetheless, those Scots labeled as “fascists” tended almost to a man to support the union, the British Empire and British power and greatness, seeing the nations of the British Isles as stronger together than apart. Of course the most famous such organization was the British Union of Fascists and there were a number of prominent Scots aligned with or associated with that movement, and a few should be mentioned.

 

Few embodied these values as much as Sir Louis Greig, a decorated naval surgeon, accomplished rugby player and longtime friend of King George VI, going back to his days as the Duke of York when Greig took the young prince under his wing and even helped encourage his marriage to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. This match worked out so well that the future queen displaced Greig as the closest confidant of George VI, but he did not seem to mind much. He was an ardent supporter of the British Empire and a staunch monarchist, absolutely loyal to his King and Country. This was a firm matter of principle for him, not something based on his own friendship with the Duke of York as his support for the Crown did not falter in the least during the short reign of King Edward VIII with whom he did not get along well. It was also around this time that Sir Oswald Mosley left the Tory party for Labour and then left the Labour Party to form the British Union of Fascists. While trying to strengthen his grouping of blackshirts Mosley formed the January Club, an elite circle of the nationalist community in an effort to attract upper class support for the BUF and put a more respectable face on the fascist movement. Greig was a prominent member of the January Club (he was also by then a Wing Commander in the RAF) and his support, along with others, helped the BUF become more mainstream and it was shortly thereafter that the Daily Mail openly supported the fascist cause. As for Sir Louis Greig, he did not suffer for his fascist associations and continued to serve in the armed forces until his death in 1953. His grandson was even a page of honor to Queen Elizabeth II.

 

Another prominent Scotsman in the BUF, and one of impeccable ‘blue blood’ if not impeccable reputation was Lord Josslyn Hay, Earl of Erroll. Born in London, son of Lord Kilmarnock, he carried the coronet of his grandfather, the then Earl of Erroll, at the coronation of King George V in 1911. He dropped out of Eton and began working in the diplomatic service with his father to earn a living (contrary to what many think, having a title does not automatically mean having vast wealth). It is interesting, if not significant to note the extensive he spent in Berlin at this time. However, despite passing his civil service examination he did not go to work for the Foreign Office but instead caused society tongues to wag by marrying Lady Idina Sackville. Her father was an earl, her former husband a politician, who she had divorced, and she was married again when she began her affair with Hay before divorcing that husband to marry him. It was all very scandalous but the two felt ‘unencumbered’ by social norms and traditional values and married in 1923. Moving to the colonies they set up housekeeping in Kenya where they lived a life of libertine debauchery. In 1934, while visiting England, Hay joined the British Union of Fascists. As Earl of Erroll he attended the 1936 coronation of King George VI, joined the military in World War II and began an affair with a married woman which, most believe, led to his murder in 1941 in Kenya.

Less colorful than Hay, but probably an even more staunch fascist Scotsman was Robert Forgan. The son of a minister in the Church of Scotland, he was educated in Aberdeen, became a doctor and served in World War I, later becoming an STD expert. While working in Glasgow he became a socialist, out of concern for the urban poor of course, and also entered politics as a member of the Independent Labor Party. He supported the very socialistic “Mosley Memorandum” which resulted in his break with mainstream leftists and his formation of the New Party. Mosley and Forgan were almost inseparable. He was one of the most successful politicians of the New Party, a key player in organizing and fleshing out the movement and even stood as godfather to Mosley’s son Michael. He was less visible but no less important when Mosley dropped the New Party idea and went on, instead, to found the British Union of Fascists. It was Forgan who worked behind the scenes to enlist more legitimate, acceptable supporters for the BUF, obtain funding for the movement and he was largely responsible to setting up the January Club.

 

This, however, eventually led to problems between Mosley and Forgan, though not initially. Forgan was adamant that, despite parallels being drawn with the Nazis in Germany, the BUF was not anti-Semitic. Originally, this was true as Mosley took more inspiration from Mussolini and his National Fascist Party (which was not anti-Semitic) rather than Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Working through the January Club and his connections in government, Forgan even tried to bring some prominent Jews on board, appealing to their liberal views of economic and social issues and assuring them that the hatred of Jews was simply a ‘German thing’ rather than a ‘fascist thing’. However, he had little success in getting anyone to take a chance and as the “star” of Hitler continued to rise Mosley became more enraptured with him and increasingly anti-Semitic in his rhetoric. Forgan had become deputy-leader of the BUF next to Mosley himself but this trend was taking the group down a path he refused to follow. In 1934 the BUF became pretty openly anti-Semitic and a disgruntled Forgan left the party, convinced Mosley was making a mistake. He was thoroughly done with politics and stayed out of the fray, finally passing away in 1976 as a largely forgotten figure.

Revista de Historia del Fascismo - III

Revista de Historia del Fascismo - III

Sumario número III correspondiente a Marzo 2011:

TENDENCIAS
Henri De Man y el “socialismo ético”

Capítulo de Nè destra nè sinistra. La nascita dell’ideologia fascista, Zeev Sternhell, Akropolis, Nápoles 1984, págs. 119-139.
En España no existe ninguna obra relevante sobre Henri de Man y su “neosocialismo” o “planismo” que influyó ampliamente en los “no conformistas de los años 30”. De ahí que hayamos decidido presentar esta traducción de profesor Sternhell que ilustra la vida y la obra de este socialista que abandonó el marxismo hacia ese espacio gris que existió con el fascismo.

BIOGRAFIAS
Hugo Wast, de oficio escritor, de vocación nacionalista y antisemita

La conspiración del silencio no siempre alcanza sus objetivos. Los detractores de Hugo Wast no han podido evitar que en Argentina muchas calles lleven su nombre y que, sistemáticamente, bibliotecas públicas de las grandes ciudades recuerden en sus rótulos al que fuera uno de los mejores escritores argentinos del siglo XX. No en vano, cuando murió, Wast había vendido tres millones de ejemplares de sus obras. Incluso hoy, después de sesenta años de muro de silencio, sus obras son reeditadas con cierta frecuencia y en Google aparecen 18.000 referencias a su vida y obra. En buena medida, los grandes escritores argentinos del siglo XX se nutrieron de las obras de Wast. Sin embargo, lo más habitual cuando acudimos a biografías o historias de la literatura argentina poíticamente correctas se limitan a definir a Wast como “escritor antisemita”. Y lo era, pero era bastante más que eso: católico, conservador, dotado de una pluma ágil y vigorosa que se movía bien tanto en relato cortos como en novelas de gran calado, alguien, en definitiva, que merece ser recordado. Para quien esto escribe constituye un honor recordar la pluma de Hugo Wast y recomendar su lectura para los amantes de la literatura de expresión castellana.

DOSSIER: FASCISMO UNO Y TRINO
Tres orígenes para el mismo movimiento, tres concepciones de un mismo fascismo

Entre las distintas interpretaciones del fascismo se tiende a considerar a este movimiento político del siglo XX como algo homogéneo o, al menos, algo a lo que se reconocen solamente variedades nacionales. Parece una obviedad, pero no está de más recordar que el fascismo es un “producto de síntesis” entre “lo nacional” y “lo social”. Y si esto es así parece lógico que existan tres variedades de fascismo: aquel que es “más nacional que social”, aquel otro que es “más social de nacional” y, finalmente, aquel que intenta mantener el equilibrio entre “lo nacional y lo social”. Esto nos permite hablar de un “fascismo de derechas”, de un “fascismo de izquierdas” y de un “fascismo centrista”. Este esquema es fácilmente aplicable en todas aquellas naciones en las que el fascismo alcanzó el nivel de fuerza política pujante: Italia, Alemania, Francia, España…

FASCISMO Y SECTAS
Logia Thule: el ancestro inmediato del NSDAP. Mito y realidad.

Este artículo debería ser consultado tras la lectura de otro dos publicados anteriormente en la RHF: el dedicado al estudio de las sectas ariosóficas y el dedicado a la revista Ostara. Se ha escrito que la “Logia Thule” era la “rama bávara de la Orden de los Germanos” y esto es sólo cierto a medias y el matiz no deja de tener interés. El impacto de la Logia Thule sobre el NSDAP fue real… pero mínimo y no fue más allá de lo que se ha llamado “la prehistoria del nacionalsocialismo”.

SECTAS
La vertiente ocultista del peronismo (III de III)
Perón, masón y miembro de la Logia Propaganda 2

Es fácil divisar las dos vertientes de estas notas sobre la Logia Anael y el papel de López Rega. Una e ellas afecta al General Juan Domingo Perón, dirigente y fundador del justiciaismo argentino y seguramente el político mejor valorado y que despertó más entusiasmos en aquel país durante el siglo XX. La obra tiene que ver con López Rega. Ambas se refieren a su vinculación con el ocultismo. Las preguntas a formular son, pues, tres: ¿Hasta qué punto el general Perón, Eva Perón e Isabel Martínez de Perón creían en el espiritismo? ¿Se afilió Perón a la masonería? ¿Cuáles eran las fuentes doctrinales de López Rega?

COMENTARIOS
“La derecha radical y Europa”, respuesta a la revista Sistemas (III de III)

Llegamos al tercer y último jalón de nuestra respuesta a la revista Sistemas, considerada como “científica” a la vista de los errores de bulto contenidos… Seguramente se nos escapará alguna puntualización, pero estamos convencidos de que, al menos en sus líneas generales, habremos ayudado a plantear la cuestión de fondo: la necesidad de un debate profundo y vinculante sobre Europa en el seno de la “derecha radical”.

DERECHA FASCISTA
II PARTE: EL CAMPO MONÁRQUICO DURANTE LA REPÚBLICA

Continuando con la serie de artículos y comentarios sobre la “derecha fascista española”, añadimos hoy la tercera parte titulada: “El campo monárquico durante la República” y “Acción Española”, faltando la última parte sobre Renovación Española que publicaremos en el número 4 de la RHF.

TERRORISMO
LA OAS EN ESPAÑA. Notas sobre el libro A la sombra de Franco.

La lectura de la obra del villenero Gastón Segura Valero, A la sombra de Franco, subtitulada El refugio de los activistas franceses de la OAS, nos ha inspirado algunos comentarios que amplían el contenido de este libro –que no parece extremadamente aceptable y bien documentado- pero al que le hemos observado algunas carencias y huecos que intentaremos compensar en las páginas que siguen.

NEOFASCISMO
El nacimiento de Ordre Nouveau

Les mouvement d’extreme droite en France aprés 1944. François Duprat. Editions Albatros, París 1972, págs. 192-200

François Duprat, asesinado por un comando izquierdista en una carretera de Bretaña mediante la colocación de un artefacto explosivo bajo s vehículo en marzo de 1978 pertenecía a la dirección de Ordre Nouvea y es el autor de estas líneas incluidas como capítulo final de su obra Les Mouvements d’extreme droite. Vale la pena añadir que dos años después de que fueran publicadas estas páginas, Ordre Nouveau resultó prohibido por las autoridades, sin embargo impulsó la creación del Front National que hasta el pasado 15 de enero de 2011 ha sido dirigido por Jean Marie Le Pen. En torno a ese eje ha fructivado en los últimos 30 años el movimiento de oposición nacional en Francia, cuya semilla inicial fue Ordre Nouveau. Estos fueron sus primeros pasos.

 

Características:

Formato libro 150 x 210 mm
Páginas 216Tapas en cuatricomía con solapas

Pedidos: [e-mail]

Precio venta al público: 18,00 euros + 3,00 euros de gastos de envío (precios para España, resto mundo, consultar)

Forma e pago: ingreso en cuenta corriente BBVA (al hacer el pedido indicamos el número)

Revista de Historia del Fascismo - Julius Evola en Alemania

 

Revista de Historia del Fascismo

Sumario

REVISIONES

Hitler [no] me ha dicho: Rauschning, un falsario desenmascarado

Durante décadas el libro de Hermann Rauschning Hitler me ha dicho se ha considerado como un pieza fundamental del Caso Hitler. Desde obras “ligeras” como El retorno de los brujos de Louis Pauwels y Jacques Bergier hasta las  sesudas  obras  de  historiadores  académicos  como Trevor-Roper, era frecuente entre los años 50 hasta finales del milenio, recurrir a esta obra para dirimir cómo era la verdadera personalidad del führer. Aun hoy algunos siguen considerando a esta obra como “fuente primaria”… lamentablemente  para  ellos,  desde  hace  20  años,  está demostrado ad nauseam que la obra de Rauschning no tiene credibilidad sino que es uno de tantos ejemplos de propaganda de guerra.

BIOGRAFIAS

Abate Barruel: el padre de todas las conspiranoias

A  finales  del  siglo  XVIII  al  abate  Augustin  Barruel  consiguió una fama extraordinaria con la publicación de su obra Memorias para servir a la historia del jacobinismo en  donde  daba  una  explicación  teleológica  a  todos  los episodios que se habían sucedido en Francia a partir de 1780 y que se desencadenaron aquella orgía de sangre que  fue  la  Revolución  Francesa.  El  éxito  de  Barruel  fue tan rutilante como efímero, sin embargo, todavía hoy se le considera como el introductor de la visión conspirativa de la historia y su obra como el “padre” de todas las conspiraciones. Esta es la vida y la obra del abate Barruel…

NEOFASCISMO

L’Uomo Qualunque: un producto de postguerra

En la confusión de la Italia de la postguerra, durante un corto  ciclo  de  apenas  tres  años,  un  partido  político  de nuevo cuño llamó particularmente la atención: el Fronte dell’Uomo Qualunque, literalmente el Frente del Hombre Cualquiera (aunque otra traducción alternativa sería “del Pobre Diablo”) entendiendo como tal al ciudadano sin expectativas  que  sufre  las  consecuencias  de  las  situaciones  adversas  generadas  por  otros.  El Uomo  Qualunque fue  un  grito  de  desesperados  que  se  extinguió  pronto ingresando una parte sustancial de sus miembros en el Movimiento  Social  Italiano  que  heredó  también  buena parte de sus votos. 

MÍSTICA FASCISTA

Codreanu y su mística guerrera

Nuestro colaborador Eduardo Basurto nos envía este artículo sobre la mística guerrera de Codreanu que supone el primer estudio publicado en la Revista de Historia del Fascismo  sobre  esta  corriente  en  Rumania.  Además  de hacer honor al título, el estudio de Eduardo Basurto realiza un repaso a la historia de la varidad rumana del fascismo singularmente preciso.

CINEMATOGRAFÍA

Forces Occultes… El cine francés bajo la ocupación

Hasta hace poco inencontrable y desde que se han puesto en marcha las plataformas de intercambio de archivos Peer to Peer y youTube fácilmente accesibles en la red, Forces Occultes es un película extraña que responde en primer lugar a las exigencias antimasónicas del gobierno francés de Vichy y de la propaganda alemana. Pero nos equivocaríamos si considerásemos que Forces Occultes solamente  es  “propaganda”.  Es  mucho  más:  refleja  por primera vez en la historia del cine cómo es una iniciación masónica de la que hasta ese momento el “gran público” no tenía conciencia exacta en qué consistía. Y no hay en ella absolutamente ninguna falsificación. La pesquisa en torno  a Forces  Occultes  nos  llevará,  por  extensión  lógica, en la segunda parte de este artículo, a examinar el panorama del cine “colaboracionista” realizado durante la ocupación y terminará con una referencia a la figura de Claude Autant-Lara, fallecido en 2000 después de ser durante un período diputado europeo del Front National.

DOSSIER:

Julius Evola y el III Reich
Las relaciones y los proyectos de Julius Evola en Alemania 1930-1945.

I. Introduccion

II. Julius Evola y la cultura alemanas

III. Contactos en el Reich 

          - La Comunidad de  Trabajo de los nacionalistas

          - Con la “revolución conservadora”

          - La red del príncipe KarlAnton von Rohan

          - Gottfried Benn y el Rivolta  

          - Del Herrenklub a las SS

          - La “defensa de la raza” en Alemania e Italia

          - Los objetivos del período 1938-1943

          - Evola en el Cuartel General del Führer

 

Características: 

Formato libro 150 x 210 mm

Páginas 216

Tapas en cuatricomía con solapas 

Pedidos: [e-mail] 

Precio venta al público: 18,00 euros + 3,00 euros de gastos de envío (precios para España, resto mundo, consultar) 

Forma e pago: ingreso en cuenta corriente BBVA (al hacer el pedido indicamos el número) o pago a través de pay-pal (ver columna de la derecha)

 

Suscripción: 

6 números: 100 euros

12 números: 200 euros

Nicola Bombacci: de Lênin a Mussolini

Nicola Bombacci: de Lênin a Mussolini

 

por Erik Norling

 

Ex: http://legio-victrix.blogspot.com/ 

 

A 29 de Abril de 1945 eram assassinados os principais líderes fascistas às mãos dos guerrilheiros comunistas. E entre estes fascistas encontramos, curiosamente, Nicola Bombacci, antiga figura máxima do comunismo italiano, fundador do Partido Comunista de Itália (PCI), amigo pessoal de Lenine com quem esteve na URSS durante os anos da Revolução, apodado de “O Papa Vermelho” pela burguesia e finalmente incondicional seguidor de Mussolini, a quem se juntou nos últimos meses do seu regime. A sua história é uma história de conversão ou de traição?... Ou, talvez, de evolução natural de um nacional-bolchevique?... 

 

Um jovem revolucionário

Nicola Bombacci nasce no seio de uma família católica (o seu pai era agricultor, antigo soldado do Estado Pontifício) da Romagna, na província de Forli, a 24 de Outubro de 1879, a escassos quilómetros de Predappio, onde quatro anos mais tarde nascerá o futuro fundador do Fascismo. Trata-se de uma região marcada por duras lutas operárias e por um campesinato habituado à rebelião, terra de paixões extremas. Por imposição paterna ingressa no seminário mas rapidamente o abandona aquando da morte do seu progenitor. Em 1903 ingressa no anticlerical Partido Socialista (PSI) e decide tornar-se professor para poder assim servir as classes menos favorecidas na sua luta (novamente as semelhanças com o Duce são evidentes, tendo chegado a estudar na mesma escola superior) mas rapidamente passa a dedicar-se de corpo e alma à revolução socialista. A sua capacidade de trabalho e os seus dotes de organizador valem-lhe a direcção dos órgãos da imprensa socialista, o que lhe permitirá aumentar a sua influência no seio do movimento operário, chegando a ser Secretário do Comité Central do Partido, onde conhecerá um jovem uns anos mais novo: Benito Mussolini, que, não nos esqueçamos, foi a promessa do socialismo italiano antes de se tornar nacional-revolucionário. [1]

Opondo-se à linha moderada da social-democracia, Bombacci fundará juntamente com Gramsci o Partido Comunista de Itália após a cisão interna do PSI e viajará em princípios dos anos 20 para a URSS, para participar na revolução bolchevique, aonde já antes tinha estado como representante do Partido Socialista tendo sido conquistado pela causa dos sovietes. Aí trava amizade com o próprio Lenine que lhe dirá numa recepção no Kremlin estas famosas palavras sobre Mussolini: “Em Itália, companheiros, em Itália só há um socialista capaz de guiar o povo para a revolução: Benito Mussolini”, e pouco depois o Duce encabeçaria uma revolução, mas fascista… [2]

Como líder (António Gramsci era o teórico, Bombacci o organizador) do recém-criado PCI, torna-se no autêntico “inimigo público nº 1” da burguesia italiana, que o apoda de “O Papa Vermelho”. Revalidará brilhantemente o seu lugar de deputado, desta vez nas listas da nova formação, enquanto que as esquadras fascistas começam a tomar as ruas enfrentando as milícias comunistas em sangrentos combates. Bombacci empenhar-se-á em deter a marcha para o poder do fascismo mas fracassará, desde as páginas dos seus jornais lança invectivas contra o fascismo arengando a defesa da revolução comunista. É uma época em que os esquadristas de camisa negra cantam canções irreverentes como “Não tenho medo de Bombacci / Com a barba de Bombacci faremos spazzolini (escovas) / Para abrilhantar a careca de Benito Mussolini”. Etapa em que o comunismo se vê imerso em numerosas tensões internas e o próprio Bombacci entra em polémica com os seus companheiros de partido sendo um dos pontos de fricção a opção entre nacionalismo e internacionalismo. Já antes tinha demonstrado tendências nacionalistas, que faziam pressagiar a sua futura linha. Quando ainda estava no Partido Socialista e como consequência de um documento protestando contra a acção de Fiume levada a cabo por D’Annunzio que o Partido queria apresentar, Bombacci rebelou-se e escreveu sobre este que era “Perfeita e profundamente revolucionário; porque D’Annunzio é revolucionário. Disse-o Lenine no Congresso de Moscovo”. [3]

 

O primeiro fascismo

Em 1922 os fascistas marcham sobre a capital do Tibre; nada pode impedir que Mussolini assuma o poder, ainda que este não seja absoluto durante os primeiros anos do regime. Como deputado e membro do Comité Central do Partido, assim como encarregado das relações exteriores do mesmo, Bombacci viaja ao estrangeiro frequentemente. Participa no IV Congresso da Internacional Comunista representando a Itália, e, no Comité de Acção Antifascista, entrevista-se com dirigentes bolcheviques russos. Leva já metade da sua vida dedicada à causa do proletariado e não está disposto a desistir do seu empenho em levar à prática o seu sonho socialista. Torna-se fervente defensor da aproximação da Itália à URSS na Câmara e na imprensa comunista, falando seguramente em nome e por instigação dos dirigentes moscovitas, mas utilizando um discurso nacional-revolucionário que incomoda no seio do Partido, que por outro lado está em plena debandada após a vitória fascista. As relações com o revolucionário Estado soviético seriam uma vantagem para a Itália enquanto nação que também atravessa um processo revolucionário, ainda que fascista. É imediatamente acusado de herético e pedem-lhe que rectifique as suas posições. Não podem admitir que um comunista exija, como o faz Bombacci, “superar a Nação (sem) a destruir, queremo-la maior, porque queremos um governo de trabalhadores e agricultores”, socialista e sem negar a Pátria “direito incontestável e sacro de todo o homem e de todos os grupos de homens”. É a chamada “Terceira Via” onde o nacionalismo revolucionário do fascismo se encontra com o socialismo revolucionário comunista.

Bombacci é progressivamente marginalizado no seio do PCI e condenado ao ostracismo político, embora não deixe de manter contactos com alguns dirigentes russos e com a embaixada russa para a qual trabalha, além de que um dos seus filhos vivia na URSS. Acreditava sinceramente na revolução bolchevique e que, ao contrário dos camaradas italianos, os russos tinham um sentido nacional da revolução pelo que jamais renegará a sua amizade para com a URSS, nem sequer depois de aderir definitivamente ao fascismo.

Com a expulsão definitiva do partido em 1927, Bombacci entra numa etapa que podemos qualificar como os anos do silêncio que dura até 1936, altura em que lança a sua editorial e a revista homónima baptizada “La Veritá” e que culminará em 1943 numa progressiva conversão ao fascismo. No entanto é demasiado fácil considerar que Bombacci simplesmente se passou de armas e bagagens para o fascismo como pretendem os que o acusam de ser um “traidor”. Assistiremos a um processo lento de aproximação, não ao fascismo mas sim a Mussolini e à ala esquerdista do movimento fascista, onde Bombacci se sente aconchegado e em família, próximo das suas concepções revolucionárias, o corporativismo e as leis sociais deste fascismo de que “todo o postulado é um programa do socialismo”, segundo dirá em 1928 reconhecendo a sua identificação. [4]

 

Comprovamos assim que Bombacci não é um fascista, mas defende as conquistas do regime e a figura de Mussolini. Não se aproximou do partido fascista – jamais se inscreveu no Partido Nacional Fascista – apesar da sua amizade reconhecida com Mussolini, não aceitou cargos que lhe poderiam oferecer nem renegou as suas origens comunistas. A sua independência valia mais. No entanto convenceu-se de que o Estado Corporativo proposto pelo fascismo era a realização mais perfeita, o socialismo levado à prática, um estado superior ao comunismo. Jamais camuflará os seus ideais, em 1936 escrevia na revista “La Veritá”, confessando a sua adesão ao fascismo mas também ao comunismo:

“O fascismo fez uma grandiosa revolução social, Mussolini e Lenine. Soviete e Estado fascista corporativo, Roma e Moscovo. Muito tivemos que rectificar, nada de que nos fazer perdoar, pois hoje como ontem move-nos o mesmo ideal: o triunfo do trabalho”. [5]

Enquanto isto sucedia Bombacci tem um longo intercâmbio epistolar com o Duce tentando influenciar o antigo socialista na sua política social. O máximo historiador do fascismo, Renzo de Felice, escreveu a este respeito que Bombacci tem o mérito de ter sugerido a Mussolini mais do que uma das medidas adoptadas nesses anos 30. [6] Numa destas missivas, datada de Julho de 1934, propõe um programa de economia autárquica (que Mussolini aplicará) que, diz Bombacci ao Duce, é mostra da sua “vontade de trabalhar mais naquilo que agora concerne, no interesse e pelo triunfo do Estado Corporativo…”, como faz também desde as páginas da sua revista onde uma e outra vez batalha por uma autarcia que faça da Itália um país independente e capaz de enfrentar as potências plutocráticas (entenda-se os EUA, mas também a França e a Inglaterra). Por isso apoia decididamente a intervenção na Etiópia em 1935, mas não como campanha colonial senão como prelúdio da confrontação entre os países “proletários” (entre os quais estaria a Itália fascista) e os “capitalistas” que irremediavelmente chegaria, essa “revolução mundial (que) restabelecerá o equilíbrio mundial”. A acção italiana seria uma “típica e inconfundível conquista proletária”, destinada a derrotar as potências “capitalistas” e cuja experiência “deverá ser assumida… como um dado fundamental para a redenção das gentes de cor, ainda sob a opressão do capitalismo mais terrível”. [7]

Contra Estaline

Entre os anos de 1936 e 1943, difíceis para o fascismo pois iniciam-se os conflitos armados, prelúdio da derrota, Bombacci acrescenta a sua adesão ideológica a Mussolini. É um homem com quase 60 anos, viu como muitos dos seus sonhos socialistas não se realizaram, mas é um eterno idealista e não está disposto a abandonar a luta pelo socialismo, por “essa obra de redenção económica e de elevação espiritual do proletariado italiano que os socialistas da primeira hora tínhamos iniciado”. A sua editorial é uma ruína económica, os seus biógrafos deixaram constância das dificuldades e penúrias que sofre. Ter-lhe-ia bastado um passo oportunista e integrar-se no fascismo oficial e teria disposto de todas as ajudas do aparato do Estado mas não quer perder a sua independência ainda que em ocasiões deva aceitar subvenções do Ministério de Cultura Popular.

 

Esta etapa coincide com uma profunda reflexão sobre os seus erros passados e uma série de ataques ao comunismo russo que se tinha vendido às potências capitalistas traindo os postulados de Lenine. Assim, escreve Bombacci em Novembro de 1937, as relações entre a URSS e os países democráticos só tinha uma explicação que revelaria tudo o resto: “a razão é só uma, frívola, vulgar, mas real: o interesse, o dinheiro, o negócio”, pelo que este antigo comunista podia declarar abertamente que “nós proclamamos com a consciência limpa que a Rússia bolchevique de Estaline se tornou uma colónia do capitalismo maçónico-hebraico-internacional…”. A alusão anti-semita não é nova em Bombacci, nem nos teóricos socialistas do início do século, pois não devemos esquecer que o anti-semitismo moderno teve os seus mais ferventes defensores precisamente entre os doutrinários revolucionários de finais do século XIX, quando o judeu encarnava a figura do odiado capitalista. Em Bombacci não encontramos um anti-semitismo racialista mas sim social, de acordo com os posicionamentos mediterrânicos do problema judeu diferentemente do anti-judaismo alemão ou gaulês.

Quando estala a II Guerra Mundial, e especialmente ao estalar na frente Leste, Bombacci participa em pleno nas campanhas anticomunistas do regime. Como dirigente comunista conhecedor da URSS a sua voz faz-se ouvir. No entanto não renega os seus ideais, pelo contrário aprofunda a tese de que Estaline e os seus acólitos traíram a revolução. Escreve numerosos artigos contra Estaline, sobre as condições reais de vida no chamado “paraíso comunista”, as medidas adoptadas por este para destruir todos os sucessos do socialismo leninista. Em 1943, pouco antes da queda do Fascismo, concluía Bombacci resumindo a sua posição num folheto de propaganda:

“Qual das duas revoluções, a fascista ou a bolchevique, fará história no século XX e ficará na história como criadora de uma ordem nova de valores sociais e mundiais?

Qual das duas revoluções resolveu o problema agrário interpretando verdadeiramente os desejos e aspirações dos camponeses e os interesses económicos e sociais da colectividade nacional?

Roma venceu!

Moscovo materialista e semi-bárbara, com um capitalismo totalitário de Estado-Patrão quer juntar-se à força (planos quinquenais), levando à miséria mais negra os seus cidadãos, à industrialização existente nos países que durante o século XIX seguiram um processo de regime capitalista burguês. Moscovo completa a fase capitalista.

Roma é outra coisa.

Moscovo, com a reforma de Estaline, retrata-se institucionalmente ao nível de qualquer Estado burguês parlamentar. Economicamente há uma diferença substancial, porque, enquanto que nos Estados burgueses o governo é formado por delegados da classe capitalista, aqui o governo está nas mãos da burocracia bolchevique, uma nova classe que na realidade é pior que essa classe capitalista porque dispõe sem qualquer controlo do trabalho, da produção e da vida dos cidadãos”. [8]

 

A República Social Italiana

Quando Mussolini é deposto em Julho de 1943 e resgatado pelos alemães uns meses depois, o Partido Nacional Fascista já se desagregou. A estrutura orgânica desapareceu, os dirigentes do partido, provenientes das camadas privilegiadas da sociedade passaram-se em massa para o governo de Badoglio e a Itália encontra-se dividida em dois (ao sul de Roma os Aliados avançam em direcção ao norte). Mussolini reagrupa os seus mais fiéis, todos eles velhos camaradas da primeira hora ou jovens entusiastas, quase nenhum dirigente de alto nível, que ainda acreditam na revolução fascista e proclama a República Social Italiana. Imediatamente o fascismo parece voltar às suas origens revolucionárias e Nicola Bombacci adere à república proclamada e presta a Mussolini todo o seu apoio. O seu sonho é poder levar a cabo a construção dessa “República dos trabalhadores” pela qual tanto ele como Mussolini se bateram juntos no início do século. Tal como Bombacci, outros conhecidos intelectuais de esquerda juntam-se ao novo governo: Carlo Silvestri (deputado socialista, depois da guerra defensor da memória do Duce), Edmondo Cione (filosofo socialista que será autorizado a criar um partido socialista aparte do Partido Fascista Republicano), etc.

O primeiro contacto com Mussolini ocorre a 11 de Outubro, apenas um mês depois da proclamação da RSI, e é epistolar. Bombacci escreve a Mussolini a partir de Roma, cidade onde o fascismo ruiu estrepitosamente (os romanos destruíram todos os símbolos do anterior regime nas ruas), mas onde ainda existem muitos fascistas de coração, e é este o momento que escolhe para declarar a Mussolini que está consigo. Não quando tudo corria bem, mas sim nos momentos difíceis como tão-só o fazem os verdadeiros camaradas:

“Estou hoje mais que ontem totalmente consigo” – confessa Bombacci – “a vil traição do rei-Badoglio trouxe por todos os lados a ruína e a desonra de Itália mas libertou-a de todos os compromissos pluto-monárquicos de 22.

Hoje o caminho está livre e em minha opinião só se pode recorrer ao abrigo socialista. Acima de tudo: a vitória das armas.

Mas para assegurar a vitória deve ter a adesão da massa operária. Como? Com feitos decisivos e radicais no sector económico-produtivo e sindical…

Sempre às suas ordens com o grande afecto já de trinta anos.”

 

Mussolini, acossado pela situação militar mas mais decidido que nunca a levar a cabo a sua revolução agora que se libertou dos lastros do passado, autoriza que os sectores mais radicais do partido assumam o poder e inicia-se uma etapa denominada de “socialização” (nome proposto por Bombacci e aceite pelo Duce) que se traduzirá na promulgação de leis de inspiração claramente socialista, em relação à criação de sindicatos, à co-gestão das empresas, à distribuição de lucros e à nacionalização dos sectores industriais de importância. Tudo isto foi resumido nos 18 Pontos do primeiro (e único) congresso do Partido Fascista Republicano em Verona, documento redigido conjuntamente por Mussolini e Bombacci, que se constituiria como a base do Estado Social Republicano. Na política exterior tentará convencer Mussolini a assinar a paz com a URSS e a prosseguir a guerra contra a plutocracia anglo-saxã, ressuscitar o eixo Roma-Berlim-Moscovo dos pensadores geopolíticos do nacional-bolchevismo dos anos 20, proposta que parece ter tido êxito em Mussolini que escreverá vários artigos para a imprensa republicana sobre este assunto mesmo sabendo que esta proposta tinha uma tenaz oposição por parte de um amplo sector do partido, em particular de Roberto Farinacci. Bombacci viaja para o norte e reinstala-se perto do seu amigo Walter Mocchi, outro veterano dirigente comunista convertido ao fascismo mussoliniano que trabalha para o Ministério de Cultura Popular.

Se para muitos o último Mussolini era um homem acabado, títere dos alemães, não deixa de surpreender a adesão que recebe de homens como Bombacci, um verdadeiro idealista, de estatura imponente, com a barba crescida e uma oratória atraente, alérgico a tudo o que pudesse significar acomodar-se ou aburguesar-se, que tão-pouco agora aceitará salário ou prebendas (apenas em princípios de 1945 aparecerá o seu nome numa lista de propostas de salários do ministério da Economia ou como Chefe da Confederação Única do Trabalho e da Técnica). Bombacci tornar-se-á assessor pessoal e confidente de Mussolini, para atrair de novo às bases do partido os trabalhadores. Propõe a criação de comités sindicais, abertos a não militantes fascistas, eleições sindicais livres, viajará pelas fábricas do norte industrializado (Milão-Turim) explicando a revolução social do novo regime e o porquê da sua adesão. O velho combatente revolucionário parece de novo rejuvenescer, após um comício em Verona e várias visitas a empresas socializadas escreve ao Duce a 22 de Dezembro de 1944: “Falei durante uma hora e trinta minutos num teatro entregue e entusiasta… a plateia, composta na maior parte por operários vibrou gritando: sim, queremos combater por Itália, pela república, pela socialização… pela manhã visitei a Mondadori, já socializada, e falei com os operários que constituem o Conselho de Gestão que achei cheio de entusiasmo e compreensão por esta nossa missão”. Enquanto a situação militar se deteriorava, os grupos terroristas comunistas (os tragicamente famosos GAP) já tinham decidido eliminá-lo pelo perigo que a sua actividade representava para os seus objectivos. [9]

Mas a guerra está a chegar ao fim. Benito Mussolini, aconselhado pelo deputado ex-socialista Carlo Silvestri e Bombacci, propõe entregar o poder aos socialistas, integrados no Comité Nacional de Libertação. [10] Em Abril de 1945 as autoridades militares alemãs rendem-se aos Aliados, sem informar os italianos, é o fim. Abandonados e sós.

 

Crepúsculo de um nacional-revolucionário

Durante os últimos meses da RSI Bombbaci continuou a campanha para recuperar as massas populares e evitar que se decantassem pelo bolchevismo. Em finais de 1944 publicava um opúsculo intitulado «Isto é o Bolchevismo», reproduzido no jornal católico «Crociata Italica» em Março de 1945. Bombacci insiste nas críticas aos desvios estalinistas do comunismo real que destruiu o verdadeiro sindicalismo revolucionário na Europa com as ingerências russas. Nestas últimas semanas de vida da experiência republicana, Bombacci está ao lado dos que ainda acreditam numa solução de compromisso com o inimigo para assim evitar a ruína do país. Leal até ao fim, ficará com Mussolini mesmo quando tudo já está definitivamente perdido. Profeticamente fala disso aos seus operários numa das suas últimas aparições públicas, em Março de 1945:

“Irmãos de fé e de luta… não reneguei aos meus ideais pelos quais lutei e pelos quais, se Deus me deixar viver mais, lutarei sempre. Mas agora encontro-me nas fileiras das cores que militam na República Social Italiana, e vim outra vez porque agora sim é a sério e é verdadeiramente decisivo reivindicar os direitos dos operários…”

Nicola Bombacci, sempre fiel, sempre sereno, acompanhará Mussolini na sua última e dramática viagem até à morte. A 25 de Abril está em Milão. O relato de Vittorio Mussolini, filho do Duce, sobre o seu último encontro com o seu pai, acompanhado por Bombacci, mostra-nos a inteireza deste:

“Pensei no destino deste homem, um verdadeiro apóstolo do proletariado, em certa altura inimigo acérrimo do fascismo e agora ao lado do meu pai, sem nenhum cargo nem prebenda, fiel a dois chefes diferentes até à morte. A sua calma serviu-me de consolo”. [11]

Pouco depois, após Mussolini se separar da coluna dos seus últimos fiéis para os poupar ao seu destino, Bombacci é detido por um grupo de guerrilheiros comunistas junto com um grupo de hierarcas fascistas. Na manhã de 28 de Abril era colocado contra o paredão em Dongo, no norte do país, ao lado de Barracu, valoroso ex-combatente, mutilado de guerra, de Pavolini, o poeta-secretário do partido, de Valério Zerbino, um intelectual e Coppola, outro pensador. Todos gritam, perante o pelotão que os assassina, “Viva Itália!”. Bombacci, enquanto tomba crivado pelas balas dos comunistas, grita: “Viva o Socialismo!”.

 

_____________

Notas:

1. Em português, sobre o movimento revolucionário do pré-fascismo veja-se o excelente trabalho do professor israelita Zeev Sternhell e dos seus colaboradores, «Nascimento da ideologia fascista», onde curiosamente quase não se menciona Bombacci.

2. Sobre a trajectória revolucionária de Bombacci há um excelente trabalho de Gugliemo Salotti intitulado «Nicola Bombacci, da Mosca a Saló».

3. Referimo-nos à tomada da cidade dálmata em 1919 pelo poeta-soldado Gabrielle D’Annunzio, que é considerada por muitos autores como o primeiro capítulo da revolução fascista. Veja-se Carlos Caballero, “La fascinante historia D’Annunzio en Fiume”, em Revisión, Alicante, ano I, 2, vol. IV, Outubro de 1990.

4. Sobre a ala esquerdista do fascismo: Luca Leonello Rimbotti, «Il fascismo di sinistra. Da Piazza San Sepolcro al congresso di Verona», Roma, Settimo Sigillo, 1989. Ver também: Giuseppe Parlato, “La Sinistra fascista. Storia de un progetto mancato”, Bolinia, Il Mulino, 2000.

5. Cit. Arrigo Petacco, «Il comunista in camicia nera. Nicola Bombacci tra Lenin e Mussolini», Milão, Mondadori Editori, 1996, p. 115.

6. «Mussolini il Duce. II. Lo Stato totalitario 1936-1940», Turim, Einaudi, 1981 (2a, 1996), p. 331 n.

7. A correspondência de Bombacci para Mussolini (mas não a do Duce para este) está conservada em parte no Arquivo Central do Estado Italiano.

8. Nicola Bombacci, «I contadini nell’Italia di Mussolini», Roma, 1943, pp. 34 e ss.

9. Mais de 50 mil fascistas serão executados por estes grupos terroristas durante estes dois anos, e mais 50 mil na trágica Primavera-Verão de 1945. Foram especialmente visados os dirigentes fascistas que possuíssem uma certa aura de popularidade e que pudessem encarnar uma face mais populista do fascismo. O caso mais chamativo foi o do filósofo Giovanni Gentile, que deu lugar inclusivamente a protestos no seio da resistência antifascista. Existe uma ampla bibliografia sobre o assunto, embora na actualidade se tente reduzir as cifras e o impacto desta sangrenta guerra civil.

10. É curioso comprovar como em vários países da Europa, com o aproximar do final da guerra, os únicos elementos fieis à nova ordem são as chamadas alas “proletárias” dos movimentos nacional-revolucionários e que se negoceie a entrega do poder aos grupos socialistas da resistência por oposição aos comunistas e aos burgueses. Assim sucederá na Noruega onde os sectores sindicais propõe um governo de coligação à resistência social-democrata em Abril de 1945, ou em França onde após a queda do governo de Petain no Outono de 1944 Marcel Deat e Jacques Doriot pugnam por instaurar um governo socialista.

11. «La vida con mi padre», Madrid, Ediciones Cid, 1958, p. 267.

Eoin O'Duffy... his life and legacy

 

Eoin O'Duffy ... his life and legacy

Ex: http://www.irishidentity.com/

Probably one of the most controversial Irishmen of all time was born at Cargaghdoo, near Lough Egish, in the parish of Aughnamullen East, on 30th October 1892. He was Eoin O¹Duffy, later better known as general Eoin O¹Duffy, and he would become one of the most prominent figures in the history of the GAA, not just in Co. Monaghan, but throughout Ulster, and also the Leading Light¹ in the Struggle for Independence¹ of the 1919-21 period in his native Co. Monaghan.

By Seamus McCluskey.

Completing his primary, secondary and third level education, O’Duffy became an engineer and worked as a surveyor for Monaghan County Council in the Clones area. Following the formation of the Volunteers and the 1916 Rising, he became one of the movement’s most active members, and his organisational abilities were soon to become very evident during the ensuing War of Independence. By September 1918 he was already a Brigade Officer in the IRA and became the foremost organiser in the county. Jailed in 1918, he was released in 1919, and soon threw himself completely and wholeheartedly into the work of gaining independence for his country.

He had already been very active in GAA circles and he would now use that organisation as a recruiting ground for his Volunteers.
Starting with his GAA activities, Eoin O’Duffy became secretary of the Monaghan Co. Board in 1912, when he was a mere youth of twenty, and his organisational abilities here led to his then being elected Secretary of the Ulster GAA Council the following year. He would remain as Ulster Secretary right up until 1923, and would then become Treasurer from 1925 until 1934.

During all this period his GAA and Volunteer activities went hand-in-hand.
One of his most unusual exploits in 1918 was on the occasion of ‘Gaelic Sunday’, 4th August of that year. The 1918 Ulster Final on 7th July had had to be cancelled when British soldiers occupied the Cootehill venue and banned the playing of Gaelic Games. To defy the ‘ban’, all nine counties organised challenge matches for Sunday 4th August, and the GAA Central Council followed suit. No permits were applied for anywhere. It would be called ‘Gaelic Sunday’ and over 100,000 took part, leaving the authorities totally helpless.

The ‘proclaimed’ game at Cootehill on 7th July had a unique sequel. Ulster secretary O’Duffy, along with Dan Hogan of Clones, who was to have refereed the Final, and about thirty others, all cycled home from Cootehill towards Newbliss, but were followed by a party of RIC men on their heavy bicycles. O’Duffy knew they were being followed and led the unfortunate RIC men on a fifteen miles wild-goose chase over the by-roads around Newbliss. The sweltering heat and the heavy official uniforms, made matters extremely unpleasant for the pursuers, who must have lost a lot of sweat trying to push their cumbersome machines in such conditions.

The first major event of the War of Independence in the county, in which O’Duffy was involved, was the ‘Siege of Ballytrain’ RIC barracks on 13th February 1920. O’Duffy himself led the attack, in which thirty Volunteers formed the assault party, drawn from companies in Monaghan, Donagh, Clones, Wattlebridge and Corcaghan. The other companies of the county were involved in blocking roads and dismantling telephone wires. The RIC garrison eventually surrendered and O’Duffy’s pattern of attack was soon imitated in later attacks on several other RIC barracks throughout the country.

On the following 17th March (1920) the Ulster GAA Convention was held in Conlon’s Hotel in Clones and O’Duffy, now very much a ‘wanted man’ by the British Authorities, had to enter the meeting in disguise, as RIC spies were waiting outside to arrest him. However, O’Duffy had already departed when the police eventually raided the hotel. The ‘Adjourned Convention’ was held in Armagh on 17th April 1920 and O’Duffy, now even more wanted by the police, again attended, but this time without a disguise. Quickly arrested, it became obvious that O’Duffy actually wanted to be arrested on this occasion as it was his intention to organise a hunger-strike among the Monaghan Prisoners then being held in Crumlin Road jail in Belfast. This he duly did, and very successfully too, and all the Monaghan prisoners were later released.

O’Duffy realised the importance of getting arms for his Volunteers and, consequently, he organised a major raid on several Unionist houses throughout North Monaghan to obtain them. Many guns were captured in these raids but four Volunteers lost their lives that same night, while several others were wounded when stiff resistance was offered. The ‘Night of the Raids’, as it became known, took place on 31st August 1920 and was the brainchild of O’Duffy.

Because of these activities and the continuing ’Troubles’, as they were called, all GAA competitions in Ulster fell very much into arrears. The 1921 Ulster Final was not played until October 1923, as several of the Monaghan players had been arrested by ‘B Specials’ at Dromore, Co. Tyrone, when on their way to play Derry, in Derry, for the original fixture. All of them were ‘O’Duffy Men’, and O’Duffy was instrumental in obtaining the later release of all ten. The 1922 Final was not played until April 1923, and the 1923 Final on 2nd September. The 1923 Ulster Convention had been held in Clones on 17th March, when O’Duffy was replaced as secretary.

One of the great memories of that same year, however, was the Official Opening of Breifne Park in Cavan on 22nd July, the name having been suggested by Eoin O’Duffy.

Following the cessation of hostilities and the Treaty of 1921, O’Duffy rose in the ranks of the Irish Free State army, becoming chief-of-staff in 1922. Fortunately, there was very little activity in Co. Monaghan during the unfortunate Civil War that then ensued and lasted for ten months in 1922-23. Now O’Duffy could concentrate more on his GAA activities but, unfortunately, he was unavoidably absent from the 1929 Ulster Convention held in March 1929.

With the setting up of the new Irish Free State and the establishment of the Garda Siochana in 1922, O’Duffy was put in charge with the rank of Commissioner. Here he again showed remarkable ability in the establishment of our first national police force, and was Chief Marshall at the Catholic Emancipation Centenary celebrations in 1929 and again at the Eucharist Congress of 1932. However, he then incurred the disfavour of the new Taoiseach, Eamon DeValera, and was dismissed from his post on 22nd February 1933.

The Army Comrades Association was founded in 1933 and was basically a welfare organisation for former members of the Irish Free Stage army.

Political meetings of Cumann na nGaedheal, the pro-Treaty party, were frequently disrupted by IRA and the Association adopted the role of protecting these meetings from interference. Members wore a blue shirt and black beret, and became known as ‘The Blueshirts’. Eoin O’Duffy joined the Blueshirts in 1933 and was soon promoted to the post of Leader of the movement, which then became known as the ‘National Guard’. A proposed ‘March on Dublin’, however, was banned by the Government of the day, and the name was duly changed again, this time to ‘Young Ireland Association’. Rallies were held throughout Ireland, one of the largest taking place in Monaghan town on 20th August 1933.

O’Duffy’s recruiting abilities continued and the ranks of the Blueshirts duly swelled. He held a parade of over two hundred in Ballybay in November 1933 and another two hundred in Newbliss three months later. His greatest show-of-strength, however, was in Monaghan on 18th February 1934. O’Duffy had come to Monaghan as President of Fine Gael on 19th November 1933, and the aforementioned rallies and parades then followed. O’Duffy’s unquestionable popularity in the county since his Sinn Fein days, and the fact that he was a native of the county, probably accounted for the remarkable rise of the Blueshirts throughout the county.

Despite his absence from Ulster Convention in February 1934, O’Duffy was still the central figure. He had been the most tireless worker for the GAA in Ulster for the previous twenty-two years, first as secretary, and later as Ulster Delegate on the Central Council, where he proved himself a fearless fighter for the Ulster cause, particularly since the National Games were so vehemently opposed by a majority in the northern province. However, when he became embroiled in party politics, and with his involvement as leader of the Blueshirts, this created a position where many of his former associates now became his enemies. GAA rules also make it quite clear that involvement in controversial politics would preclude him from membership. By 1933 it was generally accepted that O’Duffy had resigned, but by the time of the 1934 Convention, this resignation had still not yet been officially received. No wonder there was a record attendance, and there was a tense atmosphere throughout the entire proceedings.

A letter from O’Duffy proved somewhat ambiguous and did not clearly indicate that he was withdrawing from the post of Treasurer, so his name had to be allowed to go forward. Even Co. Monaghan had nominated an opponent to O’Duffy in the person of Michael Markey, while Gerry Arthurs of Armagh also allowed his name to go forward. Arthurs proved a decisive victor in the ensuing vote at this unique Convention, which heralded the end of O’Duffy’s official association with the GAA, and it was held in Dungannon on 28th February 1934.

In 1936 Eoin O’Duffy recruited and formed an ‘Irish Brigade’ to go to the assistance of General Franco in the Spanish Civil War. 700 strong, they contributed to the success of the Catholic leader of Spain and were even blessed by Irish bishops prior to their departure for what was a most unusual expedition, and which has been vividly described by O’Duffy’s himself in his ‘Crusade in Spain’.

Eoin O’Duffy was later elected President of the NACA, the body controlling Irish athletics, and held this post until his death on 30th November 1944. On the 2nd December 1944, Eoin O’Duffy was given a full military funeral and was then laid to rest in Glasnevin Cemetery, Dublin, alongside his friend and ally, Michael Collins.

Taken from Monaghan's Match
December 2004

 

  

German American Bund rally in Madison Square Garden, NY, 1939

The Enigma of American Fascism in the 1930s

by Michael Kleen

Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/

In the third decade of the Twentieth Century, as the Great Depression dragged on and the unemployment rate climbed above 20 percent, the United States faced a social and political crisis. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was swept to power in the election of 1932, forcing a political realignment that would put the Democratic Party in the majority for decades. In 1933, President Roosevelt proposed a “New Deal” that he claimed would cure the nation of its economic woes. His plan had many detractors, however, and at the fringes of mainstream politics, disaffected Americans increasingly looked elsewhere for inspiration.

Catholic priest and radio-personality Charles Coughlin’s Christian Front, the German American Bund, the Black Legion, and a variety of nationalist, anti-Semitic, and/or isolationist groups opposed to President Roosevelt, “Moneyed Interests,” and Marxism attracted over a million members and supporters during that decade. Collectively, these groups have long been considered to be a particularly American expression of the same type of fascism that swept Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. The application of the term “fascism” to such a wide variety of individuals and organizations has proved troublesome, however, and the historiography on the subject is conflicted. Did European-style fascism appeal to Americans? Could an “American fascism” have kept the United States out of World War 2?

In order to answer those questions, we must first determine what American fascism was and was not, and then we have to understand why these groups and individuals failed to form any kind of broad coalition against Roosevelt, the New Deal, or liberal democracy itself.

Depending on the historian, American fascism began either as a far-ranging, populist-inspired movement and later degenerated into a number of fringe groups and fanatics, or it began as an isolated phenomenon that lost credibility during the Second World War and simply disappeared. Its adherents either consisted of a wide spectrum of Americans, or of a few thousand recently naturalized immigrants and two or three intellectuals.

“In the United States there were all kinds of fascist or parafascist organizations,” Walter Laqueur asserted in Fascism: Past, Present, Future (1996), “but they never achieved a political breakthrough.”[i] A decade earlier, historian Peter H. Amann took an opposite track. “It seems clear that there were far fewer authentically fascist movements in Depression America than was thought at the time,” he argued.[ii] Conversely, Victor C. Ferkiss, writing in the 1950s, contended that American fascism “was a basically indigenous growth,” and that a broad fascist movement “arose logically from the Populist creed.”[iii]

According to Ferkiss, American fascism was defined as a movement that appealed to farmers and small merchants who felt “crushed between big business . . . and an industrial working class,” espoused nationalism in the form of isolationism, believed that authority came from popular will and not from “liberal democratic institutions” that had been corrupted by moneyed interests, and possessed “an interpretation of history in which the causal factor is the machinations of international financiers.”[iv] According to Peter Amann, all fascism (even the American type) was characterized by an opposition to Marxism and representative government, advocacy of a “revolutionary, authoritarian, nationalist state,” the presence of a charismatic leader and a militarized mass movement, and commonly (although not universally) racist and anti-Semitic views.[v]

These two divergent portrayals, one inclusive and one exclusive, mark the ends of the spectrum in regards to defining fascism in the United States during the 1930s. The former portrays fascism as a legitimate threat to the status quo, and the latter nearly calls its existence into question because so few groups actually fit this model.

American fascism’s cultural roots raise questions as well. Where did the members of these organizations come from? Did American culture encourage or condemn their growth? The data shows a complex picture. American fascism may have been encouraged by some aspects of American culture, but was vigorously condemned by others. The diversity of American interests made a unified fascism that posed a genuine threat to the social order nearly impossible. For instance, while the main constituency of Father Charles Coughlin’s movement was Irish Catholic,[vi] and the members of the German-American Bund mostly recent immigrants,[vii] the Black Legion of the Midwest was fiercely nativist and only accepted Protestants into its ranks.[viii]

What was it about American history and culture doomed openly fascist or fascoid movements? All historians, in their answers, point to our differing conceptions of individual liberty, suspicion of authority, and the commitment to republican government. “No country with a deeply rooted liberal or democratic tradition went fascist,” Peter Amann argued.[ix] For American intellectuals, Victor Ferkiss wrote, “fascism was by definition un-American.”[x] Even the openly racialist and white supremacist South overwhelmingly rejected any comparison to Nazi Germany, and denied it’s Ku Klux Klan had anything to do with fascism.[xi] It seemed that even while incorporating fascist elements, very few Americans openly advocated fascism according to the European model.

Victor C. Ferkiss was far more liberal in his assessment of American fascism than later historians. In his essays “Ezra Pound and American Fascism” (1955) and “Populist Influences on American Fascism” (1957), he attempted to link American fascist groups of the 1930s to the Populist movement of the 1890s, and he broadened the definition of fascism to include prominent aspects of Populism in the United States.

Ezra Pound, American expatriate, poet, and supporter of Benito Mussolini, was the lynchpin of Ferkiss’ argument for an inclusive definition of American fascism. Pound’s ideas, in the widest sense, mirrored those of others in the United States who were known as fascists by their detractors. Ferkiss justified his application of the term by arguing that those individuals and groups “espouse sets of beliefs which have more in common with one another and with European fascism than they do with any other broad area of political thought.”[xii] He listed Huey Long, Gerald L. K. Smith, Father Charles E. Coughlin, and Lawrence Dennis as among those individuals, regardless of how few commonalities their ideas they may have actually shared with European fascist thought.

With this list in hand, Ferkiss held Populism directly responsible for these individual’s fascist tendencies. “American fascism had its roots in American populism,” he declared. “These populist beliefs and attitudes form the core of Pound’s philosophy, just as they provide the basis of American fascism generally.”[xiii] His definition of American fascism followed from that broad interpretation of the commonalities of American fascist thought, even though he acknowledged some fundamental differences. Ezra Pound’s “main divergence from [Lawrence] Dennis is the emphasis which, along with Father Coughlin and Huey Long, he places on the role of finance capitalism as a direct cause of war,” he explained. “For Pound, democracy is a sham.”[xiv]

Ferkiss argued that American fascists viewed the American Revolution as a revolt against the international banking system of England, and that “Mussolini’s objectives are those of Thomas Jefferson,” in his effort to free his country from the power of banks and usury.[xv] That focus on the fascist powers of Europe as defenders of money reform lent to their American supporter’s isolationism, but Ferkiss failed to take into account that approval or agreement does not directly translate into political imitation.

As for the constituency of American fascism, Ferkis argued that “the America First Committee provided the culture in which the seeds of American fascism were to grow.” The AFC was predominantly made up of Midwesterners and a few prominent businessmen, but also had chapters in large Eastern and Western cities. While the AFC was not overtly fascist, “a considerable portion of its chapters were dominated by fascists or their friends,” Ferkiss explained.[xvi] Ezra Pound was also a Midwesterner, having been born in Idaho. He later took a teaching job in Indiana, but he was let go for being “too European” and “unconventional.”[xvii] He emigrated to Europe shortly thereafter.

Written at the same time as Victor Ferkiss’ essays, Joachim Remak’s article “'Friends of the New Germany': The Bund and German-American Relations” (1957) chronicled the nearly universal American reaction against one of the few American fascist groups to consciously model itself after and receive direct inspiration from a European fascist regime: the German-American Bund. Even though the German government forbid its citizens from becoming members of the Bund, and requested that the Bund cease using National Socialist emblems in 1938, most Americans still believed the organization was a foreign entity. “The Americans on its rolls were all of them recent immigrants” from Nazi Germany, Remak explained. “German-Americans had no use for the Bund… the president of the highly conservative Steuben Society called on the [German] embassy to say that his group felt compelled to issue a public repudiation of the Bund.”[xviii]

Remak argued that the German-American Bund, rather than appealing to some broad pro-fascist sympathy in the United States, only harmed relations with National Socialist Germany by demonstrating to Americans the nature of European fascism. “Naziism, with its brutality and its suppression of basic liberties and decencies, could hold no greater appeal for the German-Americans than for the rest of the nation,” he argued.[xix] The rejection of an explicitly fascist organization by those Americans who Victor Ferkiss believed made up the core of ‘American fascism’ is instructive.

Along the same lines, Leland V. Bell, in his book, In Hitler's Shadow: the Anatomy of American Nazism (1973), argued that the real supporters of fascism in the United States were few and far between. In the 1930s, the Nazi party’s pleas for money from American contributors like Henry Ford and the Ku Klux Klan fell on deaf ears. Teutonia, one of the first pro-Nazi groups in the United States, numbered less than one hundred members in 1932, and the typical members of those groups were “young, rootless German immigrants,” and “arrogant, resolute, fanatics.”[xx] When Heinz Spanknoebel formed the Friends of the New Germany in July 1933, “a storm of public protest” greeted them. Four months later, Spanknoebel, like Ezra Pound had earlier, fled the United States.[xxi] The Friends of the New Germany failed to attract significant support from German Americans, who by that time “were accepted, respected citizens and easily assimilated into American life,” Bell explained.[xxii]

In 1936, Fritz Kuhn, a naturalized American citizen who had served in the German army during the First World War, became head of the organization. He renamed it the German-American Bund to attract more American nationals. Most of the constituency of the Bund was made up of recent German immigrants, however, despite Adolf Hitler having banned German citizens from becoming members of the organization. In contrast to Victor Ferkiss’ claim that supporters of American fascism were predominantly rural, the Bund was an urban lower-middle-class movement.[xxiii]

 

It is clear from Joachim Remak and Leland Bell’s analysis of the German-American Bund that Americans were generally suspicious of overtly fascist groups along the European model. Even the ethnic Germans who had established themselves in the Midwest as farmers and craftsmen, who generally supported isolationism before both World Wars, were not sympathetic to the anti-Democratic, outspokenly pro-Hitler Bundists.

One of the intellectual proponents of American fascism mentioned by Victor Ferkiss was Seward Collins, editor and publisher of the journal American Review. In his article “Seward Collins and the American Review: Experiment in Pro-Fascism, 1933-37” (1960), historian Albert E. Stone argued that Collins’ attempts to “define fascism and apply it to American life” not only produced nothing but controversy, but also undermined his project by alienating his supporters.

Seward Collins’ definition of fascism was unique compared to those covered thus far. According to Stone, Collins amalgamated four schools of thought—two English and two American—which he trumpeted in the American Review: Distributism, Neo-Scholasticism, Humanism, and Southern Agrarianism. Stone explained, “Where these four bodies of thought converged, Collins believed, could be found a definition of fascism which should be offered to thoughtful Americans.”[xxiv] For Seward Collins, fascism meant an end to parliamentary government, but not necessarily an end to democracy. Instead of a president, the head of state would be a monarch― “A strong man at the head of government,”[xxv] which would be coupled by nationalism undivided by rival oppositions.

Collins asserted that the essence of fascism was “the revival of monarchy, property, the guilds, the security of the family and the peasantry, and the ancient ways of European life.”[xxvi] However, that conception of fascism seemed to be a Collins’ own invention and was certainly far afield from the views of Ezra Pound or the German-American Bund. Also, Collins’ espoused anti-Semitism “bore virtually no trace of racial superiority.” He wished to exclude Jews from his fascist state only because they represented social and political rivals, as well as potential dissenters. There was no place in his mind for ideas of Nordic racial superiority, which he called “nonsense.”[xxvii] That would also distinguish him from organizations like the Black Legion and the German-American Bund.

According to Albert Stone, Collins’ views on monarchy and nationalism ultimately alienated one of his important constituencies in the United States, Southern Agrarians. “Southern Agrarians opposed in theory a strong central government,” Stone explained. They were also suspicious of nationalism, deeply isolationist, and “welcomed regional, social and racial differences as healthy manifestations of time, place and tradition.”[xxviii] During a January 1936 interview with the pro-communist magazine FIGHT, Seward Collins colorfully explicated his desire for a monarchy and a return to a medieval society, disparaged liberal education, and voiced admiration for Hitler and Mussolini.

Almost immediately after the interview was published, the American Review’s Southern Agrarian writers left in protest. The Distributists also distanced themselves. Herbert Agar, a prominent member of that bloc, stated, “I would die in order to diminish the chances of fascism in America.”[xxix] The American Review ceased publication in 1937. In the end, it seemed that the majority of Seward Collins’ contributors wanted nothing to do with his views.

 

In “Vigilante Fascism: The Black Legion as an American Hybrid” (1983) and “A 'Dog in the Nighttime' Problem: American Fascism in the 1930s” (1986), Peter H. Amann argued for a narrow definition of fascism that held closely to the European model and therefore excluded most American groups. Instead, he employed the terms “protofascist” or “fascoid” to describe American organizations that embraced certain aspects or appearances of fascism, but failed to develop into mature fascist political movements.

One such group was the Black Legion, a secret offshoot of the Midwestern Ku Klux Klan. An Ohioan named Dr. William Jacob Shepard formed the Legion during the late 1920s, but never intended the group to take on a life of its own. He was a Northerner who idolized the old South, and he “spouted, and apparently believed, the most rotund platitudes about southern chivalry.”[xxx] He was also a baptized Catholic who hated Catholics, and a doctor who did not shy away from violence.

His Black Legion donned black robes instead of white and held secret initiation rituals. “They were asked to endorse the standard nativist anti-immigrant, anti-Negro, and anti-Catholic positions,” Amann explained, and “pledge support to lynch law.”[xxxi] Initiates were often coaxed or deceived into coming to meetings, and then threatened with death if they did not join.[xxxii] The membership of the Legion was spread across Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and parts of Illinois, and the majority of members were urban and working class.[xxxiii]

The Black Legion became more violent and more revolutionary as time went on, bringing them closer to the European fascist model. Bert Effinger, their defacto leader during the 1930s, even planned “to kill one million Jews by planting in every American synagogue during Yon Kippur time-clock devices that would simultaneously release mustard gas.”[xxxiv]

Amann argued that the secretive nature of the group prevented them from becoming an effective organization. They were powerful in some ways, but their secrecy made it impossible for them to appeal to a mass audience. No one outside of their organization knew they existed—not even their enemies—so fear and intimidation became a useless tactic. They attempted to create front organizations to infiltrate established political parties but, ultimately, “by pretending to be mere Republicans, Legionnaires ended up acting as mere Republicans.”[xxxv]

Despite their failure, the Black Legion did share many characteristics with European fascist groups. According to Amann, they shared many of the same hatreds, revolutionary goals, and dictatorial tendencies. However, their initiation ceremonies, because of their ultra secrecy, never held the same weight as the mass rallies and rituals of European fascists. Also, the Legion’s nativism was patriotic in a crucial way: the American system may have been corrupt, but there was no alternative to the Constitution or the Republic. Their goal was only to purify the current system, not overthrow it. The history of the Black Legion ultimately shows, Amann argued, that “vigilante nativism and revolutionary-fascism were fundamentally incompatible.”[xxxvi] Additionally, he concluded, “by no stretch of anyone’s imagination can the Black Legion under Dr. Shepard be described as fascist. His Night Riders were to fascism what the Shriners are to Islam.”[xxxvii]

Similarly, the ultra-patriotic societies of the 1930s that evolved into the America First Committee, which Victor Ferkiss believed provided the cultural basis for American fascism, lacked the same crucial ingredients as their alleged European counterparts. “Whatever emphasis prevailed,” Amann explained, “there was never any thought of attacking the American constitutional system, the incumbent politicians, or the two major parties. Nor was there any attempt at mass mobilization.” The Ku Klux Klan, for example, never formed a political party or sought to change the political or economic system of the United States. Therefore, Amann concluded, “the overlap between American nativism and the European type of fascism is… more apparent than real.”[xxxviii]

The nature of these diverse groups also prevented them from working together to present a united front. “The nativist inheritance included… a divisive traditional anti-Catholicism that led the Black Legion to plant explosives in Father Charles Coughlin’s shrine rather than to seek him out as a potential ally,” Peter Amann pointed out.[xxxix] Additionally, genuinely fascist groups like the German-American Bund, with their “aping” of European fascist models, had their patriotic credentials routinely called into question. “It became obvious that in the United States such a nationalism could not be imported from abroad without looking both foolish and unpatriotic,” Amann argued.[xl] A genuine American fascism appealed to very few Americans in the 1930s, and every protofascist organization fell apart the more violent and overtly fascist in appearance and action it became.

In his book Hoods and Shirts: the Extreme Right in Pennsylvania (1997), Philip Jenkins tackled the problem of American fascism from a different angle. He argued that fascism was “polychromatic rather than monotone,” and embraced a spectrum of beliefs across Europe that was also reflected in the United States.[xli] If historians were not hesitant to label such diverse groups as Na Léinte Gorma in Ireland and the Croatian Ustashi (who were lead by church figures and clergymen) as fascist, he reasoned, then they should not be hesitant to label an organization like Father Coughlin’s Christian Front in the same manner.

However, the issue is complicated by the fact that fascist groups in the United States hesitated to call themselves as such. “The organizations most enthusiastic about European Nazism or fascism rarely included these provocative terms in their titles,” he explained. Most often, “Christian” and “Nationalist” were substituted instead because their appeal to American patriotism precluded foreign ideologies. In his own words, “a denial of fascism was phrased as part of a general rejection of any foreign theories.”[xlii]

Father Coughlin’s Christian Front was one of the primary organizations profiled in Hoods and Shirts. According to Jenkins, the Christian Front was founded on “traditions of Irish nationalism” and “anti-British feeling.”[xliii] Although Coughlin himself broadcast his radio messages from Michigan, the Front’s membership was heavily Irish and centered in large cities such as New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, Boston and Philadelphia. Jenkins described Father Coughlin as akin to Spanish Nationalist leader Francisco Franco, to whom Coughlin had given moral support during the Spanish Civil War.

 

Coughlin’s movement linked Jews with communism and saw the Spanish Civil War as a war between good and evil. “Sympathy for Jews was indistinguishable from providing aid and comfort for Communist subversion,” Jenkins explained. The Christian Front allied itself with an assortment of groups, including the German-American Bund, in support of attacks on Jewish synagogues and businesses.[xliv] These activities, along with some outspoken statements in favor of Adolf Hitler, led to the arrest of dozens of movement members. Not all Irish Catholics supported those activities. After one particularly violent incident, an Irish Catholic magistrate “accused the Coughlinites of attempting to spread ‘European’ conditions in Philadelphia.”[xlv] Other Catholics regularly denounced Coughlin in newspapers and journals.[xlvi]

The Christian Front did welcome members from other backgrounds, as evidenced by its willingness to work together with Bund members as well as Italian-Americans. “In New York City over half of all Catholic clergy serving predominantly Italian parishes demonstrated sympathy for the Fascist cause and thus cooperated with the emerging Front,” Jenkins explained.[xlvii] African-American anti-Semites, especially those involved with Black Muslim sects, also attended gatherings and supported Front anti-Jewish activities. Some African Americans in large cities saw Jews as “exploitative landlords and grasping merchants,”[xlviii] which echoed the crusade against “moneyed interests” that was so central to Victor Ferkiss’ definition of American fascism.

As the Second World War broke out in Europe, the Christian Front faced increasing public opposition, as well as persecution by the FBI. Jenkins concluded that both its supporters and its enemies exaggerated the impact of the movement, but it represented one of the only fascoid groups in the United States during the 1930s to have been genuinely domestic in origin. “Of all the activist groups,” he argued, “this had perhaps the greatest potential to become a genuine mass movement around which others could coalesce.”[xlix] Even still, like every other American group on the far right, the political movement it sought to inspire fizzled out when the United States entered the war.

The historical record is very clear. The range of individuals and organizations surveyed by Victor Ferkiss, Peter Amann, and Philip Jenkins all show a similar arch: a steady rise in popularity followed by radicalization, which then ran up against resistance when the group’s activities were exposed. The end result was the rapid dissolution of the organization or the exile of the individual. By 1941, no one who openly came out as being supportive of fascism survived very long in the public eye.

Although a certain cultural undercurrent was needed in order to support the existence of these groups, that cultural undercurrent was undermined by the American democratic tradition they sought to oppose. It seems that, at least in the atmosphere of 1930s America, one could not be both a fascist in any meaningful sense of the word and also be supported by the majority of Americans who saw fascism as a threat to their liberal democratic institutions. The experiences of groups such as the German-American Bund, the Black Legion, Father Coughlin’s Christian Front, and individuals like Seward Collins and Ezra Pound seem to confirm that fascism was by definition a fundamentally “European” phenomenon.

---

[i] Walter Laqueur, Fascism: Past, Present, Future (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 17.

[ii] Peter H. Amann, “A 'Dog in the Nighttime' Problem: American Fascism in the 1930s,” The History Teacher 19 (August 1986): 574.

[iii] Victor C. Ferkiss, “Populist Influences on American Fascism,” The Western Political Quarterly 10 (June 1957): 350, 352.

[iv] Ibid., 350-351.

[v] Amann, 560.

[vi] Ibid., 574.

[vii] Leland V. Bell, In Hitler's Shadow: the Anatomy of American Nazism (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1973), 21.

[viii] Peter H. Amann, “Vigilante Fascism: The Black Legion as an American Hybrid,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 25 (July 1983): 496.

[ix] Amann, “A ‘Dog in the Nighttime Problem”: 559.

[x] Ferkiss, “Populist Influences on American Fascism”: 350.

[xi] Johnpeter Horst Grill and Robert L. Jenkins, “The Nazis and the American South in the 1930s: A Mirror Image?,” The Journal of Southern History 58 (November 1992): 688.

[xii] Ferkiss, “Ezra Pound and American Fascism”: 173-4.

[xiii] Ibid., 174.

[xiv] Ibid., 186.

[xv] Ibid., 190.

[xvi] Ferkiss, “Populist Influences on American Fascism”: 367-8.

[xvii] Ferkiss, “Ezra Pound and American Fascism”: 175.

[xviii] Joachim Remak, “'Friends of the New Germany': The Bund and German-American Relations,” The Journal of Modern History 29 (March 1957): 40.

[xix] Ibid., 41.

[xx] Leland V. Bell, In Hitler's Shadow: the Anatomy of American Nazism (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1973), 7.

[xxi] Ibid., 13.

[xxii] Ibid., 15-16.

[xxiii] Ibid., 21.

[xxiv] Albert E. Stone, Jr., “Seward Collins and the American Review: Experiment in Pro-Fascism, 1933-37,” American Quarterly 12 (Spring 1960): 6.

[xxv] Ibid., 7.

[xxvi] Ibid., 9.

[xxvii] Ibid., 12.

[xxviii] Ibid., 13.

[xxix] Ibid., 17.

[xxx] Peter H. Amann, “Vigilante Fascism”: 494.

[xxxi] Ibid., 496.

[xxxii] Ibid., 498.

[xxxiii] Ibid., 509.

[xxxiv] Ibid., 512.

[xxxv] Ibid., 515.

[xxxvi] Ibid., 524.

[xxxvii] Ibid., 501.

[xxxviii] Peter H. Amann, “A 'Dog in the Nighttime' Problem”: 562.

[xxxix] Ibid., 567.

[xl] Ibid., 569.

[xli] Philip Jenkins, Hoods and Shirts: the Extreme Right in Pennsylvania, 1925-1950 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 27.

[xlii] Ibid., 25-26.

[xliii] Ibid., 166.

[xliv] Ibid., 173.

[xlv] Ibid., 174.

[xlvi] Ibid., 187-8.

[xlvii] Ibid., 183.

[xlviii] Ibid., 185.

[xlix] Ibid., 191.

 

Michael Kleen

Michael Kleen is the Editor-in-Chief of Untimely Meditations, publisher of Black Oak Presents, and proprietor of Black Oak Media. He holds a master’s degree in American history and is the author of The Britney Spears Culture, a collection of columns regarding issues in contemporary American politics and culture. His columns have appeared in various publications and websites, including the Rock River Times, Daily Eastern News, World Net Daily, and Strike-the-Root.

G. Adinolfi: "Het fascisme heeft de antwoorden op de huidige problemen"

Gabriele Adinolfi: "Het fascisme heeft de antwoorden op de huidige problemen"

Gabriele Adinolfi is een van de meest prominente non-conformistische intellectuelen van Italië. Deze sterk door Julius Evola beïnvloede nationaal-revolutionaire militant heeft twintig jaar in gedwongen Franse ballingschap geleefd. Van zijn hand zijn twee opmerkelijke recente werken: Nos belles années de plomb (Onze mooie loden jaren) uit 2004 en Pensées Corsaires. Abécédaire de lutte et de victoire (Kapersgedachten. Het ABC van strijd en van overwinning) uit 2008. Hij staat méér dan ooit in het brandpunt van de strijd in Italië en heeft toegestemd om enkele vragen van ons te beantwoorden.

Rivarol: Allereerst, meneer Adinolfi, kunt u – die een zeer ervaren militant bent en talloze offers voor het fascistische ideaal hebt gebracht – ons vertellen hoe u de toekomst van Italië en die van zijn jeugd ziet?
Gabriele Adinolfi: Heel negatief. Italië is een vergrijzend land met het laagste geboortecijfer van de wereld; het heeft bijna geen industrie meer, een kleine landbouwsector en een zeer beperkte soevereiniteit. De enige elementen die Italië tegenwoordig van de ondergang redden, zijn de nationale energiemaatschappijen (in het bijzonder ENI), de wapenindustrie, de kleine ondernemingen en wat overblijft van het spaargeld van de families.
In de huidige globaliseringscontext geeft dat ons amper enkele jaren om te overleven als de feiten niet radicaal veranderen.

R: Welke rol kan het fascisme in de toekomst van Italië spelen?
GA: Het is een paradox. Het fascisme biedt nog steeds alle antwoorden op de huidige problemen. Men kan zeggen dat het het enige denk- en organisatiesysteem is dat de oplossingen voor de grote uitdagingen van onze tijd bezit. Maar het slaagt er nog steeds niet in om zich in de huidige omstandigheden te plaatsen. De Italianen die het echte fascisme in het dagelijkse leven gekend hebben, blijven het werk van Mussolini waarderen en er zelfs van houden: zij hebben van al zijn sociale, economische, ethische en culturele weldaden genoten. Dat is heel anders voor degenen die van het fascisme slechts de "zwarte legende" hebben gekend en die het, zoals de Fransen, nooit hebben meegemaakt (Vichy kwam voort uit even onverwachte als ongunstige omstandigheden en belichaamde in elk geval geen fascistisch project).
Die nostalgie groeit met de dag door de eenvoudige vergelijking van het Italië van Mussolini met eerst het antifascistische en daarna het post-fascistische Italië. Niettemin ontbreken alle objectieve voorwaarden voor de vestiging van een fascistisch geïnspireerde natiestaat, waardoor het fascisme zich in de huidige toestand niet zal kunnen aanbieden. Toch is het mogelijk om aan het fascisme een hele reeks oplossingen te ontlenen voor de problemen die ons overspoelen. Laten we zeggen dat, als een bepaald aantal voorwaarden is vervuld, we kunnen hopen op een gemengde formule in de Italiaanse toekomst: een soort peronisme op zijn Italiaans.

R: Waaruit bestaat uw activiteit vandaag?
GA: Ik analyseer, becommentarieer, stel voor, schrijf. Ik leid een internetkrant, geef lezingen, houd debatten met mensen van alle gezindten, neem met Soccorso Sociale (Sociale Hulp) deel aan concrete acties voor de rechten van de zwaksten. Ik coördineer een studiecentrum, Polaris, dat een driemaandelijks tijdschrift uitgeeft, dat al een reeks overzichtswerken heeft voortgebracht en dat openbare bijeenkomsten inricht met vertegenwoordigers van de cultuur en de lokale of internationale instellingen. Ik weiger ook nooit om in een meer militant kader deel te nemen aan de ethische vorming en de intellectuele vorming. Ik volg met bijzonder veel aandacht en betrokkenheid het Casa Pound. Ik verzorg ook internationale betrekkingen, steeds in de geest van de heropleving en de "culturele revolutie" alsook met zeer veel aandacht voor het ontkrachten van gemeenplaatsen uit het antifascistische discours, dat met zijn nefaste effect de geschiedschrijving en de ideologie van het post-fascistische tijdperk beïnvloedt.

R: Hoe beoordeelt u de rol van het Vaticaan en, in bredere zin, die van de Kerk in het Italiaanse leven?
GA: Al 17 eeuwen lang, afgezien van een korte onderbreking in Avignon, moet Italië samenleven met de Kerk, wat eerst de burgeroorlogen tussen Welfen en Ghibellijnen heeft voortgebracht, daarna lange tijd de eenwording van Italië heeft verhinderd en na 1945 heeft bijgedragen aan de internationalisering van de Italiaanse politiek. Vandaag heeft de katholieke godsdienst veel minder invloed op het dagelijkse leven, maar hij behoudt een zekere algemene macht zoals blijkt uit de absolute meerderheid die in het parlement de euthanasiewet heeft weggestemd. De conciliaire Kerk is vorig jaar ook een kruistocht begonnen tegen het restrictieve immigratiebeleid van de regering-Berlusconi.
Het Vaticaan steunt de immigratie om ideologische, maar ook om economische redenen. "Migrantes", een kerkelijke organisatie van "Caritas", stelt officieel dat de "vermenging van culturen een bron van rijkdom is" en besteedt de helft van het Italiaanse(!) belastinggeld dat voor het Vaticaan bestemd is aan immigratie. De krachtmeting tussen het Vaticaan en de Italiaanse regering, die in 2010 naar schatting 400.000 immigranten zou hebben tegengehouden, is uitgedraaid op een compromis waarbij Italië wordt verplicht om – begin 2011 – bijna 100 000 nieuwe immigranten binnen te laten. Het Vaticaan lijkt te hebben gewonnen, wat de ontscheping van vreemdelingen alleen nog zal vergemakkelijken.

R: Heb je sterk het gevoel dat de Italiaanse fascistische dynamiek een marginaal verschijnsel in Europa is?
GA: Eerder dat het een zeer typisch en zeer Italiaans verschijnsel is. Wat de sociologische achtergronden van de beweging betreft en de ideologische impulsen die haar kenmerken, denk ik dat het West-Europa – en niet Europa – is dat zo sterk afwijkt van de Italiaanse dynamiek. De redenen zijn veelvuldig, maar de gebreken van de westerse nationalisten zijn niet onbelangrijk. Het moet worden gezegd dat de westerse nationalisten – politiek gemarginaliseerd als gevolg van ongelijke krachtverhoudingen – ook dikwijls de belichaming van de marginalisering zijn geweest door al de complexen van marginalen en mislukkelingen aan te nemen. Ze hebben hun politieke onmacht weggemoffeld achter het rookgordijn van de holle taal en de meest stompzinnige clichés. Dat alles verwijdert hen van de werkelijkheid en maakt van hen dikwijls de levende bevestiging van de antifascistische karikatuur van het “zwarte schaap”. Een zwart schaap [bête noire] dat voor de rest dikwijls méér dom [bête] dan zwart [noire] is... [woordspeling]

R: Wat is volgens u de belangrijkste bedreiging voor de Europese wereld?
GA: De Europese wereld zélf. De ouderdom van Europa, zijn geestelijke, psychologische en biologische doodsstrijd, zijn afnemende geboortecijfer gekoppeld aan de schuldcomplexen en aan de verafgoding van het burgerlijke concept van "verworven rechten", de afwezigheid van machtswil en veroveringszin – dat zijn de elementen die ons veroordelen. Vervolgens zijn er de verloochening van onze economische productie en onze gewapende landsverdediging, de afwijzing van de oorlogsgeest die ons veroordelen. Die effecten zijn ons gedeeltelijk opgedrongen door de overwinnaars van Europa, d.w.z. de multinationale reus die zijn gezag heeft gevestigd op een bondgenootschap tussen de financiële wereld en de georganiseerde misdaad (en die vandaag nog steeds New York als hoofdstad heeft en Washington als bijhuis). De rest – al de rest – zijn slechts de gevolgen daarvan. De massa-immigratie en het multiculturalisme komen ervandaan en worden er dikwijls door gevoed.
Wat men er ook van denke, we hoeven geen enkele oplossing te verwachten als we niet onze levensenergie terugvinden en afstand nemen van de overwinnaar van Europa. Degenen die denken dat onze problemen in de omgekeerde zin kunnen worden opgelost, d.w.z. van beneden naar boven, dwalen. Het idee om de immigratie tegen te gaan via een enge "religieuze oorlog" (die wordt gesteund door CNN, maar die noch het Vaticaan noch de meeste moslims bereid zijn te voeren) is een ware manipulatie.
Proberen om een "verdediging van het Westen" op de been te brengen, een Westen dat wel héél ruim wordt opgevat – gaande van Londen tot New York en van Washington tot Tel Aviv – is gewoonweg belachelijk.
Het volstaat te bekijken wie de islamitische drugsmaffiastaten in Europa (Bosnië en Kosovo) steunen: de VS en Israël; Al Qaeda hebben uitgevonden: de VS; en Hamas hebben gesteund om de Palestijnse eenheid te ondermijnen: Israël. Dan begrijpt men dat zij die hopen op een Amerikaanse (= WASP) en "joods-christelijke" (volgens een neologisme dat in zwang is) “herovering” op een verkeerd spoor zitten. Of beter nog: het helemaal verkeerd voorhebben. Overigens zitten ze op een dood spoor.

R: De marxisten hebben het fascisme dikwijls verweten zich niet tegen het kapitalisme te verzetten. Wat denkt u van een dergelijke bewering?
GA: Het is pure onwetendheid en/of propaganda. Het volstaat erop te wijzen dat het kapitalisme het fascisme de oorlog heeft verklaard en er een wereldoorlog tegen heeft gevoerd, terwijl het altijd wel gemene zaak heeft gemaakt met elke marxistisch geïnspireerde regering. Dat is de moeite van een debat niet waard.

R: Het experiment van Mussolini heeft geleid tot de totale verstaatsing van Italië (naar Jacobijns model). Wat denkt u daarvan? Welke rol zou u geven aan de staat?
GA: We moeten altijd de werkelijkheid van de propaganda onderscheiden. De Italiaanse staat was autoritair en overweldigend vóór Mussolini. De Duce heeft hem een totalitaire impuls gegeven, maar tegelijkertijd het initiatief en de vrijheid van de individuen, de families en het maatschappelijke middenveld bevordert. Ik zie geen andere formules om enerzijds een lotsgemeenschap aaneen te smeden en te versterken; en anderzijds alle vrijheid om te leven te waarborgen. Wat vandaag gebeurt, is het omgekeerde. De instellingen vernietigen de families en het maatschappelijke middenveld, leggen alles op: op cultureel, ideologisch, financieel, economisch, moreel en zelfs gastronomisch vlak. We leven in een beschaving die alles verbiedt, met rokersgetto's en een schuldgevoel voor vleeseters, alcoholdrinkers en rokkenjagers. Het is het Grote Chicago van de gangsters. Ik kan geen enkele rol aan de staat toekennen om de redenen die ik in het begin heb aangehaald: hij heeft geen enkel concreet gezag meer, noch op wetgevend, noch op economisch, noch – en het minst van al – op militair vlak.
Er is vóór alles een ethische, spirituele en biologische wedergeboorte nodig én voor een lange periode; terwijl we de nieuwe elites trachten te vormen, zal het nodig zijn om te strijden voor de vormen van autonomie die de verdere uitverkoop van de staat zullen kunnen verzachten. Zonder ooit te vergeten dat het uiteindelijke doel de wederopbouw van de staat is.

R: Hoe ziet u het Franse politieke en intellectuele leven van vandaag?
GA: Frankrijk is altijd een "poolster" op intellectueel vlak geweest. Toch heb ik de indruk dat het vandaag in een impasse zit. Het moet ook worden gezegd dat Frankrijk in tegenstelling tot Italië, dat al 66 jaar een kolonie is, decennialang een rol in de wereld heeft gespeeld. De snelle geopolitieke opgave van Frankrijk in Afrika; de geleidelijke, maar versnelde opgave van zijn beschaving, zelfs in eigen land – hoewel gecompenseerd met beursbelangen en aandelen in de meest duistere handels van Latijns-Amerika, iets waarvan Frankrijk voordien nooit had geprofiteerd – dat alles heeft de Fransen ineens van elk optimisme beroofd in het eerste decennium van deze eeuw. Al was het maar op economisch vlak.
Uit de cijfers blijkt dat, hoewel ze hogere lonen hebben, de Fransen veel meer hebben betaald dan wij, Italianen, voor de wereldwijde en door de financiële wereld ontketende economische crisis.
Anderzijds gaat de Franse cultuur erop achteruit, zelfs op de scholen in Frankrijk, waar de taal is verworden tot een vervangingsmiddel voor elke idioot en een zeldzaam en kostbaar goed is bij de min-45-jarigen. Buiten enkele Frans-kosmopolitische miljonairs heeft niemand redenen om enthousiast te zijn over de toestand waarin Frankrijk nu verkeert. En bij gebrek aan een cultuur en een filosofie – vakkundig ontmanteld door professoren met linkse psychopathieën – is het zelfs moeilijk om in de wereld van de kunst een uitweg voor de wanhoop te vinden. Noch vrolijk noch tragisch voelen de Fransen zich opgesloten in hun ellende. Een beetje zoals de Amerikanen die ze de laatste kwarteeuw zijn beginnen na te bootsen. En zoals de Amerikaanse burgers ondergaan, niet delen in de veroveringen van de oligarchieën die hen regeren, zo doen de Franse hetzelfde ten opzichte van hun heersers, die in de abstracties van een andere werkelijkheid leven. Om onszelf een toekomst te geven moeten we voorkomen dat dit proces van "zelfverlies" zich over heel Europa verspreidt. Daarom moeten we weten én willen. Want het is tegen de wil en de kennis dat de helse machine die de beschaving aan het vermorzelen is al haar middelen inzet. De uitdaging is groot, maar de wil kan des te groter zijn. En als de wil zich voedt met kennis is niets definitief gedaan. Niets.

Vraaggesprek afgenomen door Yann KERMADEC voor "Rivarol”.

Lees ook: Casapound, "de fascisten van het derde millennium" (Rivarol)

Una juventud a la intemperie= Ramira Ledesma Ramos y las juventudes

Una juventud a la intemperie: Ramira Ledesma Ramos y las juventudes

Ex: http://antecedentes.wordpress.com/

[Artículo del historiador Erik Norling publicado en el número 2 de la revista Tyr, en 2003]

Son tiempos estos los que corren donde el heroísmo y la entrega, sacrificando para ello su vida si fuera preciso, es considerado un acto de idealismo estúpido; época la nuestra en que la Juventud, en mayúscula, ha dejado de tener sentido para convertirse en una mera comparsa de la sociedad de consumo. Parece que esta edad es más una técnica de mercado. El desánimo cunde entre las filas de aquellos que aún ven, nadie cree que exista el menor resquicio por donde destruir esta desidia colectiva. Muchos se resguardan en la nostalgia y en los recuerdos de años pasados, incluso los más jóvenes que no lo vivimos nos aislamos y preferimos las glorias del pasado a la dura lucha del día a día por rescatarlo. Es más fácil.

Sin embargo no debemos olvidar que esta situación anímica no es nueva. Las mismas quejas e idéntica desolación se podía percibir en la juventud que después encarnaría la mayor revolución de la Humanidad. La generación que debió acometer la difícil tarea de enarbolar la bandera del socialismo y el nacionalismo también salían de una etapa gris y superflua, donde nada parecía tener valor. Los años de la década de los 20 y 30 no eran muy distintos, en cuanto al ánimo de una generación, que a lo que nos encontramos hoy en día, a inicios del segundo milenio. También se quejaban de la imposibilidad de destruir el Sistema, de la omnipresencia de los lobbies mediáticos, de la presión policial, del desconcierto por el derrumbe de las ideologías (derechas, izquierdas), por el imperio de la pornografía, delincuencia y drogas. Nada parecía tener sentido.

Pero, sin que se pueda acertar describirlo, esta generación reaccionó, como siempre han hecho los pueblos europeos, a diferencia de otros pueblos, cuando llegan al límite. Esta fue la Generación del fascismo. Su lección no debe ser, habernos dado imágenes para el recuerdo, no debemos buscar en ellos héroes que virilmente visten una camisa militante, sino precisamente el haber demostrado que en unos momentos de absoluta postración existe la esperanza. El ciclo en esta ocasión podrá ser más o menos largo, pero no tardará en repetirse.

Misión de la Juventud

Nuevamente las Juventudes, con el mismo sentido que la utilizara el siempre recordado Ramiro Ledesma, deben reconocerse y hallar el sentido de su época. En su Discurso a las juventudes de España, uno de los textos políticos de mayor importancia escritos en España y Europa, el fundador de las J.O.N.-S. nos da las claves para iniciar esta senda, tortuosa y sacrificada. (1) Se trata de un ensayo publicado en 1935, cuando en Europa los fascismos se establecían y en España la II República caminaba hacia el fracaso que desembocaría en la tragedia de la contienda civil. (2) Ya anteriormente Ramiro había analizado en detalle el papel de las juventudes en la futura revolución nacionalsindicalista que propugnaba desde las páginas de su semanario “La Conquista del Estado” y el boletín de formación “JONS” pero será en esta obra cuando elabore un cuerpo doctrinal cuya actualidad, ya transcurridos siete décadas desde entonces, sorprende a los lectores que se acercan a este texto.

Convencido “firmemente que el mundo entero, y de modo singular Europa, atraviesa hoy una época de amplias y grandes transformaciones” Ramiro comienza señalando el objetivo de este trabajo y quiere “plantear a nuestras juventudes la necesidad de que conviertan asimismo la revolución en revolución nacional, liberadora del pueblo y de la Patria, [...] Que ello sea así, depende sólo de que las juventudes encuentren su camino, estén a la altura de él y lo recortan militarmente.” Para ello es imprescindible unificar los dos ideales que constituyen la base de cualquier revolución, “nacionalismo social y socialismo nacionalista”:

 

“He aquí esas dos palancas: una, la idea nacional, la Patria como empresa histórica y como garantía de existencia histórica de todos los españoles; otra, la idea social, la economía socialista, como garantía del pan y del bienestar económico de todo el pueblo.”

El Discurso se encuentra estructurado en tres partes, aparte de la introducción y el final cuya importancia es decisiva igualmente. En la primera, el Discurso propiamente dicho, ubica adecuadamente el problema. Señala con el dedo acusador los problemas ante los cuales se enfrentan los jóvenes de ese momento, muy parecidos a los que hoy tenemos, que se resumen en una “gran pirámide egipcia de fracasos” y donde “Ante ese panorama que hay a la vista, difícilmente encontrarán las juventudes un clavo donde asirse.” La reacción que exige Ramiro es la milicia. No en el sentido de glorificar el ejército o solicitar el amparo, como se hiciera en tantas ocasiones antes, a los generales para que dieran un golpe de Estado. No, todo lo contrario pues propone a la Juventud la formación de un espíritu revolucionario y militante, “Las Juventudes de España se encuentran ahora ante este exigentísimo dilema: o militarizarse o perecer”, en el cuál se forme un ejército popular, compuesto por duros combatientes, las Juventudes, que sean capaces de lograr “la realización victoriosa de la revolución nacional”.

 

Una moral de combate, pero no la católica, advierte Ramiro y añade durísimas palabras que han sido en parte responsables del ostracismo de los jonsistas en el franquismo, “la confusión tradicional en torno a esto, explica gran parte de nuestra ruina”. Pletóricos de esta moral militante las Juventudes se lanzarán a la “nacionalización de las grandes masas españolas” y “de las primeras cosas por que hay que luchar es la de desarticular el orden económico vigente”, una idea que chocaba frontalmente con los que después asumirían las riendas de mandos del país durante los cuatro décadas de régimen supuestamente nacionalsindicalista.

Comienza la segunda parte del ensayo Ramiro con un análisis de su concepto de “Juventudes”, que aparece como elemento decisivo en la conformación del Mundo en las llamadas “épocas revolucionarias” como la que se vive, mientras que en las “épocas conservadoras” su papel es apenas percibido. Cuando se produce esta situación las Juventudes se transforman en “sujeto primordial de la historia” pues sólo los jóvenes son capaces de atreverse a entrar “en línea de combate”. No las ubica como un elemento nacional sino como una gran hermandad de lucha que sobrepasa las fronteras para unificar Europa.

Europa revolucionaria

 

Si hay una característica especial que se puede destacar en el pensamiento de Ramiro Ledesma es, precisamente, su carácter moderno y europeísta, superando los estrechos límites del nacionalismo españolista. Ciertamente reclama los “valores hispánicos” pero únicamente para retornar a Europa, la que abandonamos camino de nuestra decadencia interpreta, para recuperar nuestra gloria y papel como pueblo revolucionario.

Señala que la importancia de las Juventudes no es algo español, sino que forma parte de “la etapa final de las realizaciones revolucionarias” que encabezan el fascismo, el comunismo y el nacionalsocialismo. Lleva a cabo un profundo análisis de la crisis político-social que sufre el continente, que atribuye al cansancio de la burguesía como clase rectora que debe dejar paso a las Juventudes, para dedicar un extenso comentario a cada una de las revoluciones nacionales del momento. No puede sustraerse, como otros tantos nacional-revolucionarios de la época, de la atracción que ejerció la Rusia de Stalin, pero le recrimina haberse dejado llevar por las aspiraciones internacionalistas, abandonando el carácter nacional de la misma. Ello habría provocado que el comunismo sea ya una doctrina fallida.

Distinta visión tiene del fascismo italiano. Mussolini es un “caudillo moderno” con “mística revolucionaria”. Critica a los que creen que el fascismo es una defensa de los viejos intereses de la derecha, tal y como algunos fascistizados españoles creían, “esa interpretación del fascismo es absolutamente errónea”, pues ante todo “consistía en la ascensión de los trabajadores, en su elevación a columna fundamental del Estado nuevo.”

 

En cambio Ramiro, que se niega a ver el nacionalsocialismo como un plagio del fascismo italiano exigiendo “despojarlo de las calificaciones fascistas” para definirlo mejor como un “racismo socialista”. Reconoce que la revolución nacionalsocialista es admirable, pero le recrimina que únicamente esté dirigida a los alemanes y advierte del peligro de derechización de Hitler, pues cuando Ramiro escribe se están produciendo las jornadas de la “Noche de los Cuchillos Largos”, cuando fue eliminada la ala izquierdista del Partido (3). Los jonsistas sintieron simpatía por los sectores más revolucionarios del nacionalsocialismo y su eliminación, provocó no pocas dudas a Ramiro:

“¿Hasta que punto se realizará la revolución nacional alemana y qué destino le espera? Las jornadas de castigo de junio de 1934 demostraron su enorme capacidad patética y dramática. En ellas murió Strasser, el nacional-socialista más identificado con los intereses verdaderos de las grandes masas populares, y en ellas hizo su aparición por primera vez ante las juventudes el espectro de la desilusión y el desaliento.”

Epílogo

 

Durísimas palabras las que nos ofrendó Ramiro Ledesma, y proféticas. Desgraciadamente los acontecimientos posteriores, en especial la escasa influencia del jonsismo en la España del general Franco, supuso el olvido y el ostracismo de su pensamiento. Pocos fueron los jonsistas que se atrevieron a reivindicar las ideas de un hombre que exigía una revolución social y nacional frente a los que únicamente se quedaban con lo segundo, y para quienes lo primero era sospechoso de subversivo. Ahora, tras el paso de los años, Ramiro sigue vivo, sus propuestas son tan válidas como entonces, y nuevamente puede servir de luz que ilumina en las tinieblas, tal y como hiciera entonces.

No podemos, para acabar este breve repaso de uno de los textos más importantes de doctrina nacional-revolucionaria, no recordar las palabras del final del Discurso, en las que Ramiro invoca a las Juventudes a iniciar el camino que ha marcado. Y su Generación así lo hizo, él mismo caería acribillado por las del enemigo, enfrentándose a los enemigos de Europa, ¿pero seremos los jóvenes del siglo XXI capaces? o acaso la triste profecía se cumplirá:

“Este momento solemne de España en que se ventilarán sus destinos quizá para más de cien años, coincide con la época y el momento de vuestra vida en que sois jóvenes, vigorosos y temibles.

¿Podrá ocurrir que la Patria y el pueblo queden desamparados, y que no ocupen sus puestos los liberadores, los patriotas, los revolucionarios?

¿Podrá ocurrir que dentro de cuarenta o cincuenta años, estos españoles, que hoy son jóvenes y entonces serán ya ancianos, contemplen a distancia, con angustia y tristeza, cómo fue desaprovechada, cómo resultó fallida la gran coyuntura de este momento, y por ello por su cobardía, por su deserción, por su debilidad?”

En esta encrucijada nos encontramos hoy nuevamente, ¿seremos cobardes y desertores?, o ¿responderemos a la llamada de la misión histórica que nos ha correspondido? De esta Juventud depende, no sólo cómo seremos rememorados en el futuro, sino el destino mismo de Europa.

Notas:

(1) La primera edición aparece en 1935, Madrid, Ediciones La Conquista del Estado. Durante el primer franquismo, con un prólogo/epílogo de su camarada Santiago Montero Díaz, se reedita en varias ocasiones entre 1938 y 1942. La edición más fácil de localizar hoy en día es la de la familia de Ramiro Ledesma, Madrid, 1981, aunque las ediciones de la posguerra son igualmente habituales en las librerías anticuarias.

(2) N.d.R.: Aconsejamos a los lectores que deseen iniciarse en la vida y obra de Ramiro Ledesma el trabajo de Erik Norling “Las JONS revolucionarias”, Barcelona, Ediciones Nueva República, 2002.

(3) El verano de 1934 se depuró a un gran número de dirigentes y cuadros del partido que se oponían a las consignas de colaboración con las derechas económicas que propugnaba el equipo de Hitler. En su mayoría se trataban de aquellos que manifestaban una posición más revolucionaria y anticapitalista. La “Noche de los Cuchillos Largos” fue el sobrenombre que la propaganda antinazi aplicó a la noche en que la mayoría fueron detenidos súbitamente y muchos ejecutados por haber conspirado.

Niccolo Giani e la Mistica della rivoluzione fascista

Niccolò Giani e la Mistica della rivoluzione fascista

Autore: Andrea Strummiello

Ex: http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

 

Il suo nome ai più non dirà molto. Ma Niccolò Giani fu uno dei più importanti, radicali e oltranzisti esponenti del Fascismo rivoluzionario. Fu, infatti, tra i fondatori, nonché uno dei massimi rappresentanti, della Scuola di Mistica Fascista (SMF). Vissuto il suo ideale fino all’ultimo respiro, morì combattendo sul fronte greco nel 1941, ricevendo, per l’esempio offerto, la medaglia d’oro al valore. Tutto questo, mentre molti “fascisti” – le virgolette sono d’obbligo – s’imboscavano in patria, nascondendosi dietro la retorica di vuoti slogan e sterili parole d’ordine. Quegli stessi che, dopo il 1945, seppero bene in che direzione riciclarsi.

Oggi, con il titolo Mistica della rivoluzione fascista. Antologia di scritti, 1932-1941, la casa editrice catanese Il Cinabro ([e-mail]) porta alla luce i suoi scritti più significativi, fino ad ora mai ripubblicati. L’antologia prodotta – 268 pagine di passione, analisi politica e militanza vissuta – è un quadro completo ed esplicativo non solo della sua figura, ma anche dell’anima più intransigente della Scuola. Negli scritti di Giani si percepisce, infatti, in modo assolutamente lucido, puntuale e analitico, l’intento della SMF: vivere radicalmente, senza compromessi né mezze misure, lo spirito rivoluzionario dei primi anni del Fascismo. Quello stesso spirito che col passare del tempo e con la strutturazione del partito in regime, con le sue logiche di potere e la tendenza di molti a cavalcarne l’onda per fini personali, si stava ormai perdendo.

Nei testi di Giani si può osservare come quei compromessi di partito venissero, in modo radicale, combattuti e tentati d’estirpare dallo spirito degli appartenenti alla Scuola di Mistica. Ma nel libro non si ritrova solo un’analisi politica contestuale al suo tempo. Si trova anche una visione politica e storica d’insieme dai tratti chiari e netti, in cui il tentativo lampante (si veda, a questo proposito, l’articolo La marcia ideale sul mondo della Civiltà fascista), è quello di superare le categorie politiche derivanti dalle visioni materialistiche, razionalistiche ed economicistiche sorte dal 1789, per dar spazio ad una visione del mondo basata sullo spirito e sulla dedizione totale e incondizionata all’idea e al suo capo.
«Nudi alla meta», non a caso, era uno dei motti dei mistici, che avevano in Arnaldo Mussolini, fratello di Benito – e sua “eminenza grigia”- il loro riferimento. Non fu perciò un caso, che ebbero in dono, come sede, “il Covo” di via Paolo da Cannobio a Milano: vecchia sede del Popolo d’Italia e uno dei centri aggregativi dei primi squadristi. Proprio gli squadristi, il loro spirito rivoluzionario e la loro volontà d’affermazione, furono uno dei principali punti di riferimento dei mistici, i quali intendevano farsi strenui difensori di un ideale che sì, si era affermato, ma che andava sempre più imborghesendosi. Non a caso «Ogni rivoluzione – come aveva detto Mussolini ai capi della SMF – ha tre momenti. Si comincia con la Mistica, si continua con la politica, si finisce nell’amministrazione», e la Scuola avrebbe dovuto perpetuare questo primo momento per la totalità della nuova “era”. Era fascista, appunto.

Il libro, dunque, rappresenta un documento unico e di rara importanza, impreziosito da un ricca bibliografia finale, e dagli interessanti saggi introduttivi di Maurizio Rossi e Luca Leonello Rimbotti. Saggi che aiutano il lettore a districarsi in un contesto storico non facile, e nella vita di un fenomeno ancora troppo poco conosciuto: qual è quello della Scuola di Mistica Fascista. Fenomeno che, non a caso, ha visto, negli ultimi anni, un interessamento di pubblico, studiosi e critica sempre maggiore: e di cui il Borghese si è già più volte interessato.

Consigliamo perciò la lettura di questo volume, senza se e senza ma. Si scoprirà così un mondo di «assurdi» e «fanatici» del movimento fascista messi per troppo tempo in soffitta dalla storiografia ufficiale. Ma che ora bussano prepotentemente alla porta della storia.

* * *

Niccolò Giani, Mistica della rivoluzione fascista. Antologia di scritti, 1932-1941 (con saggi introduttivi di M. Rossi e L. L. Rimbotti), Edizioni Il Cinabro, Pp. 268, Euro 15. Articolo tratto da Il Borghese, dicembre 2010.

Il fascismo in America

Il fascismo in America

Autore: Luca Leonello Rimbotti

Ex: http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

La recente morte dello storico americano John Patrick Diggins ci offre il destro per alcune considerazioni circa l’argomento del suo studio più noto in Italia, L’America, Mussolini e il fascismo, ormai fuori commercio da anni, in quanto pubblicato da Laterza nel lontano 1982, ma originariamente uscito dieci anni prima col titolo Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America, a cura dell’Università di Princeton. Quello di Diggins è un libro famoso, tradotto in molte lingue, ed è stato un po’ l’apripista della scarna bibliografia sui rapporti tra USA e Italia fascista e sull’attività delle organizzazioni del PNF nella repubblica stellata. Ai tempi fecero scandalo, nel provinciale antifascismo nostrano, alcune riflessioni di Diggins sulla generale simpatia mostrata in America per l’avvento al potere di Mussolini, in virtù della sua politica sociale e, soprattutto, in virtù del suo rivoluzionario disegno antropologico di mutare gli Italiani da turba di straccioni emigranti, facili al coltello e al crimine – di cui negli USA si aveva sin dall’Ottocento una sprezzante opinione, venata di non secondarie inflessioni razziste – finalmente in un popolo serio, moderno e disciplinato.

Diggins, che è stato un rinomato studioso dei movimenti politici e in particolare del ruolo degli intellettuali nelle moderne dinamiche della società di massa, ribaltò decennali pregiudizi che in America avevano, sin dai primi flussi migratori, bollato l’Italiano come un delinquente mafioso, e operò di conserva un aggiustamento delle posizioni. Scrisse che «la maggioranza degli Americani approvarono il Fascismo in base alle loro inclinazioni e ai loro bisogni»: ne apprezzarono il lato di movimento di “rinascita nazionale”. E formulò l’originale prospettiva di un Mussolini visto come un “eroe americano”: l’uomo che dal nulla era riuscito a pervenire a un disegno di riedificazione politica che parve esaltante alla mentalità americana, adusa a premiare lo sforzo bagnato dal successo, l’efficientismo e la tenacia dei propositi dell’individuo d’eccezione. Per una volta, era dunque l’Italia che si dimostrava il “Paese delle occasioni”.

Era, questo, ciò che Diggins ha chiamato «il lato oscuro delle valutazioni politiche americane», implicando la storica immaturità ideologica di quel popolo, versato a superficiali simpatie piuttosto che ad approfonditi scandagli di cultura politica. Bisogna pur dire che, come molto spesso accadde all’estero (ma per la verità non solo all’estero), e soprattutto negli anni Venti, l’accoglienza favorevole che venne riservata al Fascismo al suo avvento e per parecchi anni a seguire, si presentò negli Stati Uniti, più che un filo-fascismo, un filo-mussolinismo. Era la figura carismatica dell’uomo d’ordine, del giovane politico decisionista e innovatore, che colpiva gli immaginari anglosassoni, più di quanto non fosse l’ideologia nazionalpopolare che ne animava le scelte, per lo più ignorata nei suoi risvolti, a parte una generica curiosità per il corporativismo. Le simpatie raccolte da Mussolini in quel mondo – pensiamo solo a Churchill o a Franklin Delano Roosevelt – le diremmo per lo più a-fasciste e prive di connotati ideologici, se non per l’aspetto, certo non secondario, del robusto anti-comunismo impersonato dal Duce.

Paradigmatico, in questo senso, è quanto scritto da Diggins, quando riportava autorevoli giudizi di studiosi dell’Università di New York circa un Mussolini visto come «l’uomo della tradizione con il quale Aristotele, San Tommaso o Machiavelli si sarebbero senza imbarazzo trovati a loro agio». Del resto, come giustamente ha ricordato Renzo Santinon in I Fasci italiani all’estero (Settimo Sigillo), il terreno era già stato in precedenza preparato ad esempio da Marinetti, che «seminando il futurismo nel continente americano, aprì negli anni Venti la strada a una lettura avanguardistica ed entusiasmante del fascismo». Poi, a queste iniziali simpatie si aggiunse nel decennio seguente l’importante episodio del grande successo mediatico e d’opinione ottenuto negli USA da Italo Balbo, a seguito delle sue straordinarie imprese aviatorie. L’eccezionale prestigio riservato al trasvolatore fu sancito da un trionfale corteo per le vie di New York, con l’intitolazione di strade e targhe celebrative all’ex-capo squadrista. Tutto questo funzionò certamente da volano per nuovi consensi al Regime fascista, destinati a scemare soltanto a seguito della guerra etiopica (gli Stati Uniti, su sobillazione inglese, parteciparono alle sanzioni anti-italiane votate dalla Società delle Nazioni, di cui pure non facevano parte), volgendosi poi in crescente ostilità solo dopo l’intervento militare del 1940.

Ma, prima, ci fu tutto un lungo intreccio di rapporti tra America e Italia fascista. In cui non mancarono le luci e le ombre. Se la luce era essenzialmente la figura di Mussolini e in specie la sua politica sociale – segnatamente quella relativa alla bonifica delle terre paludose, che riscosse in America larga eco -, le ombre erano date dalla presenza dell’attivismo fascista di base negli Stati Uniti. Qui, spesso, risuonarono antichi pregiudizi anti-italiani duri a morire. Su questo terreno, il fuoriuscitismo antifascista lavorò sporco e a fondo. Sulla scorta di talune predicazioni marcatamente di parte – pensiamo a Salvemini, che a lungo saturò le Università americane con la sua propaganda ideologica basata sul risentimento – si volle ricreare anche su suolo americano la storica diffamazione basata sul binomio Fascismo-violenza. Un’ostinata campagna falsificatoria si ingegnò di sospingere l’opinione pubblica di quel Paese, ingenuamente portata a dare credibilità al bluff (allora come oggi), verso una preconcetta diffidenza nei confronti dei Fasci, sorti a quelle latitutidini sin da 1921. Fu allora facile mischiare le carte e fare del militante fascista italo-americano nulla più che una nuova versione del mafioso o del picchiatore da bassifondi. E questo, nonostante che le cronache dell’epoca riportassero sì di scontri tra Italo-americani fascisti e antifascisti, ma non mancando per altro di precisare che spesso erano proprio i fascisti a rimanere vittime della violenza e dell’odio: nel 1927, per dire, a New York vennero uccisi i fascisti Nicola Amoroso e Michele D’Ambrosoli, oppure, nel 1932, venne assassinato il fascista Salvatore Arena a Staten Island. Non si ha invece notizia di gravi fatti di sangue di parte fascista.

Il fascismo italo-americano era organizzato. E anche bene. Già nel 1925 c’erano novanta Fasci e migliaia di iscritti nelle città americane, riuniti nella Fascist League of North America guidata da Ignazio Thaon di Revel, che per motivi politici cessò di operare nel 1929. Il coordinamento tra i Fasci fu opera di Giuseppe Bastianini, primo segretario dei Fasci Italiani all’Estero e personaggio ingiustamente demonizzato per le sue origini “movimentiste” (era stato Ardito e vicesegretario del PNF a ventiquattro anni), favorevole allo sviluppo dello squadrismo tra gli italofoni d’oltreoceano. Un ambiente in cui si distinse Domenico Trombetta, singolare figura di organizzatore e animatore, esponente del radicalismo fascista newyorchese, direttore del periodico fascista “Il Grido della Stirpe”, assai diffuso tra gli Italiani e attorno al quale si catalizzò l’idea del volontariato di milizia, a difesa dell’italianità tra i milioni di nostri immigrati negli Stati Uniti. Questo ambiente rimase attivo anche quando, negli anni Trenta, Mussolini, per non urtare la sensibilità americana allarmata dalle campagne antifasciste, per gestire l’immagine del Regime preferì puntare sui normali canali diplomatici anziché sull’attivismo di base. Eppure, anche nel nuovo contesto, diciamo così più istituzionale, il Fascismo dimostrò di essere ben vivo tra gli Italo-americani, tanto da esprimere, persino verso la fine del decennio, una militanza a tutto campo – comprese trasmissioni radiofoniche di propaganda da una stazione di Boston –, ben rappresentato dall’American Union of Fascists di Paul Castorina, in rapporti amichevoli con i fascisti inglesi di Oswald Mosley e con la Canadian Union of Fascists, e dal pre-fascista Ordine dei Figli d’Italia in America, la principale associazione comunitaria italo-americana, che proprio nei tardi anni Trenta si identificò strettamente col Regime italiano, condividendone anche i più recenti indirizzi di politica razziale. Messi in sordina i Fasci per motivi di opportunità politica, una fitta rete di associazioni culturali, di attivisti, animatori di eventi comunitari, ma specialmente di giornali e stampa periodica, fece sì che il Fascismo, fino agli anni a ridosso della guerra, fosse di gran lunga la scelta politica che godeva dei maggiori consensi tra gli Italiani residenti negli USA. Un caso tipico fu l’arruolamento di un migliaio di volontari italo-americani nella Legione degli Italiani all’Estero, comandata in Africa Orientale dal Console della Milizia Piero Parini. E nella sola New York, negli anni Trenta, funzionavano non meno di cinquanta circoli fascisti, i cui membri indossavano la camicia nera e divulgavano assiduamente l’Idea.

Talune di queste dinamiche, e soprattutto quella relativa alla polemica tra istituzioni diplomatiche e Fasci politici, sono state rivisitate nel 2000 da Stefano Luconi in La diplomazia parallela. Il regime fascista e la mobilitazione degli Italo-americani (Franco Angeli), che ha segnalato proprio il ruolo centrale della comunità italo-americana filo-fascista come fattore politico di sostegno al governo di Roma, strumento di pressione economica, d’opinione e anche politica nei confronti di Washington. Una realtà che vedeva le ragioni politiche del Fascismo appoggiate non già dalla teppa dei portuali o dei picciotti del sottoproletariato italiano del New England, ma proprio all’opposto dalla vasta quota di Italiani che in America riportarono un solido successo personale, andando a costituire quel segmento sociale nazionalista, politicamente maturo ed etnicamente solidarista, sul quale non a torto Mussolini faceva conto per avere buona stampa negli Stati Uniti.

Per concludere brevemente l’argomento, vogliamo solo dire che, nonostante il seminale studio di Diggins abbia riportato larga fama, insegnando a molti come si fa storiografia senza confonderla con le opinioni personali, ancora oggi ci si imbatte in spiacevoli casi di ottusa faziosità. Chi si desse la pena di dare uno sguardo a quanto scrive ad esempio Matteo Pretelli sul sito “Iperstoria” gestito dal Dipartimento di Storia dell’Università di Verona e dal locale Istituto Storico della Resistenza, sotto il titolo Fascismo, violenza e malavita all’estero. Il caso degli Stati Uniti d’America, potrebbe pensare che Diggins abbia predicato nel deserto. Il solerte accademico italiano – che ci assicurano Lecteur presso l’Università di Melbourne – si danna l’anima per dimostrare i legami tra Fascismo italo-americano e criminalità mafiosa. Nessuno nega che da qualche parte ci sia stato un mascalzone che abusava della camicia nera. Ogni rivoluzione ha avuto la sua feccia, e il Fascismo molto meno di altre. Ma vorremmo segnalare al propagandista in parola che la malavita vera, quella gestita dai grandi criminali mafiosi, dimostrò di non stare dalla parte del Fascismo, bensì da quella dell’antifascismo. Basta sfogliare il libro di Alfio Caruso Arrivano i nostri pubblicato nel 2004 da Longanesi, in cui si dimostra in che misura la lobby di massoni e mafiosi di vertice preparò lo sbarco americano in Sicilia nel 1943. Lì non fu il caso di teppistelli: l’intero apparato della criminalità mafiosa organizzata, estirpata manu militari dal Fascismo nel 1928, si ripresentò compatto in veste di mortale nemico del Fascismo. E fu la volta di Genco Russo, Calogero Vizzini, Lucky Luciano… insomma la “cupola” al completo, ritornata al potere in Sicilia sotto bandiera a stelle e strisce e garantita dal capofila del legame tra mafia e governance americana: quel Charles Poletti che gettò le basi della repubblica italiana “democratica”, antifascista, ma soprattutto mafiosa, che gode ancora oggi ottima salute.

* * *

Tratto da Linea del 6 febbraio 2009.

Casapound, de "fascisten van het derde millenium"

Casapound, de "fascisten van het derde millennium"

(Rivarol)

HET NATIONALISME in Italië kent sinds enkele jaren een zeer vernieuwende militante, intellectuele en artistieke activiteit die zich heel uitdrukkelijk op het fascisme beroept. Precies zeven jaar geleden, op 26 december 2003, beslisten jonge Romeinse neofascistische militanten om een leegstaand gebouw in te nemen volgens de door de Italiaanse revolutionaire rechterzijde ontwikkelde strategie van de zogenaamde "Non-conforme bezetting / Bezetting met het oog op huisvesting" (ONC/OSA). "Non-conformiteit" is de duidelijke eis waarmee ze de politieke correctheid over alle onderwerpen afwijst; een eis verheven tot de rang van ware filosofie. De bezetting was erop gericht om de neofascistische jeugd in Rome te voorzien van een ruimte waar ze het sociale en culturele alternatief zou kunnen organiseren dat ze tot dusver moest missen.

Door bepaalde methoden van uiterst-links voor eigen rekening over te nemen werd ze doelmatiger en maakte ze die laatste voorgoed achterhaald. Het gebouw is vernoemd naar de Amerikaanse dichter en onvoorwaardelijke steun van het Italiaanse fascistische regime, Ezra Pound. De Italiaanse revolutionaire rechterzijde was in volle verandering en besteedde van dat ogenblik af een bijzondere aandacht aan de sociale en culturele dimensie van haar strijd en haar methoden om de Italiaanse jeugd te verleiden.

EEN JONG, MILITANT EN REVOLUTIONAIR NETWERK DAT ZICH UITBREIDT

Casapound – in 2010 een vereniging geworden die meer dan 2.000 ingeschreven leden telt – heeft zich sindsdien verspreid over heel Italië, waar het bars, sportclubs en non-conforme ruimten beheert. In Rome beschikt Casapound over steunpunten om de nieuwe fascistische cultuur te verspreiden die ze is beginnen vorm te geven en die ze aanpast aan de uitdagingen van de 21ste eeuw en de nieuwe generatie die ermee gepaard gaat. De militanten kunnen elkaar vinden in de pub “Cutty Sark”, terwijl een uitgeverij in de promotie van het literaire en doctrinaire werk van de beweging voorziet. Haar naam, “Quatrocinqueuno”, is een toespeling op de roman Fahrenheit 451 – een visionair werk over een totalitaire maatschappij die wordt bepaald door een eenheidsdenken dat stelselmatig de boeken vernietigt. Aan het hoofd van de bekende muziekgroep van Casapound, “Zetazeroalfa”, staat Gianluca Ianonne, leider van de beweging. Het is hij die, samen met anderen, de toon aangeeft. Volgens hem moeten de fascisten breken met de logica van het getto, het terugplooien op zichzelf, het electoralisme; ze moeten – zoals hij nadrukkelijk stelt – "het heden stormenderhand veroveren”. Zijn logica: meer dan ooit de mythe van Mussolini, het fascistische en nationaal-revolutionaire avontuur doen leven in het begin van het derde millennium. Daarom geeft Casapound voorrang aan vier assen: cultuur, samenhorigheid, sport en natuurlijk politiek. De vereniging heeft geen enkele band met de Italiaanse partijen die ze zonder uitzondering als ondoeltreffend en enggeestig beschouwt. In elk van die gebieden heeft Casapound stof gevonden om iets te doen. Sport is een bevoorrecht gebied en wordt als een alternatief gezien voor de omringende middelmatigheid en de drugs. In Lecce richtte Casapound een voetbalclub op, in Bolzano een hockeyclub, in Rome een rugbyschool en –ploeg, evenals een waterpoloclub die straks in staat is om het nationale niveau te bereiken. Een boksclub is ontstaan, evenals een parachuteclub met de naam “Istincto Raptor" en de alpinismeclub “La Muvra”. Op sociaal gebied strijdt Casapound met zijn structuur "Mutuo Sociale" voor het “eigen volk eerst” (nationale voorkeur) inzake huisvesting ofwel komt het Italiaanse families in moeilijkheden ter hulp, zoals tijdens de aardbeving in L’Aquilla. Een van de belangrijkste intellectuelen van de beweging, Gabriele Adinolfi, vertelt naar aanleiding daarvan dat een bejaarde boerin, terwijl de democratische burgemeester de inbreng van fascistische hulp aan het aanklagen was, iedereen toeriep:  "Ik wist het dat de fascisten goeie mensen waren!”  Vandaar is het binnen Casapound tot de oprichting gekomen van een vrijwillige burgerbescherming, belast met de hulp aan de armste Italianen.

VOOR EEN AVANT-GARDISTISCHE ESTHETIEK

Op artistiek gebied herneemt Casapound in zijn publicaties en affiches de esthetiek van de Italiaanse futuristen uit de jaren ‘20, toen het esthetische uitstalraam van het nationalisme op het schiereiland. Ruimte dus voor de rechte lijnen, de hoeken, de beweging als evocatie van de actie, de energie en de durf, maar ook voor alles wat kan verwijzen naar het heldendom, voorgesteld als opperste deugd van een dagelijkse levenskunst. De boekenwinkel “Testa di Ferro” biedt de werken aan van de grote intellectuele en politieke figuren van de conservatieve revolutie, van Codreanu over Mishima tot Nietzsche. Er zijn ook meer sulfureuze auteurs als Hitler en natuurlijk Mussolini. Opgehangen aan de theorie van het “mediatieke squadrisme”, d.w.z. spectaculaire blits-acties om de leidmotieven van de beweging te verspreiden en indruk te maken op politieke vijanden. Casapound heeft trouwens zijn eigen artistieke beweging: het “turbodynamisme”. Een van de eerste uitvoeringen van deze alternatieve en non-conformistische kunstschool was een retroprojectie van enorme portretten van Robert Brasillach op de muren van Rome. De affiches van Casapound, die vergaderingen, concerten en andere bijeenkomsten aankondigen, worden ook ontworpen volgens die wil om de fascistische esthetiek bijdetijds te maken met de nieuwe creatieve middelen die door de computer worden aangeboden. De scherpste geometrische vormen worden in zwart-wit geplaatst met de portretten van grote mannen uit de geschiedenis van het nationalisme, terwijl ze vrijheid, verbeeldingskracht, kameraadschap en strijdlust verheerlijken. Deze posters zijn nu gemeengoed in sommige delen van Rome en aanvaard door de bevolking. De term "fascistisch" is er normaal geworden dankzij de propaganda-inspanning van Casapound. De stad van de Caesars knoopt geleidelijk aan weer aan met zijn grote politieke traditie, die opnieuw tot leven is gewekt door de jonge generatie. Verlangend om het hart te zijn van een cultureel alternatief voor het conformisme van de burgerlijke linker- en rechterzijde, biedt Casapound verschillende kunstenaars tentoonstellingsruimtes aan, evenals een kunsttijdschrift. "De droom vernieuwen", dat is de voortdurende motivatie van de militanten die onophoudelijk blijven vernieuwen op alle gebieden. Kunst en muziek zijn de twee machtige instrumenten die deze ontwikkeling mogelijk maken; ze bereiken de meeste mensen, in het bijzonder de jongeren.

INTELLECTUELE INTENSITEIT, ACTIVISME EN LEVENSLUST

Casapound weigert mee te doen met het spel van de partijen. De vereniging ziet die laatste als een rem op elke durf, omdat ze in naam van de verkiezingen verplicht zijn zich gematigder op te stellen. Bevrijd van elke gedwongenheid op dit gebied is haar vrijheid des te groter. De vereniging heeft een maandblad: “Occidentale”. Een van de boegbeelden van dat blad is Gabriele Adinolfi; hij leidt ook het Studiecentrum Polaris, waarmee hij vernieuwende politieke voorstellen ontwikkelt. Hij legt ons uit dat zijn strategie aangepast is aan elke doelgroep. Op zijn site “noreporter.org” legt hij zich enkel toe op de actualiteit, daar waar Polaris liever geschiedenis behandelt – en in het bijzonder die van de Tweede Wereldoorlog, maar dan wel herzien en verbeterd. In zijn lezingen voor Casapound biedt hij zijn raad aan als ervaren fascistische militant; Gabriele Adinolfi heeft 20 jaar in Franse ballingschap moeten leven vanwege zijn engagement tijdens de “loden jaren” in Italië. De meest veelbetekenende doorbraak is misschien die van het Blocco Studentesco – de studentenformatie van Casapound – dat in 2010 bijna 40% van de stemmen in de Romeinse onderwijsinstellingen verzamelde en dit terwijl het zich openlijk op het fascisme beroept. Het is de gewoonste zaak geworden om jongeren van vijftien en zestien jaar, afkomstig uit de volksbuurten, elkaar de Romeinse groet te zien brengen. Begin december verzamelde het Blocco Studentesco drieduizend betogers in de hoofdstad tegen een hervorming van het openbare onderwijs. De stem van Blocco Studentesco is overheersend geworden tegenover een linkse (communistische of sociaaldemocratische) studentenbeweging die niet bij machte is om de algemene trend te stuiten. De vreugde, de jeugd, de scheppingskracht zijn de basisprincipes van een bijna militair gestructureerde beweging. Door de oranje en okeren straten van Rome stapt voortaan een jeugd die opnieuw fier met de zwarte vlag zwaait en zich beroept op de prestigieuze herinnering aan de Romeinse Republiek en haar geestelijke erfgenaam, die het fascisme is. De snelle en organische uitbreiding van Casapound Italia laat een glimp zien van de spectaculaire ideologische en culturele successen binnen de nieuwe Italiaanse generatie. Zoals Gabriele Adinolfi zegt: “Nooit sinds mijn geboorte is het fascisme zo populair geweest in de Italiaanse publieke opinie”. De oogst zal ongetwijfeld gaan naar diegenen die zich aandienen als de “fascisten van het derde millennium” en aantonen dat de dageraard zal komen met een gezonde, verstandige, hedendaagse en onbuigzame radicaliteit. Lange leve Casapound en de camerati!

Yann KERMADEC

Deux coeurs fascistes nés dans des familles rouges

Michelangelo INGRASSIA :

Deux cœurs fascistes nés dans des familles rouges

 

Sur le destin oublié de Mario Gramsci et de Teresa Labriola

 

Dans l’histoire italienne du 20^ème siècle, on relève deux cas emblématiques d’adhésion au fascisme, qui expliquent la présence précoce de cette idéologie quiritaire dans la société italienne préfasciste : il s’agit de Mario Gramsci, le frère fasciste du fondateur du PCI et du quotidien « L’Unità », et de Teresa Labriola, la fille fasciste de l’homme qui joua un grand rôle dans la diffusion du « socialisme scientifique » et du « matérialisme historique » en Italie.

 

Dans la trajectoire historique du fascisme, il y a un petit instant fugace dont les historiens de cette idéologie n’ont pas voulu ou n’ont pas su saisir l’importance ; ce moment fugace s’est alors dilué dans les définitions éparses que l’on a données du fascisme, au point de perdre toute consistance dans les interprétations et les jugements historiques ultérieurs ; ce moment fugace, c’est la perception que les contemporains avaient du fascisme au moment même où il a fait son apparition sur la scène politique nationale italienne.

 

Quand nous parlons de « perception », nous entendons la perception initiale du fascisme à ses tout premiers débuts, une perception que l’on pourrait très bien qualifier d’initiatique parce qu’y interagissaient de multiples impressions, émotions, sentiments, affects, etc. qui généraient et caractérisaient la saisie immédiate du phénomène, faisaient qu’on jugeait de sa valeur sans filtres, de manière immédiate, tout en prenant acte de son existence et donc de son contenu axiologique et politique. Ce moment, cet instant, est celui qui précède et détermine l’élan vers le phénomène nouveau qu’était le fascisme, la durée et l’intensité de l’adhésion à son credo et son programme.

 

En ce sens, cet instant de la perception première du fascisme permet d’aborder la question irrésolue qu’il recèle encore et toujours : celle de sa genèse ab ovo. Si l’on sonde en profondeur cet instant, on pourra mieux comprendre le moment suivant de son évolution dans le temps, celui de l’adhésion effective. Ces instants révèlent la signification et, partant, la légitimité, du fascisme, quand il émerge sur la scène politique italienne.

 

Nous n’entendons pas parler ici de consensus mais d’adhésion. Le consensus va vers une action politique déterminée, vers un certain type de gouvernement, vers une certaine façon de gouverner le pays, mais il peut s’avérer superficiel, il n’indique pas qu’il y a imprégnation de l’idée jusqu’aux tréfonds de l’âme ; le consensus peut s’accroître ou se restreindre selon les circonstances. L’adhésion, elle, va vers l’idée, vers la doctrine, vers le système de valeurs : en ce sens, elle est totale et totalitaire ; elle possède le chrisme du serment intérieur et peut se transformer en désespoir, en abîme de tristesse, si la praxis s’éloigne de la théorie.

 

On a très justement démontré que le fascisme avait obtenu le consensus des masses, du moins jusqu’à un certain point ; ce consensus a été expliqué de manières diverses : Adriano Romualdi, par exemple, parlait d’une imprégnation culturelle inachevée, d’un manque d’imprégnation véritablement révolutionnaire dans le sens fasciste du terme. On a parlé de l’adhésion au fascisme comme d’une adhésion superficielle, par calcul ou par réflexe familial. Il est bien possible en effet que les Gattuso, Pintor, Spadolini, Ingrao, Cantimori (la liste n’est pas exhaustive…) aient adhéré au fascisme « parce que tout le monde faisait pareil ». En somme, l’adhésion n’aurait été, chez ces hommes-là, qu’une coïncidence tragicomique… Si nous tenons en dehors de notre discours sur le fascisme le moment même où l’idéologie a été perçue, saisie dans son ensemble avant d’être traduite dans la réalité politique, alors, effectivement, nous pouvons croire aux litanies que nous débitent ceux qui parlent de « leurs erreurs de jeunesse », qui disent « avoir été grugés », trompés par la camelote idéologique, etc. En revanche, si nous nous penchons plutôt sur l’instant premier et fugace de la perception initiale du fascisme, nous devons changer de discours : l’adhésion n’est plus une coïncidence mais une « conception » dans le sens d’une naissance à une vie nouvelle.

 

Le fait est là : avant qu’il n’apparaisse, avant d’être accepté et toléré, le fascisme a été « conçu ». Cela signifie qu’il a d’abord déchiré les consciences et les familles, qu’il a opéré des césures entre catégories sociales et amitiés humaines, qu’il a suscité des discussions dans les foyers, les bureaux, les usines, les rues : tout cela ne crée pas des coïncidences mais oblige à des choix. En vérité, il n’y a pas eu que des choix en faveur du fascisme : des oppositions à lui sont nées et se sont consolidées, mais l’émergence de telles hostilités ne nie pas la pertinence de cet instant primordial qu’est la perception du fascisme, moment où toutes les conséquences de cette perception sont déjà là in nuce.

 

Le fascisme, qu’il plaise ou non, n’a pas vécu dans l’indifférence et de l’indifférence mais a fait partie intégrante de la réalité humaine (avant de faire partie intégrante de la réalité politique) de la nation italienne, à un moment déterminant de son histoire ; il a été conçu et perçu comme un mouvement révolutionnaire, capable de jeter les fondements d’un Etat nouveau, de résoudre les crises sociale et nationale, en donnant une nouvelle vigueur aux idéaux ambiants : le personnalisme, le socialisme,  le sorélisme.

 

Nous allons maintenant examiner deux cas emblématiques de cette perception/conception du fascisme, qui expliquent sa présence originelle et originale dans la société italienne et montrent que ce fascisme a été capable de séparer deux frères, de séparer une fille de son père : il s’agit de Mario Gramsci, le frère fasciste d’Antonio Gramsci, fondateur du PCI et du quotidien « L’Unità » ; et de Teresa Labriola, la fille fasciste de l’homme qui joua un très grand rôle dans la diffusion du « socialisme scientifique » et du « matérialisme historique » en Italie.

 

L’adhésion au fascisme du frère d’Antonio Gramsci et de la fille d’Antonio Labriola ne fut pas une simple coïncidence comme on en trouve en abondance dans l’histoire ni un fait mineur et éphémère surexploité par la propagande : elle fut la suite logique d’une certaine conception du fascisme. Sur Teresa Labriola, nous disposons  d’une biographie, fruit des recherches menées par Fiorenza Taricone (Teresa Labriola – Biografia politica di un’intelletuale tra ottocento e novecento, Edizioni Franco Angeli, 1995) ; cet ouvrage a été remarquablement bien recensé par Annalise Terranova dans les colonnes du Secolo d’Italia, le 3 juin 1995. Ce livre ne consacre qu’un seul chapitre au fascisme de Teresa Labriola mais il nous révèle suffisamment de choses pour saisir les causes de l’adhésion de cette intellectuelle féministe en chemise noire. Teresa Labriola, à l’aube de la « biennale rouge », découvre qu’il y une chose bien plus importante que la « conscience de classe » marxiste : c’est la conscience patriotique ; ensuite, l’émancipation féminine ne se fera pas comme l’antithèse de la famille, ne se fera pas contre l’homme et contre l’Etat, mais en harmonie avec les valeurs masculines et étatiques, et dans le cadre de la nation. C’est donc sa vision organique de l’Etat et de l’émancipation féminine dans le contexte national qui fait que Teresa Labriola perçoit le fascisme comme la seule et unique possibilité de donner à la femme un rôle révolutionnaire dans le processus de régénérescence nationale et d’élévation du peuple, et de donner à la maternité une dimension et une valeur sociales. Teresa Labriola a beaucoup écrit ; elle est morte en 1941, en étant toujours membre du mouvement fasciste. Son adhésion fut militante, justifiée par les fondements mêmes de l’idéologie fasciste et non une simple formalité bureaucratique, effectuée au moment où le régime connaissait son apogée. Le caractère militant de son adhésion donne un sens plein et entier à ses démarches politiques.

 

Mario Gramsci, contrairement à Teresa Labriola, attend toujours son biographe, pour qu’on en sache un peu plus sur sa personnalité et son engagement. Pour l’instant, la seule manière d’apprendre quelque chose sur sa vie, c’est de se référer à une biographie de son frère, mondialement connu. Cette biographie est celle de Giuseppe Fiori (Vita di Antonio Gramsci, Roma/Bari, 1974). Fiori fut l’un des rares historiens à avoir osé parler du frère fasciste de l’icône communiste. Le Gramsci fasciste est né à Sorgono (Nuoro) en 1893, deux après Antonio. Ce dernier était un garçon solitaire et silencieux. Mario, au contraire, est turbulent et vif ; en 1904, quand il a achevé ses études primaires, sa mère l’envoie au séminaire, mais quelques années plus tard, il abandonne prestement la bure monacale : « Donne-la à Nino (= Antonio), à  toutes fins utiles. Lui, il ne pense pas aux filles et il pourrait bien devenir prêtre ». A dix-huit ans, Mario Gramsci s’engage dans l’armée comme soldat volontaire, participe à la Grande Guerre et obtient le grade de sous-lieutenant. La « biennale rouge » le surprend à Varese, où il adhère au fascisme. C’est dans cette ville qu’il deviendra le premier secrétaire fédéral du fascisme local. Entretemps, il épouse Anna Maffei Parravicini, quitte l’armée et se lance dans une entreprise commerciale. En 1921 encore, son frère Antonio cherche à le dissuader ; les deux frères ont une longue discussion commune, où Antonio invite Mario à « réfléchir ».

 

Mario ne cède pas et reste fasciste, même après avoir été bastonné jusqu’au sang par des comparses de son frère Antonio. Les deux frères ne se verront plus avant 1928 : Antonio, le communiste, est en prison ; Mario, le fasciste, reste fasciste mais n’obtient plus aucune charge importante dans la hiérarchie. Antonio écrit à sa mère : « J’ai su qu’il s’était occupé de moi : voudrais-tu bien lui écrire pour l’en remercier ? ». Mario rend visite à son frère en prison mais les liens entre les deux hommes finissent par s’étioler parce qu’Antonio est irrité du fait que son frère décrit, à l’attention de leur mère, son état de santé sur un ton préoccupé. Après cette fâcherie, les deux frères ne se reverront plus jamais.

 

Mario s’engage comme volontaire pour la campagne d’Abyssinie puis participe à la seconde guerre mondiale ; en 1941, il combat en Afrique du Nord. Malgré l’affaire du Grand Conseil fasciste du 25 juillet 1943 et après la décision de Badoglio et du Roi, le 8 septembre 1943, de poursuivre la guerre aux côtés des Alliés anglo-saxons, il reste fidèle à Mussolini et à la République Sociale, comme l’a rappelé Veneziani. Il demeure encore et toujours fasciste même après sa déportation dans un camp de concentration australien, où il a été torturé et battu pour qu’il abjure. Mario Gramsci n’a pas abjuré. A la suite des mauvais traitements subis, Mario attrape une grave maladie, qui le terrasse dès son retour en Italie, à la fin de l’année 1945. Il n’avait que 52 ans. Il laissait deux enfants : Gianfranco et Cesarina.

 

La biographie de Mario Gramsci est la biographie d’un fasciste sincère, le témoignage d’une cohérence politique. Mario était désintéressé comme l’atteste son refus de  participer à la hiérarchie du mouvement, laquelle a petit à petit succombé à l’absence de qualité de ses membres et au conformisme.

 

Si Mario Gramsci a choisi l’action, Teresa Labriola a préféré la pensée. Tous deux, cependant, ont perçu et conçu le fascisme comme quelque chose de foncièrement différent des autres idées politiques de l’époque, comme quelque chose de plus actuel, de plus révolutionnaire. On ne peut nier l’honnêteté de leurs prises de position, leur bonne foi, tout comme on ne peut nier les mêmes qualités chez le frère de Mario et le père de Teresa, quand ils défendaient et illustraient leurs propres idées. Mario Gramsci et Teresa Labriola mériteraient bien de revenir « dans la patrie » des idées fascistes, après un long exil qui les a houspillés hors de la mémoire historique nationale, tout comme les autres tenants d’un fascisme perçu comme phénomène véritablement révolutionnaire. 

 

Michelangelo INGRASSIA.

(article tiré d’  « Area », Rome, avril 2000 ; trad. franç. : décembre 2010)     

 

 

Les dissidents de l'Action Française: Georges Valois

Archives 2008

Les dissidents de l’Action française : Georges Valois

Ex: http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/

De Sorel à Maurras

Presque oublié aujourd’hui, Georges Valois fut l’un des écrivains politiques importants du début du siècle. Ayant dû abandonner ses études à l’âge de quinze ans, à cause de ses origines populaires, il avait été rapidement attiré par les milieux de gauche. Il commença par fréquenter différents groupes de tendance libertaire : L’Art social, de Charles-Louis Philippe, Les Temps nouveaux, de Jean Grave, L’Humanité nouvelle, de Charles Albert et Hamon. Parmi les collaborateurs de la revue qu’animait L’Humanité nouvelle figurait notamment Georges Sorel, qui devait exercer sur Valois une influence décisive. « Lorsque Sorel entrait (au comité de rédaction de la revue), écrit Valois dans D’un siècle à l’autre, il y avait un frémissement de l’intelligence chez les assistants et l’on se taisait. Nous l’écoutions. Ce n’étaient pas ses cinquante ans qui nous tenaient en respect, c’était sa parole. Sorel, forte tête de vigneron au front clair, l’œil plein de bonté malicieuse, pouvait parler pendant des heures sans que l’on songeât a l’interrompre ».

De quoi parlait ainsi Sorel ? Sans doute de ce qui lui tenait le plus à cœur : de la lutte, révolutionnaire, de l’avenir des syndicats, menacés non seulement par la ploutocratie capitaliste au pouvoir, mais aussi par le conformisme marxiste de la social-démocratie. Sans renier l’essentiel de la doctrine marxiste, Sorel reprochait notamment â l’auteur du Capital sa vision trop schématique de la lutte de classes, et sa méconnaissance des classes moyennes. Et il craignait par-dessus tout l’influence des intellectuels et des politiciens dans le mouvement ouvrier. Le mouvement ouvrier devait préserver son autonomie, et c’est à ce prix seulement qu’il pourrait donner naissance à l’aristocratie d’une société nouvelle. Son mépris de la médiocrité bourgeoise, à laquelle il opposait la vigueur populaire, triomphant dans le syndicalisme révolutionnaire, avait conduit Sorel à l’antidémocratisme. La démocratie n’était pour lui que le triomphe des démagogues, dont la justification la plus abusive. était le mythe du Progrès. C’est ainsi qu’un penseur primitivement situé à l’extrême-gauche se rapprochait sans l’avoir expressément cherché, des théoriciens réactionnaires, condamnant eux aussi, au nom de leurs principes, la démocratie capitaliste.

Influencé par Sorel, et aussi par la pensée de Proudhon et de Nietzsche, Georges Valois écrivit son premier livre : L’Homme qui vient, philosophie de l’autorité. C’était l’œuvre d’un militant syndicaliste révolté par la corruption démocratique, aspirant à un régime fort. Ce régime, Georges Valois pensait que ce devait être la monarchie : il la concevait « comme un pouvoir réalisant ce que la démocratie n’avait pu faire contre la ploutocratie ». Ayant présenté son manuscrit à Paul Bourget, celui-ci le communiqua à Charles Maurras. Telle fut l’origine des relations entre l’ancien socialiste libertaire et le directeur de L’Action française.

Relatant après sa rupture avec Maurras son premier contact avec celui-ci, Valois écrivait : « C’est sur le problème économique et social que nous nous heurtâmes immédiatement. Dans la suite, Maurras s’abstint de renouveler cette dispute. Sa décision avait été prise ; il avait compris qu’il était préférable de m’associer à son œuvre et de m’utiliser en s’efforçant de m’empêcher de produire toute la partie de mon œuvre qu’il n’acceptait pas » (1). On comprend sans peine que ce que Valois gardait d’esprit socialiste et révolutionnaire n’ait pas convenu à Maurras. Il ne faut pas oublier cependant qu’à cette époque, Maurras s’exprimait en termes fort sévères contre le capitalisme, auquel il opposait l’esprit corporatif de l’ancien régime. Tout en défendant les principes d’ordre et d’autorité, il n’hésitait pas à défendre les syndicats contre le faux ordre et l’autorité abusive des dirigeants républicains. C’est ainsi que Maurras fut le seul grand journaliste de droite à flétrir la sanglante répression organisée par Clemenceau, président du Conseil, contre les grévistes de Draveil, dans les derniers jours de juillet 1908 :

« Cuirassiers, dragons et gendarmes », écrivait Maurras dans L’Action française, se sont battus comme nos braves troupes savent se battre. À quoi bon ? Pourquoi ? Et pour qui ? « Nous le savons. C’est pour que le vieillard à peine moins sinistre que Thiers, à peine moins révolutionnaire, puisse venir crier à la tribune. qu’il est l’ordre, qu’il est la propriété, qu’il est le salut. Nous ne dirons pas à ce vieillard sanglant qu’il se trompe. Nous lui dirons qu’il ment. Car il a voulu ce carnage. Cette tuerie n’est pas le résultat de la méprise ou de l’erreur. On ne peut l’imputer à une faute de calcul. Il l’a visée... Ce fidèle ministre d’Édouard VII ne mérite pas d’être flétri en langue française. L’épithète qui lui revient, je la lui dirai en anglais, où elle prendra quelque force : Bloody ! »

Les jours suivants, Maurras écrivait encore :

« La journée de Draveil a été ce que l’on a voulu qu’elle fût. M. Clemenceau n’a pratiqué ni le système du laisser-faire ni le système des justes mesures préventives, parce que dans les deux cas, surtout dans le second, il y avait d’énormes chances d’éviter cette effusion de sang qu’il lui fallait pour motiver les arrestations de vendredi et pour aboutir à l’occupation administrative et à la pénétration officielle de la Confédération générale du travail » (2).

Il est normal que le Maurras de cette époque ait pu attirer Georges Valois. Il attira aussi, pendant quelque temps, Georges Sorel lui-même : « Je ne pense pas, écrivait ce dernier à Pierre Lasserre en juin 1909, que personne (sauf probablement Jaurès) confonde l’ardente jeunesse qui s’enrôle dans l’Action française avec les débiles abonnés du Gaulois ». Il voyait dans le mouvement de Charles Maurras la seule force nationaliste sérieuse. « Je ne suis pas prophète, disait-il à Jean Variot. Je ne sais pas si Maurras ramènera le roi en France. Et ce n’est pas ce qui m’intéresse en lui. Ce qui m’intéresse, c’est qu’il se dresse devant la bourgeoisie falote et réactionnaire, en lui faisant honte d’avoir été vaincue et en essayant de lui donner une doctrine ». En 1910, Sorel écrivait à Maurras pour le remercier de lui avoir envoyé son Enquête sur la monarchie. « Je suis, disait-il notamment, depuis longtemps frappé de la folie des auteurs contemporains qui demandent à la démocratie de faire un travail que peuvent seules aborder les royautés pleines du sentiment de leur mission » (3).

Cependant, Sorel gardait ses distances vis-à-vis de l’Action française. Georges Valois avait au contraire adhéré au mouvement peu de temps après sa première rencontre avec Maurras. On trouve l’expression de ses idées à l’époque dans La révolution sociale ou le roi et dans L’Enquête sur la monarchie et la classe ouvrière. Le titre du premier de ces essais suffit à montrer la rupture de Valois avec les formations de gauche. La thèse de Valois est que la Révolution de 1789 n’a pas été le triomphe de la bourgeoisie contre le peuple, comme on le dit souvent, mais le triomphe de « déclassés de toutes les classes » aussi bien contre la bourgeoisie que contre le peuple et l’aristocratie. Sans doute les républicains surent-ils se concilier une partie de la bourgeoisie, plus spécialement celle « qui, au temps de Louis-Philippe et sous l’Empire, voit sa puissance économique s’accroître avec une rapidité extrême, c’est-à-dire la bourgeoisie industrielle, urbaine, qui fait à ce moment un effort de production énorme et se croit volontiers dominatrice » (4). Mais en fait cette bourgeoisie a été dupée par les politiciens qui gouvernaient en son nom. Après avoir séparé cette bourgeoisie urbaine des agriculteurs. les politiciens républicains ont excité le peuple contre elle. Et la bourgeoisie qui domine vraiment l’État n’est pas cette bourgeoisie dupée, c’est celle de ce que Maurras appelle « les quatre États confédérés » : les Juifs, les Métèques, les Protestants et les Maçons.

La trahison socialiste

Ce phénomène politique, remarque Valois, échappe au prolétariat, qui n’est pas représenté par les siens au Parlement. Il y a en France un parti socialiste, mais Valois pense, comme Georges Sorel et Édouard Berth, que ce parti ne vaut pas mieux que les autres partis républicains, qu’il est d’ailleurs le complice des partis dits bourgeois. Et il cite à ce sujet l’opinion de Sorel dans ses Réflexions sur la violence :

« Une agitation, savamment canalisée, est extrêmement utile aux socialistes parlementaires, qui se vantent, auprès du gouvernement et de la riche bourgeoisie, de savoir modérer la révolution ; ils peuvent ainsi faire réussir les affaires financières auxquelles ils s’intéressent, faire obtenir de menues faveurs à beaucoup d’électeurs influents, et faire voter des lois sociales pour se donner de l’importance dans l’opinion des nigauds qui s’imaginent que ces socialistes sont de grands réformateurs du droit. Il faut, pour que cela réussisse, qu’il y ait toujours un peu de mouvement et qu’on puisse faire peur aux bourgeois » (5).

Bref, les dirigeants socialistes dupent la classe ouvrière, exactement comme ceux des partis républicains libéraux dupent la classe bourgeoise ; ce ne sont pas de véritables anti-capitalistes, mais les serviteurs d’un capitalisme étranger, auquel ils sacrifient le mouvement syndical. « C’est pourquoi, écrit Valois, les républicains nourrissent une hostilité irréductible à l’égard du mouvement syndicaliste, et c’est ce qui doit montrer à nos camarades qui sont profondément pénétrés de la nécessité de l’action syndicale que l’État républicain et l’organisation syndicale ouvrière sont deux faits qui s’excluent l’un l’autre » (6). Certains militants syndicalistes en sont d’ailleurs convaincus, et ils préfèrent l’action directe à une action s’exerçant par l’intermédiaire des pouvoirs publics. Valois se déclare d’accord avec eux, mais il entend leur faire admettre que leur esprit de classe n’est nullement incompatible, bien au contraire, avec l’adhésion à la monarchie.

Ce n’est pas, précise Valois, la violence révolutionnaire qui peut effrayer les militants monarchistes, qui comptent dans leurs rangs plus de non-possédants que de possédants. Les monarchistes rejettent la révolution sociale parce qu’elle représente l’extension à la vie économique de l’erreur politique démocratique, parce qu’elle introduirait la démagogie au cœur de la production. Il y aurait sans doute une réaction contre les conséquences de cette démagogie, mais les travailleurs en seraient les premières victimes : « Il se constituerait rapidement, dans chaque groupe de producteurs, une petite aristocratie qui régnerait sur la masse par la terreur et la corruption, embrigaderait une sous-aristocratie par de menues faveurs, et imposerait ainsi à la majorité la même loi de travail qu’imposent aujourd’hui les capitalistes, et en profiterait » (7). De plus, la révolution entraînerait la disparition de l’or, lequel constitue une garantie irremplaçable. Pour en retrouver, les révolutionnaires devraient faire appel aux capitalistes soi-disant favorables à leur cause, c’est-à-dire aux capitalistes juifs. « C’est vers eux, écrit Valois, que l’on se tournera pour résoudre le problème de la circulation des produits interrompue par l’absence d’or, et si l’on ne songe pas à eux tout d’abord, leurs agents, juifs et non juifs, seront chargés de diriger les pensées vers eux. On leur demandera de l’or, et ils le prêteront ; ils le prêteront en apparence sans exiger de garanties, mais en s’assurant en fait des garanties solides ». Les travailleurs ne se libéreraient d’une exploitation nationale que pour tomber sous le joug d’une exploitation internationale, plus dangereuse parce que plus puissante. « Il est probable qu’un terrible mouvement antisémite se développerait et se manifesterait par le plus beau massacre de Juifs de l’histoire ; mais les Juifs feraient alors appel aux armes étrangères pour leur défense, et se maintiendraient avec le concours de l’étranger, avec qui ils dépouilleraient la nation toute entière » (8). N’oublions pas que ces lignes furent écrites peu après l’affaire Dreyfus, en un temps où l’antisémitisme le plus frénétique fleurissait dans de vastes secteurs de l’opinion française.

L’appel au roi, solution sociale

Pour éviter ce remplacement de l’exploitation présente par une exploitation plus dure encore, Valois ne voit qu’une solution : l’appel au roi. Le roi ne saurait être le défenseur d’une seule classe sociale ; il est l’arbitre indépendant et souverain dont toutes les classes ont besoin pour défendre leur intérêt commun. Il ne peut souhaiter que la prospérité générale de la nation, et donc la prospérité de la classe ouvrière. « Il sait que des bourgeois, ou des politiciens qui n’ont aucune profession avouable, ne peuvent en aucune manière représenter le peuple des travailleurs ; pour connaître les besoins de la classe ouvrière, il appelle donc dans ses conseils les vrais représentants de cette classe, c’est-à-dire les délégués des syndicats, des corporations, des métiers. Le roi doit donc non seulement favoriser, mais provoquer le développement intégral de l’organisation ouvrière, en faisant appel à ce qui lui donne son caractère rigoureusement ouvrier : l’esprit de classe. En effet, pour que les républiques ouvrières envoient auprès du roi leurs vrais représentants, il faut qu’elles soient impénétrables à tout élément étranger à la classe ouvrière ; il faut donc que les travailleurs aient une vive conscience de classe qui les amène à repousser instinctivement les politiciens, les intellectuels et les bourgeois fainéants qui voudraient pénétrer parmi eux pour les exploiter » (9).

L’esprit de classe ainsi envisagé ne conduit donc pas à la lutte de classe au sens marxiste du terme, il n’est pas question d’établir la dictature du prolétariat ; la bourgeoisie a un rôle nécessaire à jouer dans la société nationale, et il importe qu’elle joue ce rôle en développant au maximum l’effort industriel. Les ouvriers ont besoin de patrons, et même, dit Valois, de patrons « durs », car la classe ouvrière préfère infiniment des capitalistes ardents au travail, et sachant rémunérer les services rendus, que des patrons « philantropiques », dont l’attitude est pour elle offensante. Autrement dit, l’égoïsme vital du producteur est préférable à la bienveillance du paternaliste, à condition que cet égoïsme soit orienté dans le sens de l’intérêt national.

Telles étaient les idées que Georges Valois tentait de répandre dans les milieux ouvriers. Certaines réponses au questionnaire qu’il avait adressé à des personnalités syndicalistes sur la Monarchie et la classe ouvrière le fortifièrent dans ses convictions. Ces personnalités étaient en effet d’accord avec lui pour penser que « le régime républicain parlementaire est incompatible avec l’organisation syndicale, et que la République est essentiellement hostile aux classes ouvrières » (10). La raison de cet état de choses résidait pour Valois dans le libéralisme hérité de 89, ennemi des associations ouvrières détruites par la loi Le Chapelier. Mais il prenait soin de montrer que le socialisme n’était pas un remède aux maux du libéralisme. « Les systèmes socialistes collectivistes, écrivait-il, développent les principes républicains, transportent le principe de l’égalité politique dans l’économie, et, construits en vue d’assurer à tous les hommes des droits égaux et des jouissances égales, ils refusent aux citoyens, comme le fait l’État républicain, le droit de « se séparer de la chose publique par un esprit de corporation ». En face de la collectivité propriétaire de tous les biens, en face de l’État patron, les travailleurs sont privés du droit de coalition. Ils devront subir les conditions de travail qui seront établies par la collectivité, pratiquement par l’État, c’est-à-dire par une assemblée de députés, et ils ne pourront les modifier que par l’intermédiaire de leurs députés... » (11).

Refusant l’étatisme socialiste, Valois condamnait également l’anarchie, celle-ci refusant les disciplines syndicales aussi bien que toutes les autres, et étant « en rébellion aussi bien contre les nécessités de la production que contre les lois des gouvernements ».

Les syndicats doivent avant tout se défendre contre la pénétration d’éléments qui tentent de les politiser. Valois s’inquiète à ce propos de l’évolution de la Confédération générale du travail, victime des conséquences d’une centralisation abusive : « Mille syndicats, cinquante fédérations, réunis par leurs chefs dans un seul organisme, loin de leurs milieux naturels, installés dans des bureaux communs, où pénètre qui veut, sont sans défense contre la bande de journalistes, d’intellectuels et de politiciens sans mandat qui envahissent les bureaux, qui rendent des services personnels aux fonctionnaires syndicaux, recherchent leur amitié et leur demandent, non l’abandon de leurs principes mais une collaboration secrète. Le péril pour le syndicalisme est là » (12).

Pour rendre à la vie syndicale son vrai caractère, il faut revenir à la vie corporative : non pas ressusciter les anciennes corporations, mais fonder de nouvelles associations professionnelles répondant aux nécessités modernes. Toutefois, Valois est formel sur ce point : aucune nouvelle vie corporative ne sera possible tant que la démocratie parlementaire ne sera pas remplacée par la monarchie.

Valois à l’Action française

Les idées politiques et sociales de Georges Valois s’accordaient donc exactement avec celles de Maurras et de L’Action française. Cependant Maurras ne fit pas immédiatement appel à lui pour traiter des questions économiques et sociales dans sou journal : il préférait dans ce domaine la collaboration de disciples de La Tour du Pin, plus modérés ou plus effacés que Valois. Ce dernier chercha à s’exprimer dans des publications autonomes. La création d’une revue réunissant des syndicalistes et des nationalistes, La Cité française, fut décidée. Georges Sorel, qui avait promis sa collaboration, rédigea lui-même la déclaration de principe. « La démocratie confond les classes, y lisait-on, afin de permettre à quelques bandes de politiciens, associés à des financiers ou dominés par eux, l’exploitation des producteurs. Il faut donc organiser la cité en dehors des idées démocratiques, et il faut organiser les classes en dehors de la démocratie, malgré la démocratie et contre elle. Il faut réveiller la conscience que les classes doivent posséder d’elles-mêmes et qui est actuellement étouffée par les idées démocratiques. Il faut réveiller les vertus propres à chaque classe, et sans lesquelles aucune ne peut accomplir sa mission historique » (13).

Mais la Cité française ne fut qu’un projet. Selon Pierre Andreu, historien de Georges Sorel, c’est l’Action française, « voulant s’assurer à la faveur d’une querelle Valois-Variot une sorte de mainmise occulte sur l’avenir de la revue », qui empêcha celle-ci de voir le jour. Les jeunes « soréliens » de l’Action française ne se découragèrent pas, et en mars 1911, Valois créait avec Henri Lagrange le Cercle Proudhon. Les plus audacieux, et les plus ouverts des jeunes intellectuels de l’Action française furent attirés par ce groupe, dont Maurras approuvait les intentions. Mais Georges Sorel se montrait maintenant sceptique sur la possibilité de. défendre la pensée syndicaliste en subissant trop étroitement l’influence maurrassienne. L’éclatement de la guerre de 14 mit un terme à cette tentative de réunion des éléments monarchistes et syndicalistes.

Cette tentative portait cependant quelques fruits. Georges Valois prit la parole dans les congrès de l’Action française de 1911, 1912 et 1913, afin d’expliquer aux militants « bourgeois » du mouvement les raisons pour lesquelles ils devaient souhaiter l’alliance des syndicalistes, victimes du régime démocratique. Ses interventions obtinrent un grand succès, ce qui n’est pas surprenant, car le tempérament « révolutionnaire » des militants d’Action française leur permettait de comprendre le point de vue de Valois, même lorsqu’il faisait appel à des notions ou à des principes assez éloignés, du moins en apparence, de leurs propres convictions traditionalistes.

D’autre part, Valois fut bientôt appelé à diriger une maison d’édition, la Nouvelle librairie nationale, destinée à grouper les auteurs membres ou amis de l’Action française. Maurras, Daudet, Bainville, Bourget et aussi Maritain et Guénon, furent parmi les auteurs de cette maison, qui devait subsister jusqu’en 1927. Mobilisé en 1914, Valois put reprendre son activité en 1917. Outre la direction de la Nouvelle librairie nationale, il décida de donner une nouvelle impulsion à son action sociale. Il eut l’idée de créer des sociétés corporatives, et d’organiser des semaines - notamment du Livre et de la Monnaie - pour mieux faire comprendre la portée concrète de ses idées. « Tout cela, écrira-t-il plus tard, était pour moi la construction de nouvelles institutions. Les gens de l’Action française n’y comprenaient absolument rien. Je cherchais le type nouveau des assemblées du monde moderne. Pendant que les gens de l’Action française continuaient de faire des raisonnements, je travaillais à la construction de ces institutions ».

En parlant de la sorte des « gens d’Action française », Georges Valois vise évidemment les dirigeants et les intellectuels du mouvement, et non ses militants, auprès desquels il jouissait d’une importante audience. Il se heurtait en effet à une certaine méfiance de la part des comités directeurs de l’Action française, qui n’avaient sans doute jamais pris très au sérieux les intentions du Cercle Proudhon. Pour éclaircir la situation, Valois eut un entretien avec Maurras et Lucien Moreau. Il déclara à Maurras que, selon lui, il fallait maintenant préparer la prise du pouvoir, et ne plus se contenter de l’action intellectuelle. Il lui demanda s’il avait un plan de réalisation de ses idées. « Maurras, écrit-il, fut extrêmement embarrassé par mes questions. Il nous fit un discours d’une demi-heure pour me démontrer que, nécessairement, il avait toujours pensé à faire ce qu’il disait. Je lui demandais des ordres, il n’en donna aucun. Alors je lui indiquai un plan et lui déclarai qu’il était absolument impossible de faire adhérer les Français à la monarchie ; que la seule chose possible était de sortir du gâchis parlementaire par une formule pratique, de faire une assemblée nationale et d’y poser les questions fondamentales » (14).

Il y avait donc eu, chez Valois, une évolution assez sensible par rapport à ses positions d’avant 1914. À ce moment-là, il ne s’employait pas seulement à faire comprendre aux monarchistes traditionalistes la légitimité du syndicalisme, mais aussi à faire comprendre aux syndicalistes la nécessité de la monarchie. En 1922, l’idée de rallier les élites du monde du travail à la solution monarchiste lui semblait donc assez vaine. D’autre part, il ne s’intéressait plus seulement aux forces ouvrières, mais, semble-t-il, à l’ensemble des forces économiques du pays. Le doctrinaire élargissait son horizon, peut-être parce que les nécessités de l’action l’obligeaient à le faire.

Son idée principale était de lancer à travers toute la France une « convocation des États généraux », créant ainsi la représentation réelle des forces nationales, par opposition à la représentation artificielle du parlementarisme. Maurras pouvait difficilement être contre un principe aussi conforme à sa doctrine, et notamment à sa fameuse distinction entre le pays réel et le pays légal. Il donna donc son accord pour ce projet. Celui-ci n’eut qu’un commencement de réalisation, l’assassinat par une militante anarchiste du meilleur ami de Valois à l’Action française, Marius Plateau, ayant interrompu le travail en cours. Les autres dirigeants de l’Action française étaient plus ou moins hostiles au projet de Valois, auquel ils préféraient la préparation de leur participation aux élections de 1924. Mais à ces élections, les candidats de l’Action française furent largement battus.

C’est alors que Georges Valois songea à mener son combat en marge de l’Action française, sans rompre cependant avec celle-ci. Il prépara notamment « une action en direction des Communistes, pour extraire des milieux communistes des éléments qui n’étaient attachés à Moscou que par déception de n’avoir pas trouvé jusque-là un mouvement satisfaisant pour les intérêts ouvriers ». Naturellement, l’action comportait une large participation ouvrière à tout le mouvement, par incorporation de militants ouvriers au premier rang du mouvement (15). Pour appuyer cette action, Valois décidait de créer un hebdomadaire, Le Nouveau Siècle.

Dans le premier numéro du journal, paru le 25 février 1925, on peut lire une déclaration que vingt-huit personnalités - parmi lesquelles Jacques Arthuys, Serge André, René Benjamin, André Rousseaux, Henri Ghéon, Georges Suarez, Jérôme et Jean Tharaud, Henri Massis - ont signée aux côtés de Valois. Le Nouveau Siècle, y lit-on notamment, est fondé pour « exprimer l’esprit, les sentiments, la volonté » du siècle nouveau né le 2 août 1914. Il luttera pour les conditions de la victoire, que l’on a volée aux combattants : « Un chef national, la fraternité française, une nation organisée dans ses familles, ses métiers et ses provinces, la foi religieuse maîtresse d’elle-même et de ses œuvres ; la justice de tous et au-dessus de tous ».

« Nous travaillerons, disent encore les signataires, à former ou à reformer les légions de la victoire, légions de combattants, de chefs de familles, de producteurs, de citoyens ». On peut penser qu’il s’agit de faire la liaison entre différents mouvements nationaux tels que l’Action française, les Jeunesses patriotes et quelques autres. Mais le 11 novembre de cette même années 1925, Georges Valois annonce la fondation d’un nouveau mouvement, le Faisceau, qui sera divisé en quatre sections : Faisceau des combattants, Faisceau des producteurs, Faisceau civique et Faisceau des jeunes.

La ressemblance avec le fascisme italien est évidente. Valois a d’ailleurs salué l’expérience italienne avant de fonder son parti. Le mouvement fasciste, dit-il, est « le mouvement par lequel l’Europe contemporaine tend à la création de l’État moderne ». Ce n’est pas une simple opération de rétablissement de l’ordre : c’est la recherche d’un État nouveau qui permettra de faire concourir toutes les forces économiques au bien commun. Mais Valois souligne le caractère original du mouvement : « Le fascisme italien a sauvé l’Italie en employant des méthodes conformes au génie italien, le fascisme français emploiera des méthodes conformes au génie français ».

Maurras se fâche

Maurras n’avait pas fait d’objections à ce que Valois entreprit un effort parallèle à celui de l’Action française. Valois fut bientôt désagréablement surpris de voir que Maurras cherchait à faire subventionner L’Action française par le principal commanditaire de son propre hebdomadaire, qu’il avait lui-même encouragé à aider l’Action française à un moment donné. D’autres difficultés surgirent. Maurras reprocha à Valois l’orientation qu’il donnait à sa maison d’édition. Mais Valois eut surtout le sentiment que les campagnes de son hebdomadaire « concernant les finances, la monnaie et la bourgeoisie », déplaisaient souverainement, sinon à L’Action française elle-même, du moins à certaines personnalités politiques ou financières avec lesquelles L’Action française ne voulait pas se mettre en mauvais termes. Un incident vint transformer ces difficultés en pure et simple rupture. Tout en animant son hebdomadaire, Valois continuait à donner des articles à L’Action française. Maurras lui écrivit à propos de l’un d’eux, regrettant de ne pas avoir pu supprimer cet article faute de temps, et se livrant à une vive critique de fond :

« Il suffit de répondre « non » à telle ou telle de vos questions pour laisser en l’air toute votre thèse. Il n’est pas vrai que « la » bourgeoisie soit l’auteur responsable du parlementarisme. Le régime est au contraire né au confluent de l’aristocratie et d’une faible fraction de la bourgeoisie (...) Les éléments protestants, juifs, maçons, métèques y ont joué un très grand rôle. L’immense, la déjà immense bourgeoisie française n’y était pour rien. Pour rien. « Maigre rectification historique ? Je veux bien. Mais voici la politique, et cela est grave. Depuis vingt-six ans, nous nous échinons à circonscrire et à limiter l’ennemi ; à dire : non, la révolution, non, le parlementarisme, non, la république, ne sont pas nés de l’effort essentiel et central du peuple français, ni de la plus grande partie de ce peuple, de sa bourgeoisie. Malgré tous mes avis, toutes mes observations et mes adjurations, vous vous obstinez au contraire, à la manœuvre inverse, qui est d’élargir, d’étendre, d’épanouir, de multiplier l’ennemi ; c’est, maintenant, le bourgeois, c’est-à-dire les neuf dixièmes de la France. Eh bien, non et non, vous vous trompez, non seulement sur la théorie, mais sur la méthode et la pratique. Vous obtenez des résultats ? Je le veux bien. On vous dirait en Provence que vous aurez une sardine en échange d’un thon. Je manquerais à tous mes devoirs si je ne vous le disais pas en toute clarté. Personne ne m’a parlé, je n’ai vu personne depuis que j’ai lu cet article et ai dû le laisser passer, et si je voyais quelqu’un, je le défendrais en l’expliquant, comme il m’est arrivé si souvent ! Mais, en conscience, j’ai le devoir de vous dire que vous vous trompez et que cette politique déraille. Je ne puis l’admettre à l’AF ».

Pour Georges Valois, l’explication de l’attitude de Maurras était claire : « Maurras et ses commanditaires avaient toléré ma politique ouvrière, tant qu’ils avaient pu la mener sur le plan de la littérature, mais du jour où je déclarais que nous passions à l’action pratique, on voulait m’arrêter net » (16).

Entre les deux hommes, une explication décisive eut lieu. Maurras reprocha notamment à Valois de détourner de l’argent de L’Action française vers son propre hebdomadaire. Valois contesta bien entendu cette affirmation, et démissionna de l’Action française et des organisations annexes de celle-ci auxquelles il appartenait.

La rupture était-elle fatale ? Y avait-il réellement incompatibilité totale entre la pensée de Maurras et celle de Valois ? Il est intéressant d’examiner à ce propos les « bonnes feuilles » d’un livre de Valois, parues dans l’Almanach de l’Action française de 1925 - c’est-à-dire un peu plus d’un an avant sa rupture avec celle-ci - livre intitulé : La révolution nationale. (Notons en passant que c’est probablement à Valois que le gouvernement du maréchal Pétain emprunta le slogan du nouveau régime de 1940).

Valois affirme d’abord que l’État français a créé une situation révolutionnaire, parce qu’il s’est révélé « totalement incapable d’imaginer et d’appliquer les solutions à tous les problèmes nés de la guerre ». Et selon Valois, cette révolution a commencé le 12 août 1914 avec ce que Maurras a appelé la monarchie de la guerre : c’est le moment où l’esprit héroïque s’est substitué à l’esprit mercantile et juridique. Mais après l’armistice, l’esprit bourgeois a repris le dessus, et cet esprit a perdu la victoire. Les patriotes le comprennent, ils se rendent compte qu’ils doivent détruire l’État libéral et ses institutions politiques, économiques et sociales, et le remplacer par un État national.

À l’échec du Bloc national - faussement national, selon Valois -, succède l’échec du Bloc des gauches. Ces deux échecs n’en font qu’un : c’est l’échec de la bourgeoisie, qu’elle soit conservatrice, libérale ou radicale. « La bourgeoisie s’est révélée impuissante, en France comme dans toute l’Europe, au gouvernement des États et des peuples ». Valois n’entend pas nier les vertus bourgeoises, qui sont grandes lorsqu’elles sont à leur place, c’est-à-dire dans la vie municipale et corporative, économique et sociale, mais il estime qu’elles ne sont pas à leur place à la tête de l’État. C’est qu’originairement, le bourgeois est l’homme qui a restauré la vie économique, dans des villes protégées par les combattants, qui tenaient les châteaux-forts et chassaient les brigands. Pour l’esprit bourgeois, de ce fait, « le droit, c’est un contrat, tandis que le droit, pour le combattant, naît dans le choc des épées. La loi bourgeoise a été celle de l’argent, tandis que la loi du combattant était celle de l’héroïsme ».

La paix ayant été restaurée, l’esprit bourgeois a voulu commander dans l’État. Or l’esprit bourgeois ne peut réellement gouverner : et le pouvoir est usurpé par les politiciens et la ploutocratie. L’illusion bourgeoise consiste à croire que la paix dépend de la solidarité économique, alors qu’elle dépend d’abord de la protection de l’épée. L’exemple de Rome le prouve : la paix romaine a disparu quand l’esprit mercantile l’a emporté sur l’esprit héroïque.

À la tête de l’État national dont rêve Valois, il y aura évidemment le roi, dont l’alliance avec le peuple sera le fruit de la révolution nationale. Et Valois veut espérer que certains Français, « qui paraissent loin de la patrie aujourd’hui », se rallieront à cette révolution, et notamment certains communistes : « Parmi les communistes, il y a beaucoup d’hommes qui ne sont communistes que parce qu’ils n’avaient pas trouvé de solution au problème bourgeois ». Le communisme leur dit qu’il faut supprimer la bourgeoisie, mais cette solution est absurde : la seule solution réaliste consiste à remettre les bourgeois à leur place, et au service de l’intérêt national. « Quand cette solution apparaît, le communiste est en état de changer ses conclusions, s’il n’a pas l’intelligence totalement fermée. Alors, il s’aperçoit qu’il n’est pas autre chose qu’un fasciste qui s’ignore ».

À l’époque où Valois écrit ces lignes, Mussolini est au pouvoir depuis deux ans. Valois n’ignore pas que son maître Georges Sorel est l’un des doctrinaires contemporains qui ont le plus fortement influencé le chef du nouvel Flat italien. Et il estime que le fascisme n’est pas un phénomène spécifiquement italien, qu’il y a dans le fascisme des vérités qui valent pour d’autres pays que l’Italie :

« Il y a une chose remarquable : le fascisme et le communisme viennent d’un même mouvement. C’est une même réaction contre la démocratie et la ploutocratie. Mais le communisme moscovite veut la révolution internationale parce qu’il veut ouvrir les portes de l’Europe à ses guerriers, qui sont le noyau des invasions toujours prêtes à partir pour les rivages de la Méditerranée. Le fasciste latin veut la révolution nationale, parce qu’il est obligé de vivre sur le pays et par conséquent d’organiser le travail sous le commandement de sa loi nationale ».

L’œuvre de la révolution nationale ne se limitera pas à la restauration de l’État ; celle-ci étant accomplie, la France prendra l’initiative d’une nouvelle politique européenne :

« Alors, sous son inspiration (la France), les peuples formeront le faisceau romain, le faisceau de la chrétienté, qui refoulera la Barbarie en Asie ; il y aura de nouveau une grande fraternité européenne, une grande paix romaine et franque, et l’Europe pourra entrer dans le grand siècle européen qu’ont annoncé les combattants, et dont les premières paroles ont été celles que Maurras a prononcées au début de ce siècle., lorsque par l’Enquête sur lu monarchie, il rendit à l’esprit ses disciplines classiques ».

Dans ce même Almanach de l’Action française, on peut lire également un reportage d’Eugène Marsan sur l’Italie de Mussolini. L’un des principaux dirigeants fascistes, Sergio Panunzio, ayant déclaré que le nouvel Etat italien devait être fondé sur les syndicats, Eugène Marsan commente :

« Une monarchie syndicale, pourquoi non ? Le danger à éviter serait un malheureux amalgame du politicien et du corporatif, qui corromprait vite ce dernier et rendrait vaine toute la rénovation. Puissent y songer tous les pays que l’on aime. Un siècle de palabre démocratique nous a tous mis dans un chaos dont il faudra bien sortir ».

Ce commentaire correspond exactement aux idées de Valois, telles que nous les avons examinées ci-dessus. Il faut noter également qu’il vient en conclusion d’un article extrêmement élogieux pour Mussolini et son régime. Or l’Almanach d’Action française était un organe officiel de celle-ci, les articles qui y paraissaient étaient évidemment approuvés par Maurras. Ce dernier avait-il changé d’avis sur l’Italie fasciste un an plus tard. en 1926 ? Rien ne permet de l’affirmer, au contraire : douze ans après, en 1937, Maurras lui-même publiait dans Mes idées politiques, un vibrant éloge du régime mussolinien. Remarquons encore que l’on peut lire dans ce même Almanach d’AF de 1925 un article d’Henri Massis figurant entre celui de Valois et celui de Marsan, sur « L’offensive germano-asiatique contre la culture occidentale », et dénonçant la conjonction du germanisme et de l’orientalisme contre la culture gréco-latine. On sait que Maurras voyait précisément dans le fascisme une renaissance latine, et qu’il comptait beaucoup sur le rôle qu’une Italie forte pourrait jouer dans une éventuelle union latine pour résister à la fois à l’influence germanique et à l’influence anglo-saxonne en Europe. La position de Georges Valois concernant le fascisme s’accordait donc avec ses propres vues.

C’est plutôt, semble-t-il, les positions de Valois en politique intérieure française qui provoquèrent son inquiétude. La lettre que nous avons citée prouve que l’« antibourgeoisisme » de Valois, admis par Maurras en 1925. lui parut inquiétant l’année suivante. Toutefois ce dissentiment d’ordre doctrinal aurait peut-être pu s’arranger, sans les malentendus qui s’accumulaient entre les dirigeants de l’Action française et Georges Valois. À tort ou à raison, certains membres des comités directeurs de l’Action française - et notamment Maurice Pujo - persuadèrent Maurras que Valois, loin de servir l’Action française, ne songeait qu’à s’en servir au profit de son action personnelle. Dans un tel climat, la rupture était inévitable.

L’heure du faisceau

Après avoir démissionné de l’Action française, Valois décida de fonder un nouveau mouvement politique : ce fut la création du Faisceau, mouvement fasciste français. La parenté du mouvement avec le fascisme italien se manifestait non seulement par sa doctrine. mais aussi par le style des militants, qui portaient des chemises bleues. Si Valois n’entraîna guère de militants d’Action française, il obtint en revanche l’adhésion d’un certain nombre de syndicalistes, heureux de sa rupture avec Maurras. À la fin de l’année 1925, le Faisceau bénéficiait de concours assez importants pour que Valois pût décider de transformer le Nouveau Siècle hebdomadaire en quotidien.

Mais, pour ses anciens compagnons de l’Action française, Georges Valois devenait ainsi un gêneur et même un traître, dont il fallait au plus vite ruiner l’influence. En décembre 1925, les camelots du roi réussirent à interrompre une réunion du Faisceau. Un peu plus tard, les militants de Valois se vengèrent en organisant une « expédition » dans les locaux de l’Action française. Le quotidien de Maurras déclencha une très violente campagne contre Valois, qu’il accusait d’être en rapport avec la police, d’avoir volé les listes d’adresses de l’Action française au profit de son mouvement, d’avoir indûment conservé la Nouvelle librairie nationale, d’émarger aux fonds secrets, et enfin d’être à la solde d’un gouvernement étranger, le gouvernement italien.

Après une année de polémiques, Valois intenta un procès à l’Action française. Ce fut l’un des plus importants procès de presse de cette époque : le compte-rendu des débats, réuni en volume, remplit plus de six cents pages. On entendit successivement les témoins de l’Action française et ceux de Valois. Rien n’est plus pénible que les querelles entre dissidents et fidèles d’un même mouvement, quel qu’il soit. De part et d’autre, les années de fraternité, de luttes communes pour un même idéal, sont oubliées : les dissentiments du présent suffisent à effacer les anciennes amitiés. Il en fut naturellement ainsi au procès Valois-Action française.

Nous n’évoquerons pas ici les discussions des débats, concernant mille et un détails de la vie du journal et du mouvement de Maurras. Nous dirons seulement que le compte-rendu du procès prouve que la querelle relevait davantage de l’affrontement des caractères que des divergences intellectuelles.

Les dirigeants de l’Action française insistèrent avant tout sur le « reniement » de Georges Valois, qui traitait Charles Maurras de « misérable » après l’avoir porté aux nues. L’un des avocats de l’Action française, Marie de Roux, donna lecture d’un hommage de Valois destiné à un ouvrage collectif, dans lequel le futur chef du Faisceau écrivait notamment :

« Maurras possède le don total du commandement. Ce n’est pas seulement ce don qui fait plier les volontés sous un ordre et les entraîne malgré ce mouvement secret de l’âme qui se rebelle toujours un peu au moment où le corps subit l’ordre d’une autre volonté. Le commandement de Maurras entraîne l’adhésion entière de l’âme ; il persuade et conquiert. L’homme qui s’y conforme n’a pas le sentiment d’être contraint, ni de subir une volonté qui le dépasse ; il se sent libre ; il adhère ; le mouvement où il est appelé est celui auquel le porte une décision de sa propre volonté. Il y a deux puissances de commandement : l’une qui courbe les volontés, l’autre qui les élève, les associe et les entraîne. C’est celle-ci que possède Maurras. Vous savez que c’est la plus rare, la plus grande et la plus heureuse » (17).

Celui qui avait écrit ces lignes avait-il vraiment commis les vilenies que lui reprochait l’Action française ? À distance, l’attitude de Valois ne semble pas justifier ce qu’en disaient ses anciens compagnons. Il avait tenté d’agir selon la ligne qui lui semblait la plus efficace ; Maurras ne l’avait pas approuvé, il avait repris sa liberté. Avait-il vraiment utilisé, pour sa nouvelle entreprise, les listes de l’Action française ? C’est assez plausible mais n’était-ce pas jusqu’à un certain point son droit, s’il estimait que Maurras ne tenait pas ses promesses et qu’il fallait le faire comprendre à ses militants ? L’affaire de la Nouvelle librairie nationale était complexe : Valois y tenait ses fonctions de l’Action française, mais il avait beaucoup fait pour la développer, et il était excusable de considérer que cette entreprise d’édition était plus ou moins devenue sienne. Quant aux accusations les plus graves - l’émargement aux fonds secrets, l’appartenance à la police et les subventions du gouvernement italien - l’Action française faisait état d’indices et de soupçons, plutôt que de preuves. On constatait que l’action de Valois devenu dissident de l’Action française divisait les forces nationalistes, on en concluait qu’elle devait avoir l’appui de la police politique ; celle-ci se réjouissait certainement de cet état de choses, mais cela ne suffisait pas à prouver qu’elle l’eût suscité. De même, les fonds relativement importants dont disposait Georges Valois pouvaient provenir aussi bien de capitalistes, désirant dans certains cas garder l’anonymat, que des fonds secrets. Les subventions du gouvernement italien étaient une autre hypothèse : Valois avait été reçu par Mussolini, il connaissait certaines personnalités du fascisme italien ; cela permettait des suppositions, et rien de plus.

Sans doute était-il gênant, pour Georges Valois, d’entendre rappeler l’éloge qu’il avait fait de l’homme qu’il traitait désormais de « misérable ». Mais on assistait, dans l’autre camp, à un phénomène analogue. Si Valois n’était plus pour Maurras, depuis la fondation du Faisceau, que « la bourrique Gressent, dit Valois » ou « Valois de la rue des Saussaies », il avait été tout autre chose peu de temps auparavant. Le 12 octobre 1925, Maurras, annonçant à ses lecteurs la fondation du Nouveau Siècle, s’exprimait en ces termes :

« Je n’ai pas la prétention d’analyser la grande œuvre de spéculation et d’étude que Valois accomplit dans les vingt ans de sa collaboration à l’Action française. Les résultats en sont vivants, brillants, et ainsi assez éloquents ! de la librairie restaurée et développée à ces livres comme Le Cheval de Troie, confirmant et commentant des actes de guerre ; des admirables entreprises de paix telles que les Semaines et les États généraux à ces pénétrantes et décisives analyses de la situation financière qui ont abouti à la Ligue du franc-or, et aux ridicules poursuites de M. Caillaux. Georges Valois, menant de front la pensée et l’action avec la même ardeur dévorante et le même bonheur, a rendu à la cause nationale et royale de tels services qu’il devient presque oiseux de les rappeler ».

La déviation mussolinienne

Valois sortit vainqueur de sa lutte judiciaire contre l’Action française. Les membres du comité directeur du mouvement qu’il avait poursuivis furent condamnés à de fortes amendes. Mais cette victoire judiciaire ne fut pas suivie d’une victoire politique.

À sa fondation, le Faisceau avait recruté un nombre important d’adhérents, et le journal Le Nouveau Siècle avait obtenu des collaborations assez brillantes. Mais ni le nouveau parti, ni le nouveau journal ne purent s’imposer de façon durable. En 1927, le Faisceau déclinait rapidement ; le Nouveau Siècle quotidien redevenait hebdomadaire, et disparut l’année suivante. Cet échec avait plusieurs causes. La violente campagne de l’Action française contre Valois impressionnait vivement les sympathisants de. celle-ci et l’ensemble des « nationaux ». Le style para-militaire, l’uniforme que Valois imposait à ses militants paraissaient ridicules à beaucoup de gens. D’autre part, l’opinion publique se méfiait d’un mouvement s’inspirant trop directement d’un régime politique étranger. Les bailleurs de fonds du mouvement et du journal s’en rendirent compte, et coupèrent les vivres à Valois. Celui-ci fut bientôt mis en accusation par certaines personnalités du mouvement : né d’une dissidence, le Faisceau eut lui-même ses dissidents, entraînés par l’un des fondateurs du mouvement, Philippe Lamour Valois restait avec quelques milliers de partisans ; ceux-ci se séparèrent finalement de lui, pour former un Parti fasciste révolutionnaire, dont l’existence ne fut pas moins éphémère que celle du Faisceau.

Valois s’était efforcé de rompre avec les schémas idéologiques de l’Action française, aussitôt après l’avoir quittée. Férocement antisémite au début de son action, il estimait en 1926 que la rénovation économique et sociale qu’il appelait de ses vœux ne pouvait aboutir sans la participation des Juifs :

« Supposez que les Juifs entrent dans ce prodigieux mouvement de rénovation de l’économie moderne, et vous vous rendrez compte qu’ils y joueront un rôle de premier ordre, et qu’ils hâteront l’avènement du monde nouveau. « À cause de leur appétit révolutionnaire. À cause également de vertus qui sont les leurs, et qui s’exercent avec le plus grand fruit dans une nation sachant les utiliser. « En premier lieu, la vertu de justice. Il est connu dans le monde entier que les Juifs ont un sentiment de la justice extraordinairement fort. « C’est ce sentiment de la justice qui les portait vers le socialisme. Faites que ce sentiment s’exerce vers le fascisme, qui, parallèlement au catholicisme, aura une action sociale intense, et vous donnerez un élément extraordinaire à la vie juive » (18).

Cet appel à la compréhension des « fascistes » envers les Juifs ne pouvait évidemment que déconcerter les anciens militants d’Action française que Valois avait groupés dans le Faisceau. D’autant plus qu’à cette ouverture envers Israël, Valois ajoutait quelques mois plus tard un renoncement à l’idéal monarchique au profit de la République :

« Nous avons tous au Faisceau le grand sentiment de 1789, la grande idée de la Révolution française et que résume le mot de la carrière ouverte aux talents. C’est-à-dire aux possibilités d’accession de tous aux charges publiques. Nous sommes ennemis de tout pouvoir qui fermerait ses propres avenues à certaines catégories de citoyens. Là-dessus nous avons tous la fibre républicaine » (19).

Regrettant de plus en plus d’avoir fait trop de concessions au capitalisme et à la bourgeoisie, Valois se montrait décidé à rompre avec la droite :

« Nous ne sommes ni à droite ni à gauche. Nous ne sommes pas pour l’autorité contre la liberté. Nous sommes pour une autorité souveraine forte et pour une liberté non moins forte. Pour un État fortement constitué et pour une représentation nouvelle régionale, syndicale, corporative. « Ni à gauche ni à droite. Et voulez-vous me laisser vous dire que nous ne voyons à droite aucun groupe, aucun homme capable de faire le salut du pays. Et que nous en voyons parmi les radicaux, les radicaux-socialistes et même chez les socialistes, mais que ceux-ci sont désaxés par des idées absurdes » (20).

Puis, non content d’avoir répudié le monde de droite, Georges Valois renoncera également à n’être « ni à droite, ni à gauche ». Il constatera en effet que ce dépassement des vieilles options classiques de la vie politique française et européenne est au-dessus de ses forces. Il avait espéré que le fascisme était précisément la solution pour un tel dépassement. Ce qu’il apprend de l’évolution italienne le déçoit profondément. Mussolini, estime-t-il, s’oriente maintenant « dans le sens réactionnaire ». Il voudrait que le fascisme français « puisse l’emporter sur un fascisme italien dévié, et que l’Europe tienne ce fascisme français pour le type du fascisme ». Mais il ne tardera pas à s’apercevoir qu’aucun avenir politique n’est possible pour ses amis et lui s’ils gardent les vocables de fascisme et de Faisceau, définitivement associés par les partis de gauche à la pire réaction.

L’échec de la République syndicale

Ce n’est donc pas pour le maintien d’une politique « ni à droite, ni à gauche » mais bien pour un retour à la gauche que Georges Valois va se décider. En mars 1928, à l’heure où Le Nouveau Siècle disparaît, Valois publie un Manifeste pour la République syndicale. Tout en affirmant que « le fascisme a accompli en France sa mission historique, qui était de disloquer les vieilles formations, de provoquer, au-delà des vieux partis, le rassemblement des équipes de l’avenir », l’ancien leader du Faisceau opte maintenant pour un État gouverné par les syndicats. En quoi il ne fait que revenir aux aspirations de sa jeunesse, d’avant la rencontre de Maurras.

La publication du Manifeste est rapidement suivi de la fondation par Valois et son fidèle ami Jacques Arthuys du Parti républicain syndicaliste. Parmi les personnalités qui donnent leur adhésion à cette nouvelle formation figure notamment René Capitant, futur ministre du général de Gaulle. Mais, de l’aveu même de Valois, ce parti ne sera en fait qu’un groupe d’études, sans influence comparable à celle du Faisceau.

Dès lors, Valois s’exprimera surtout à travers plusieurs revues, tout en continuant à publier des essais sur la conjoncture politique de son temps. Les revues qu’il suscitera s’appelleront Les Cahiers bleus, puis Les Chantiers coopératifs, et enfin Le Nouvel Âge. Parmi leurs collaborateurs, on doit citer notamment Pietro Nenni, le grand leader socialiste italien, Pierre Mendès-France, Bertrand de Jouvenel et Jean Luchaire : quatre noms qui suffisent à situer l’importance de l’action intellectuelle de Georges Valois dans les années de l’entre-deux-guerres.

Dans son étude sur Valois, M. Yves Guchet (21) remarque le caractère quasi-prophétique de certaines intuitions de ce dernier. C’est ainsi que dans Un nouvel âge de l’Humanité, Valois amorce une analyse de l’évolution du capitalisme que l’on trouvera plus tard chez des économistes américains tels que Berle et Means, et aussi Galbraith, dans Le nouvel état industriel. Mais le drame de Georges Valois est d’arriver trop tôt, dans un monde où certaines vérités ne seront finalement comprises ou reconnues qu’après de terribles orages.

Vers 1935, Valois tente de se faire réintégrer dans les formations de gauche. Il n’y parvient pas. Si l’Action française ne lui pardonne pas d’avoir renié la monarchie et d’être retourné au socialisme, les partis de gauche, eux, refusent d’oublier son passé. C’est en vain qu’il écrit à Marceau Pivert pour solliciter son admission au Parti socialiste : d’abord acceptée, sa demande sera finalement rejetée par les hautes instances de ce parti.

En fait, l’ancien fondateur du Faisceau est désormais condamné à l’hétérodoxie par rapport aux formations politiques classiques. Son anti-étatisme, notamment, le rend suspect aux animateurs du Front populaire. Valois pense comme eux que le communisme est intellectuellement et politiquement supérieur au fascisme, mais il estime que, tout comme les dirigeants italiens, les dirigeants soviétiques ont trahi leur idéal initial en construisant une société socialiste privée de liberté.

Brouillé avec la majorité de ses anciens amis - ceux de gauche comme ceux de droite - Valois épuise son énergie dans de nombreux procès contre les uns et les autres, tandis que son audience devient de plus en plus confidentielle. Qui plus est, sa pensée devient parfois contradictoire : ancien apologiste des vertus viriles suscitées par la guerre, il se proclame soudain pacifiste devant l’absurdité d’un éventuel conflit mondial, tout en reprochant à Léon Blum de ne pas soutenir militairement l’Espagne républicaine...

Georges Valois appartenait à cette catégorie d’esprits qui ne parviennent pas à trouver le système politique de leurs vœux, et dont le destin est d’être déçus par ce qui les a passionné. Mais c’était aussi, de toute évidence, un homme qui ne se résignait pas à la division de l’esprit public par les notions de droite et de gauche. Ce qui l’avait séduit avant tout, dans l’idée monarchique, c’était la possibilité de mettre un terme à cette division, d’unir les meilleurs éléments de tous les partis, de toutes les classes sociales, dans un idéal positif, à la fois national et social. Ayant constaté que l’idée monarchique se heurtait à trop d’incompréhension ou de méfiance dans certains milieux, et notamment dans le milieu ouvrier, il pensa que l’idée fasciste, étant une idée neuve et moderne, permettrait plus aisément l’union des meilleurs. Sans doute se remit-il mal de cette double déception.

Cette volonté d’unir les meilleures forces nationales existait aussi chez Charles Maurras, mais de manière plus théorique, plus abstraite. Convaincu d’avoir raison, d’avoir trouvé la doctrine la plus conforme à l’intérêt national, il se Préoccupait au fond assez peu de l’hostilité qu’il suscitait dans de très vastes secteurs de l’opinion française. Valois, au contraire, ne pouvait supporter la pensée que les meilleurs éléments populaires fussent hostiles à son propre combat politique. S’il en était ainsi, pensait-il, c’est qu’il y avait dans la doctrine elle-même quelque chose qui devait être modifié. Telle est l’explication psychologique de ses positions successives. En un mot, Valois voulait agir sur les masses, ce qui apparaissait à Maurras comme une tendance démagogique.

Au moment où il fonda son mouvement, Valois était persuadé que l’Action française n’en avait plus pour bien longtemps. Ce fut le contraire : l’Action française, forte de sa doctrine et de son organisation, survécut largement au Faisceau. On peut conclure de cette erreur d’appréciation que les qualités proprement politiques de Valois étaient médiocres, et que l’Action française n’eut pas à regretter beaucoup son départ.

Et cependant, Valois voyait juste lorsqu’il se préoccupait d’accorder les idées politiques de Maurras avec les grands courants sociaux du début du siècle, et de compléter l’action politique par l’action sociale. Sans doute était-il très difficile de réunir, au sein d’un même mouvement, des éléments de l’aristocratie et de la bourgeoisie traditionaliste et des éléments du syndicalisme ouvrier et paysan : mais c’était bien dans cette direction qu’il fallait tenter d’agir. Maurras éprouvait peu d’intérêt pour les questions économiques et sociales : sa formule : « L’économique dépend du politique », lui servait d’alibi pour les ignorer. Mais un mouvement politique du vingtième siècle ne pouvait pas impunément négliger les grandes luttes sociales ; s’il les négligeait, il limitait son influence à certains milieux, consommant ainsi cette division de 1a nation qu’il réprouvait en principe.

Maurras, qui avait montré de la compréhension, de la sympathie même, pour l’action des syndicats vers 1914, semble s’y être beaucoup moins intéressé par la suite. Dans le monde ouvrier français et européen, l’influence de Marx l’avait emporté sur celle de Proudhon et de Sorel ; et la politisation du mouvement syndical se poursuivait clans le sens que l’on sait. Pour Maurras, le devoir était de combattre cette mauvaise politique à laquelle adhérait plus ou moins ardemment la classe ouvrière ; la défaite des partis de gauche permettrait la libération du syndicalisme français. Le monde ouvrier ne pouvait entendre un tel langage : il assimilait le combat contre les partis de gauche à un combat contre la classe ouvrière en elle-même. Telle était l’équivoque dont Valois, après Sorel, avait senti le danger, et qu’il avait voulu à tout prix éviter. Les succès de. ses conférences, les recherches du Cercle Proudhon, prouvaient que quelque chose dans ce sens était possible. En admettant que Maurras ait eu de bonnes raisons de prendre ses distances vis-à-vis de Valois, il commit probablement une erreur en réduisant la place des questions économiques et sociales dans son journal et dans la vie de son mouvement : le drame de l’Action française, comme des autres ligues nationalistes, fut de ne pas avoir de doctrine sociale précise à opposer aux campagnes du Front populaire.

Au lendemain de la Libération, on apprit que Georges Valois, arrêté par les Allemands pour son action dans un mouvement de résistance, était mort au camp de Bergen-Belsen. Son ami Jacques Arthuys, co-fondateur du Faisceau, ayant également choisi la Résistance, était lui aussi mort en déportation. Bientôt, l’un des premiers militants du Faisceau, fondateur en 193 ? d’un second mouvement fasciste français, Le Francisme, Marcel Bucard, tombait, lui, sous les balles de l’épuration après avoir été condamné pour collaboration. Le fascisme français dans son ensemble était assimilé à l’ « intelligence avec l’ennemi », et le mouvement de Georges Valois était oublié : Arthuys et lui-même furent de ces morts de la Résistance dont les partis politiques victorieux préféraient ne pas parler, puisqu’ils n’avaient pas été des leurs.

Paul Sérant in Les dissidents de l’Action française, Copernic, 1978, chapitre I, pp. 13-36.

---

Notes

1 - G. Valois, Basile ou la calomnie de la politique, Librairie Valois, 1927, introduction, p. X. 2 - C. Maurras, L’Action française, 1er et 4 août 1908. 3 - Cf. P. Andreu, Notre Maître, M. Sorel, Grasset, 1953, p. 325. 4 - G. Valois, Histoire et philosophie sociale – La révolution sociale ou le roi, Nouvelle librairie nationale, 1924, p. 288. 5 - Op. cit., p. 292. 6 - Ibid., p. 295. 7 - Ibid., p. 302. 8 - Ibid., pp. 307-308. 9 - Ibid., p. 313. 10 - Ibid., p. 356. 11 - Ibid., p. 360. 12 - Ibid., pp. 365-366. 13 - Cf. P. Andreu, Notre Maître, M. Sorel, pp. 327-328. 14 - G. Valois, Basile ou la calomnie de la politique, introduction, p. XVII-XVIII. 15 - Op. cit., p. XX. 16 - Ibid., p. XXX. 17 - Charles Maurras par ses contemporains, Nouvelle librairie nationale, 1919, pp. 43-44. 18 - Le Nouveau Siècle, 25 février 1926. 19 - Ibid., 21 juin 1926. 20 - Ibid., 28 novembre 1926. 21 - Y. Guchet, Georges Valois – L’Action française, le Faisceau, la République syndicale, éd. Albatros, 1975, pp. 206-207.

March on Fiume

MARCH ON FIUME

Excerpted from Hakim Bey’s T.A.Z. The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism

Ex: http://www.freespeechproject.com/

“To die is not enough.”
— D’Annunzio

When pressed about his political allegiance, Gabriele D’Annunzio (1863-1938) refused to commit himself. “My undertaking may seem rash and alien to my art and style of life,” he wrote to his publisher, “but… people must realise that I am capable of doing anything.” After his election to Italy’s Chamber of Deputies he showed his contempt for the parliamentary circus by rarely attending the sessions, and behaving unpredictably when he did. Nicknamed “the deputy of beauty”, D’Annunzio watched the parliamentary debates as an artist rather than a participant. Originally elected to the Chamber as a ‘rightwing’ nationalist, he had no trouble crossing the floor to vote — and sit with — members of the ‘extreme left’.

Plagued by creditors, D’Annunzio settled in France in 1910 to concentrate on his writing and art. Since the 1890s he had enjoyed mass appeal and on returning to Italy in 1915 he was greeted by some one hundred thousand admirers. A strong supporter of Italy’s involvement in the First World War, D’Annunzio, aged fifty-two, volunteered for active service in the trenches. A daring aviator, he led bombing raids, losing an eye in an aeroplane accident. In a final act of heroism, as the war drew to a close, he flew as far as Vienna and there dropped propaganda pamphlets from his aeroplane.

 At the Peace Conference of 1919, Italy claimed the port of Fiume on the grounds of self-determination. Little aroused the indignation of so many Italians as much as the question of Fiume. The US, Britain and France argued that Fiume be included in Yugoslavia and occupied the port. A group of young army officers begged the war hero D’Annunzio to seize Fiume for Italy. On September 12 he marched from Rome at the head of a thousand black shirted legionaries; the Allied troops withdrew and D’Annunzio, who announced his intention of remaining in the city until it was annexed by Italy, assumed control of the port city as the ‘Commandante’.

 Within a few weeks some seven thousand legionaries and four hundred sailors had joined him. They saw in D’Annunzio a heroic alternative to the sedentary parliamentarians they despised. For them the Commandante’s Fiume became “the symbol of a moral, political and social rejection of the entire established order.” The legionaries called for the freedom of all oppressed people and viewed with interest the Soviet experiment in Russia. They were open to an alliance with the syndicalists, anarchists and Socialists. D’Annunzio established contacts with Sean O’Kelly, the future President of Ireland, who then represented Sinn Fein in Paris; with the Egyptian nationalists; and with the Soviet government. Lenin referred to D’Annunzio as one of the only revolutionaries in Italy.

 In asserting the independence of Fiume, Gabriele D’ Annunzio denounced the big powers, especially British imperialism:

 “Fiume is as invincible as she has ever been. True, we may all perish beneath her ruins, but from these same ruins the spirit will rise again strong and vigorous. From the indomitable Sinn Fein of Ireland to the Red Flag which unites cross and crescent in Egypt, rebellions of the spirit, catching fire from our sparks, will burn afresh against the devourers of raw flesh, and the oppressors of unarmed nations. The voracious Empire which has possessed itself of Persia, Mesopotamia, New Arabia and a greater part of Africa, and yet is never satisfied, can, if it so wishes, send its aviator-murderers against us, just as in Egypt it was not ashamed to massacre insurgents, who were armed with nothing more than sticks.”

 Many of D’Annunzio’s emblems were later taken over by Mussolini. The legionaries’ black shirts derived from the tunics of first world war shock troops. Garibaldi, the father of modern Italy, had made all Italians familiar with the idea of a coloured shirt as a symbol of a liberating cause. Even the word Fascio, from which is derived Fascism, meaning “group” or “association” (literally “bundle”), had long been used by the Italian leftwing. In 1872 Garibaldi had founded a Fascio Operaio, and in 1891 an extreme leftwing group was set up known as Fascio dei Lavoratori.

 For fifteen months the Commandante held out against Allied protests and an Italian government blockade. Then on 24 December 1920, “the Christmas of Blood” as D’Annunzio called it, 20,000 troops moved against D’Annunzio’s 3,000.

 While it lasted, the short lived Free State of Fiume, under the direction of Commandante D’Annunzio, stood as a heroic, passionate revolt against mediocrity. For in the words of D’Annunzio:

 “Blessed are the youths who hunger and thirst for glory, for they shall be satisfied.”
Gabriele D’Annunzio

“Everything in life depends upon the eternally new. Man must either renew himself or die.”
— D’Annunzio

 Gabriele D’Annunzio, Decadent poet, artist, musician, aesthete, womanizer, pioneer daredevil aeronautist, black magician, genius and cad, emerged from World War I as a hero with a small army at his beck and command: the “Arditi.” At a loss for adventure, he decided to capture the city of Fiume from Yugoslavia and give it to Italy. After a necromantic ceremony with his mistress in a cemetery in Venice he set out to conquer Fiume, and succeeded without any trouble to speak of. But Italy turned down his generous offer; the Prime Minister called him a fool.

 In a huff, D’Annunzio decided to declare independence and see how long he could get away with it. He and one of his anarchist friends wrote the Constitution, which declared music to be the central principle of the State. The Navy (made up of deserters and Milanese anarchist maritime unionists) named themselves the Uscochi, after the long-vanished pirates who once lived on local offshore islands and preyed on Venetian and Ottoman shipping. The modern Uscochi succeeded in some wild coups: several rich Italian merchant vessels suddenly gave the Republic a future: money in the coffers! Artists, bohemians, adventurers, anarchists (D’Annunzio corresponded with Malatesta), fugitives and Stateless refugees, homosexuals, military dandies (the uniform was black with pirate skull-&-crossbones — later stolen by the SS), and crank reformers of every stripe (including Buddhists, Theosophists and Vedantists) began to show up at Fiume in droves. The party never stopped. Every morning D’Annunzio read poetry and manifestos from his balcony; every evening a concert, then fireworks. This made up the entire activity of the government. Eighteen months later, when the wine and money had run out and the Italian fleet finally showed up and lobbed a few shells at the Municipal Palace, no one had the energy to resist.

 D’Annunzio, like many Italian anarchists, later veered toward fascism — in fact, Mussolini (the ex-Syndicalist) himself seduced the poet along that route. By the time D’Annunzio realized his error it was too late: he was too old and sick. But Il Duce had him killed anyway — pushed off a balcony — and turned him into a “martyr.” As for Fiume, though it lacked the seriousness of the free Ukraine or Barcelona, it can probably teach us more about certain aspects of our quest. It was in some ways the last of the pirate utopias (or the only modern example) — in other ways, perhaps, it was very nearly the first modern TAZ [Temporary Autonomous Zone].

 I believe that if we compare Fiume with the Paris uprising of 1968 (also the Italian urban insurrections of the early seventies), as well as with the American countercultural communes and their anarcho-New Left influences, we should notice certain similarities, such as: — the importance of aesthetic theory (cf. the Situationists) — also, what might be called “pirate economics,” living high off the surplus of social overproduction — even the popularity of colorful military uniforms — and the concept of music as revolutionary social change — and finally their shared air of impermanence, of being ready to move on, shape-shift, re-locate to other universities, mountaintops, ghettos, factories, safe houses, abandoned farms — or even other planes of reality. No one was trying to impose yet another Revolutionary Dictatorship, either at Fiume, Paris, or Millbrook. Either the world would change, or it wouldn’t. Meanwhile keep on the move and live intensely.

The Doctrine of Higher Forms

Sir Oswald MOSLEY

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Since the war I have stressed altogether five main objectives. The true union of Europe; the union of government with science; the power of government to act rapidly and decisively, subject to parliamentary control; the effective leadership of government to solve the economic problem by use of the wage-price mechanism at the two key-points of the modern industrial world; and a clearly defined purpose for a movement of humanity to ever higher forms.

It is strange that in this last sphere of almost abstract thought my ideas have more attracted some of the young minds I value than my practical proposals in economics and politics. The reason is perhaps that people seek the ideal rather than the practical during a period in which such action is not felt to be necessary. This is encouraging for an ultimate future, in which through science the world can become free from the gnawing anxiety of material things and can turn to thinking which elevates and to beauty which inspires, but the hard fact is that many practical problems and menacing dangers must first be faced and overcome.

The thesis of higher forms was preceded by a fundamental challenge to the widely accepted claim of the communists that history is on their side. On the contrary, they are permanent prisoners of a transient phase in the human advance which modern science has rendered entirely obsolete. Not only is the primitive brutality of their method only possible in a backward country, but their whole thinking is only applicable to a primitive community. Both their economic thinking and their materialist conception of history belong exclusively to the nineteenth century. This thinking, still imprisoned in a temporary limitation, we challenge with thinking derived from the whole of European history and from the yet longer trend revealed by modern science. We challenge the idea of the nineteenth century with the idea of the twentieth century.

Communism is still held fast by the long obsolete doctrine of its origin, precisely because it is a material creed which recognizes nothing beyond such motives and the urge to satisfy such needs. Yet modern man has surpassed that condition as surely as the jet aircraft in action has overcome the natural law of gravity which Newton discovered. The same urge of man’s spiritual nature served by his continually developing science can inspire him to ever greater achievement and raise him to ever further heights.

The challenge to communist materialism was stated as follows in Europe: Faith and Plan:

What then, is the purpose of it all? Is it just material achievement? Will the whole urge be satisfied when everyone has plenty to eat and drink, every possible assurance against sickness and old age, a house, a television set, and a long seaside holiday each year? What other end can a communist civilization hold in prospect except this, which modern science can so easily satisfy within the next few years?

If you begin with the belief that all history can be interpreted only in material terms, and that any spiritual purpose is a trick and a delusion, which has the simple object of distracting the workers from their material aim of improving their conditions—the only reality—what end can there be even after every conceivable success, except the satisfaction of further material desires? When all the basic needs and wants are sated by the output of the new science, what further aim can there be but the devising of ever more fantastic amusements to titillate material appetites? If Soviet civilization achieves its furthest ambitions, is the end to be sputnik races round the stars to relieve the tedium of being a communist?

Communism is a limited creed, and its limitations are inevitable. If the original impulse is envy, malice, and hatred against someone who has something you have not got, you are inevitably limited by the whole impulse to which you owe the origin of your faith and movement. That initial emotion may be well founded, may be based on justice, on indignation against the vile treatment of the workers in the early days of the industrial revolution. But if you hold that creed, you carry within yourself your own prison walls, because any escape from that origin seems to lead towards the hated shape of the man who once had something you had not got; anything above or beyond yourself is bad. In reality, he may be far from being a higher form; he may be a most decadent product of an easy living which he was incapable of using even for self-development, an ignoble example of missed opportunity. But if the first impulse be envy and hatred of him, you are inhibited from any movement beyond yourself for fear of becoming like him, the man who had something which you had not got.

Thus your ideal becomes not something beyond yourself, still less beyond anything which now exists, but rather, the petrified, fossilized shape of that section of the community which was most oppressed, suffering, and limited by every material circumstance in the middle of the nineteenth century. The real urge is then to drag everything down toward the lowest level of life, rather than the attempt to raise everything towards the highest level of life which has yet been attained, and finally to move beyond even that. In all things this system of values seeks what is low instead of what is high.

So communism has no longer any deep appeal to the sane, sensible mass of the European workers who, in entire contradiction of Marxian belief in their increasing “immiseration,” have moved by the effort of their own trade unions and by political action to at least a partial participation in the plenty which the new science is beginning to bring, and towards a way of living and an outlook in which they do not recognize themselves at all as the miserable and oppressed figures of communism’s original workers.

The ideal is no longer the martyred form of the oppressed, but the beginning of a higher form. Men are beginning not to look down, but to look up. And it is precisely at this point that a new way of political thinking can give definite shape to what many are beginning to feel is a new forward urge of humanity. It becomes an impulse of nature itself directly man is free from the stifling oppression of dire, primitive need.

The ideal of creating a higher form on earth can now rise before men with the power of a spiritual purpose, which is not simply a philosophic abstraction but a concrete expression of a deep human desire. All men want their children to live better than they have lived, just as they have tried by their own exertions to lift themselves beyond the level of their fathers whose affection and sacrifice often gave them the chance to do it. This is a right and natural urge in mankind, and, when fully understood, becomes a spiritual purpose.

This purpose I described as the doctrine of higher forms. The idea of a continual movement of humanity from the amoeba to modern man and on to ever higher forms has interested me since my prison days, when I first became acutely aware of the relationship between modern science and Greek philosophy. Perhaps it is the very simplicity of the thesis which gives it strength; mankind moving from the primitive beginning which modern science reveals to the present stage of evolution and continuing in this long ascent to heights beyond our present vision, if the urge of nature and the purpose of life are to be fulfilled. While simple to the point of the obvious, in detailed analysis it is the exact opposite of prevailing values. Most great impulses of life are in essence simple, however complex their origin. An idea may be derived from three thousand years of European thought and action, and yet be stated in a way that all men can understand.

My thinking on this subject was finally reduced to the extreme of simplicity in the conclusion of Europe, Faith and Plan:

To believe that the purpose of life is a movement from lower to higher forms is to record an observable fact. If we reject that fact, we reject every finding of modern science, as well as the evidence of our own eyes. . . . It is necessary to believe that this is the purpose of life, because we can observe that this is the way the world works, whether we believe in divine purpose or not. And once we believe this is the way the world works, and deduce from the long record that it is the only way it can work, this becomes a purpose because it is the only means by which the world is likely to work in future. If the purpose fails, the world fails.

The purpose so far has achieved the most incredible results—incredible to anyone who had been told in advance what was going to happen—by working from the most primitive life forms to the relative heights of present human development. Purpose becomes, therefore, quite clearly in the light of modern knowledge a movement from lower to higher forms. And if purpose in this way has moved so far and achieved so much, it is only reasonable to assume that it will so continue if it continues at all; if the world lasts. Therefore, if we desire to sustain human existence, if we believe in mankind’s origin which science now makes clear, and in his destiny which a continuance of the same progress makes possible, we must desire to aid rather than to impede the discernible purpose. That means we should serve the purpose which moves from lower to higher forms; this becomes our creed of life. Our life is dedicated to the purpose.

In practical terms this surely indicates that we should not tell men to be content with themselves as they are, but should urge them to strive to become something beyond themselves. . . . To assure men that we have no need to surpass ourselves, and thereby to imply that men are perfect, is surely the extreme of arrogant presumption. It is also a most dangerous folly, because it is rapidly becoming clear that if mankind’s moral nature and spiritual stature cannot increase more commensurately with his material achievements, we risk the death of the world. . . .

We must learn to live, as well as to do. We must restore harmony with life, and recognize the purpose in life. Man has released the forces of nature just as he has become separated from nature; this is a mortal danger, and is reflected in the neurosis of the age. We cannot stay just where we are; it is an uneasy, perilous and impossible situation. Man must either reach beyond his present self, or fail; and if he fails this time, the failure is final. That is the basic difference between this age and all previous periods. It was never before possible for this failure of men to bring the world to an end.

It is not only a reasonable aim to strive for a higher form among men; it is a creed with the strength of a religious conviction. It is not only a plain necessity of the new age of science which the genius of man’s mind has brought; it is in accordance with the long process of nature within which we may read the purpose of the world. And it is no small and selfish aim, for we work not only for ourselves but for a time to come. The long striving of our lives can not only save our present civilization, but can also enable others more fully to realize and to enjoy the great beauty of this world, not only in peace and happiness, but in an ever unfolding wisdom and rising consciousness of the mission of man.

The doctrine of higher forms may have appealed to some in a generation acutely aware of the divorce between religion and science because it was an attempted synthesis of these two impulses of the human movement. I went so far as to say that higher forms could have the force of a science and a religion, in the secular sense, since it derived both from the evolutionary process first recognized in the last century, and from the philosophy, perhaps the mysticism, well described as the ‘eternal becoming’, which Hellenism first gave to Europe as an original and continuing movement still represented in the thinking, architecture and music of the main European tradition.

To simplify and synthesize are the chief gifts which clear thought can bring, and never have they been so deeply needed as in this age. A healing synthesis is required, a union of Hellenism’s calm but radiant embrace of the beauty and wonder of life with the Gothic impulse of new discoveries urging man to reach beyond his presently precarious balance until sanity itself is threatened. The genius of Hellas can still give back to Europe the life equilibrium, the firm foundation from which science can grasp the stars. He who can combine within himself this sanity and this dynamism becomes thereby a higher form, and beyond him can be an ascent revealing always a further wisdom and beauty. It is a personal ideal for which all can try to live, a purpose in life.

We can thus resume the journey to further summits of the human spirit with measure and moderation won from the struggle and tribulation of these years. We may even in this time of folly and sequent adversity gain the balance of maturity which alone can make us worthy of the treasures, capable of using the miraculous endowment, and also of averting the tempestuous dangers, of modern science. We may at last acquire the adult mind, without which the world cannot survive, and learn to use with wisdom and decision the wonders of this age.

I hope that this record of my own small part in these great affairs and still greater possibilities has at least shown that I have ‘the repugnance to mean and cruel dealings’ which the wise old man ascribed to me so long ago, and yet have attempted by some union of mind and will to combine thought and deed; that I have stood with consistency for the construction of a worthy dwelling for humanity, and at all cost against the rage and folly of insensate and purposeless destruction; that I have followed the truth as I saw it, wherever that service led me, and have ventured to look and strive through the dark to a future that can make all worth while.

Source: http://www.oswaldmosley.com/higher-forms.htm

Pound, Jefferson, Adams e Mussolini

Pound, Jefferson, Adams e Mussolini

Autore: Giano Accame

Ex: http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

 

È vero: siamo in tempo di crisi e accadono cose davvero sorprendenti. Anche nel movimento delle idee. Occupa appena una trentina di pagine il saggio di Ezra Pound su Il carteggio Jefferson-Adams come tempio e monumento ed è quindi motivo di un lieve stupore l’ampiezza dell’interesse che ha suscitato. Il 18 febbraio scorso si parte con un’intera pagina del Corriere della Sera per una recensione di Giulio Giorello, filosofo della scienza, ma anche raffinato lettore dei Cantos da un versante laico-progressista, che ha acceso la discussione a cominciare dal titolo: Elogio libertario di Ezra Pound. Scambiò Mussolini per Jefferson. Ma il suo era un Canto contro i tiranni. Di quel titolo il giorno dopo profittava Luciano Lanna per ribadire sul nostro Secolo: “Pound (come Jünger) era libertario”. Due giorni dopo (venerdì 20 febbraio) nelle pagine culturali del Corriere della Sera Dino Messina riapriva il dibattito : “Fa scandalo il “Pound libertario”, mentre il 21 febbraio il tema veniva approfondito da Raffaele Iannuzzi nel paginone centrale ancora del Secolo.

Ricordo ancora le critiche rivolte a Pound e a Giorello il 27 febbraio da Noemi Ghetti su LEFT. Avvenimenti settimanali dell’Altraitalia: era abbastanza facile indicare qualche contraddizione tra la censura fascista e lo spirito libertario, pur essendo altrettanto innegabile il durissimo prezzo pagato da Ezra Pound pacifista alla sua appassionata predicazione contro l’usura, la speculazione finanziaria internazionale e le guerre, con le settimane vissute in gabbia nella prigionia americana di Pisa e i dodici anni di manicomio criminale a Washington. Tuttavia nell’ampio dibattito di cui ho segnalato le tappe è comparso solo marginalmente il nome di Luca Gallesi (Antonio Pannullo lo ha però intervistato il 5 marzo in queste pagine sull’etica delle banche islamiche), geniale studioso di Pound cui si deve la pubblicazione del saggio su Jefferson, ma anche e soprattutto l’apertura di nuovi percorsi in una materia di crescente interesse quale è la storia delle idee.

Occorre rimediare alla disattenzione per l’importanza dei contributi che Gallesi ci sta suggerendo e per i risultati che nel campo degli studi poundiani sta raccogliendo con l’editrice Ares guidata da Cesare Cavalleri insieme alla rivista Studi cattolici, anch’essa molto attenta al pensiero economico di un poeta che sin dai primi anni ’30 aveva previsto lo spaventoso disordine della finanza globale e il dissesto con cui oggi il mondo è alle prese. Le Edizioni Ares avevano già pubblicato gli atti di due convegni internazionali curati da Luca Gallesi, prima Ezra Pound e il turismo colto a Milano, poi Ezra Pound e l’economia, e dello stesso Gallesi lo studio su le origini del fascismo di Pound ove dimostra che il più innovativo poeta di lingua inglese del secolo scorso era stato predisposto a larga parte dei programmi socio-economici mussoliniani degli anni di collaborazione a Londra con la rivista The New Age diretta da Alfred Richard Orage, espressione di una corrente gildista, cioè corporativa del laburismo. Dalla frequentazione della società inglese Pound si portò dietro anche alcuni trattati del tutto sgradevoli d’antisemitismo, che negli anni Venti salvo rare eccezioni erano ancora ignote al fascismo italiano. L’introduzione di Gallesi al breve saggio di Pound sul carteggio Jefferson-Adams punta a estendere agli Usa la ricerca già avviata in Inghilterra sulle origini anglosassoni del fascismo poundiano. Questa volta paragoni diretti tra i fondatori degli stati Uniti e il fascismo non emergono come nel più noto Jefferson e Mussolini ripubblicato nel ’95 a cura di Mary de Rachelwiltz e Luca Gallesi da Terziaria dopo che era andata dispersa la prima edizione per la Repubblica sociale del dicembre ’44. Di Jefferson e Adams da Gallesi viene ricordato l’impegno, da primi presidenti americani, nello sventare i tentativi di Hamilton di togliere al Congresso, cioè al potere politico elettivo, il controllo sull’emissione di moneta per delegarlo ai banchieri e alla speculazione attraverso la creazione di una banca centrale controllata, come nel modello inglese, da gruppi privati. Un’altra traccia innovativa per la storia delle idee è stata suggerita da Gallesi il 4 marzo sul quotidiano Avvenire segnalando il saggio dell’americano Jonah Goldberg, che stufo di sentirsi accusare di fascismo ha scalato i vertici delle classifiche librarie con Liberal Fascism, un saggio ove ha sostenuto la natura rivoluzionaria del fascismo, che durante la stagione roosveltiana del New Deal suscitò “negli Usa stima e ammirazione soprattutto negli ambienti progressisti, mentre all’estrema destra il Ku Klux Klan faceva professione di antifascismo”.

Una storia trasversale di idee al di là della destra e della sinistra che Gallesi si prepara a approfondire lungo l’Ottocento americano attraverso la secolare resistenza che da Jefferson in poi vide opporsi correnti legate allo spirito dei pionieri e delle fattorie alla creazione di una banca centrale, che avvenne solo nei primi del Novecento, alla speculazione monetaria e alla dilagante corruzione. Tutti contributi a una interpretazione di Pound, che senza indebolire le posizioni ideali a cui teniamo, risulterà più autentica, più ricca, più fuori dagli schemi, più prossima alla definizione di ”libertario” che della lettura poundiana di Jefferson ha ricavato Giorello.

E non so trattenermi dal riportare due frasi che avevo sottolineate un quindicina di anni fa leggendo la prima volta l’ancor più scandaloso confronto tra Jefferson e Mussolini. Una tesa a far somigliare i due leader nella lotta alla corruzione: “In quanto all’etica finanziaria, direi che dall’essere un pese dove tutto era in vendita Mussolini in dieci anni ha trasformato l’Italia in un paese dove sarebbe pericoloso tentare di comprare il governo”. E proprio alla fine del libro l’invenzione della settimana corta, per una gestione politica della decrescita economica che solo adesso assume aspetti marcati d’attualità: “Nel febbraio del 1933 il governo fascista precedette gi altri, sia di Europa che delle Americhe, nel sostenere che quanto minor lavoro umano è necessario nelle fabbriche, si deve ridurre la durata della giornata di lavoro piuttosto che ridurre il numero del personale impiegato. E si aumenta il personale invece di far lavorare più ore coloro che sono già impiegati”. Queste erano le soluzioni pratiche che piacevano a Pound, autore di solito complicato, ma reso a volte paradossalmente difficile per eccesso di semplicità.

* * *

Tratto da Il Secolo d’Italia del 28 aprile 2009.