This has to be one of the most moronic comments that I have read on this Board for years, and believe me there have been many to choose from.
Once again your reaction is to resort to insulting me Hill? But then you still don't want to face up to the fact you are relying on revisionism, so gratuitous insults are really all you are left with. Let me connect a few dots your modern scholars choose to ignore when pronouncing what is left and what is right.
First, in order to understand Mussolini's own words, since you made such a big deal about them, you have to understand what the terms used meant at the time he wrote them. To that end:
Socialists, referred to Marxists.
Liberals, referred to advocates of the laissez faire, or free market capitalism.
But don't take my word for it. John J Ray Ph.D., a retired social psychologist, so he can speak his mind without fear of reprisal from the left-wing education establishment, writes:
To do so, however, is a considerable trip back in time and one effect of that is that the political terminology of nearly 100 years ago was somewhat different from today. In reading quotations from the early days one must keep in mind that those Mussolini refers to as "Socialists" were in fact Marxists rather than social democrats and those whom Mussolini refers to as "liberals" were advocates of laissez faire and would hence be described as conservatives today...
Then, as now, Marxism is the extreme political right, not to be confused with new liberalism, and laissez faire was on the political right. with that in mind, lets go back over Mussolini's words:
..Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
But at the same time:
...Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements. Fascism denies that numbers, as such, can be the determining factor in human society; it denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodical consultations; it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be leveled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal suffrage. Democratic regimes may be described as those under which the people are, from time to time, deluded into the belief that they exercise sovereignty, while all the time real sovereignty resides in and is exercised by other and sometimes irresponsible and secret forces.
Thus:
Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere.
So if it isn't socialist, and it is opposed to liberalism, where is it? In Doctor Ray's words:
Mussolini started out as a Marxist but eventually devised Fascism as a "third way" (sound familiar?). He saw it as offering a middle way between Marxism and capitalism -- Leftist but not Marxist.
Interesting. In Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto from 1919 we find such items as:
- The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
- A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth
- The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
- The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.
- A minimum wage.
- The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions.
Gosh Hill, those policies are so left-wing by even today's standards that I have to wonder how you can honestly think that Fascism was a right-wing ideology. I think to believe that Fascism was a right-wing ideology after seeing that would require, in Hillary Clinton's words a "willing suspension of disbelief." But then that is what modern academia wants. I think I'll link to Dr. Ray's insightful essay, it really makes a good case for the modern political left being the real heirs to Fascism.
MODERN LEFTISM AS RECYCLED FASCISM Forscher