"Revolutionary" Fascism

[Deleted member 147289]

Would it be possible that, if history played out differently, that fascism was less "reactionary" and more "revolutionary"?

OTL after Mussolini took power he drew close to catholic and conservative circles using them as a basis for the expansion of fascist power in society and religion. What if in another timeline Mussolini (or Balbo, D'Annunzio or anyone suited) took the revolutionary route instead of the reactionary one, sidelining conservatives and catholics and putting in power "left" fascists instead of the "right" ones. How does this change the movement? And would be possible to export this to say France or Spain or Britain?

 

[lukedalton]

Would it be possible that, if history played out differently, that fascism was less "reactionary" and more "revolutionary"?

OTL after Mussolini took power he drew close to catholic and conservative circles using them as a basis for the expansion of fascist power in society and religion. What if in another timeline Mussolini (or Balbo, D'Annunzio or anyone suited) took the revolutionary route instead of the reactionary one, sidelining conservatives and catholics and putting in power "left" fascists instead of the "right" ones. How does this change the movement? And would be possible to export this to say France or Spain or Britain?

Basically the Fascist become another of the leftist group, only against both the goverment and the communist/socialist...in that case the police and the goverment while they look the other way if the fascist attack the other leftist group, will hit them quick and hard if even look funny at them and if he try a march on Rome instead of being given the job of presidente del consiglio he will get a nasty case of lead poison.

Plus whatever resource he can get, Benny will in the end cannibalize the general left capacity without the support of the conservative and the industrialist

 

[Kingfish Chris]

And would be possible to export this to say France or Spain or Britain?

It's plausible. That and the Fascist Movement did have left-wing origins with Syndicalist Philosopher Georges Sorel.

Look at the Falangists under Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera who sought a National-Syndicalist State. (Before Franco took over). Plus in France there were many Fascists who are Ex-Communists like the Parti Populaire Francaise under Jacques Doriot, and despite being Far-Right they were also relatively Leftist in regards to their economics, the same with Marcel Deat who lead the Reassemblment National Populaire who was an Ex-Socialist Politician of the SFIO. Plus Deat's RNP were relatively progressive favouring universal sufferage, public education and anti-clericalism.

And in Britain, many former BUF members including Mosley were Labour Party members, and they were in favour of somewhat progressive policies.

Should Fascism maintain its Leftist stance, I can see it being a Socialist Movement taking an Authoritarian Nationalistic stance.

 

[Veiovis]

Uhm, I think OTL fascism very much considered itself a "revolutionary" ideology. The Nazis much more so then the chaps in Italy, but even there the self-image was very much a modern movement of innovation, discarding both archaic feudalism and corrupt capitalism while erecting the all powerful new state, and leading in technological progress. Its no mistake that in all fascist societies the new Air forces were by far the most ideologically motivated military branches.

Yes they often loved their "ancient callbacks", as in Rome for Italy and the old Germanic tribes for germany, but this was realy more romanticism rather then anythign reactionary.

 

[Ficboy]

Well Fascists are essentially both Revolutionary and Reactionary. They want to overthrow and get rid of the status quo but they cling to certain unsavory traditions.

 

[Deleted member 147289]

So Fascism just ends up being another radical left wing movement with militaristic and nationalist undertones, the true "Third Way". Without Mussolini, where would D'Annunzio, Balbo, De Ambris and Marinetti steer the movement?

Would it be more akin to National Syndicalism? Or something radically different?

My point is, as absurd as it might seem, to make fascism more "progressive" but still with the usual authoritarian vibe

 

[LNSS]

As mentioned before, certain fascisms considered themselves revolutionary, though in most cases they in-practice surged to preserve the status quo for the ruling classes before the threat of actual bottom-up revolutionary movements.

 

[LeX]

One man's reactionary is another's revolutionary.

 

[lukedalton]

So Fascism just ends up being another radical left wing movement with militaristic and nationalist undertones, the true "Third Way". Without Mussolini, where would D'Annunzio, Balbo, De Ambris and Marinetti steer the movement?

Without Benny to organize, the 'right wing' part of the fascist will become what was before him an hodge podge of different and uncoordinated group, honestly easily used by the goverment and later eliminated if they become a little too much 'uppity' or absorbed in the mainstream politics as Giolitti planned.

D'Annunzio is a leader for great gesture, daring action...day to day politics and organization are boring and at Fiume basically delegated all his power and preferred pass his time with drugs, booze and women

 

[minifidel]

Others have already said it, but the fascists absolutely considered themselves revolutionaries: it's the reason that Italian fascism drew so heavily from futurism for example. And as others have already pointed out, a lot of fascist leaders had their first political experiences in the revolutionary left.

 

[Ijon Tichy]

Fascism was once described as "extremism of the centre". If it had been genuinely revolutionary, it would have ceased to be fascist.

 

[minifidel]

Fascism was once described as "extremism of the centre". If it had been genuinely revolutionary, it would have ceased to be fascist.

It was genuinely revolutionary, with considerable methodological similarities with communist revolutionary praxis, which is really no surprise, because many of them had been enthusiastic believers in revolution long before the appearance of fascism. They were also revolutionary in the sense that they were just as accelerationist and hostile to reformism and the electoral path as the stalinists.

 

[Mort the Reaper]

Yeah, while fascism does have some reactionary qualities, it's overall more radical/revolutionary. Compare Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, both of which wanted to fundamentally reshape society, with Francoist Spain, which explicitly wanted to undo all liberalism that had taken root in Spain since the 30s - the 1830s.

 

[CHKeeley]

It was genuinely revolutionary, with considerable methodological similarities with communist revolutionary praxis, which is really no surprise, because many of them had been enthusiastic believers in revolution long before the appearance of fascism. They were also revolutionary in the sense that they were just as accelerationist and hostile to reformism and the electoral path as the stalinists.

There's been a lot of ink spilled over this, and you are only correct here in some respects. It was genuinely revolutionary at some periods of time, and genuinely serving to preserve the status quo for in others. The Italian fascios formed just after the First World War, Primo de Rivera's FE de las JONS (before the FET y de las JONS/Francoist merger), sections of Röhm's Brownshirts prior to Kolibri, etc. all borrowed significantly from communist revolutionary praxis and rhetoric. These groups sought a radical restructuring of society in their nationalist/harmonious/Völkisch vision that would include the toppling of traditional elites. The problem is that fascism is extremely pliable, and Mussolini's movement for instance underwent multiple different stages of development over its lifetime. Italian fascism looked radically different from 1926 to 1936 and from 1936 to 1944... From what we saw play out in history, the fascists distinguished themselves from similar radical groups by their adaptability to power and their usefulness to ruling elites. Italian fascists got their "in" by acting as strikebreakers and hired thugs for rural landowners and industrialists. The powers that be then deemed the March on Rome as acceptable to stave off a revolution. Italian fascism then adopted a far more amenable "corporatism" that suited its cooperation with King and Business. This collapsed when they defected in 1943, and the Social Republic once again adopted a revolutionary praxis and rhetoric because it was backed solely by German power. In the case of Germany, the Nazis had to purge their vanguardist wing with Kolibri because it was inconvenient with their business/establishment alliance. This cooperation with the German ruling class continued on until the aims of wartime Germany began to fray and the war turned against them, but by that time the two were inextricably linked so there wasn't really much the latter could do without threatening its own interests. In Spain, we can see a similar case with Franco acting as a paternal unifier between the traditional centers of reaction in Spain (Carlists, CEDA, and sections of the military elite that supported the old Primo de Rivera regime) and the formerly revolutionary fascists of the FE de las JONS. Franco merged the FE de las JONS with the reactionaries and managed to weld it into a broad front of right wing groups to form a state party FET y de las JONS which essentially was only pseudo-fascist/had the trappings of fascism but was in character staunchly reactionary.

I agree with you that fascism possessed some revolutionary character, but that is only part of the story and that is the part of the story before power in most cases. The user you are replying to is mostly correct in stating that the fascism we know from history became a force to be reckoned with only because of its abandonment of revolutionary praxis and it offering its services to traditional societal elites and thereby finding a way to power.

 

[Anglocalvinist67]

Per the discussion of an alternate Führer ... A Strasserist Nazi Government could fit the bill.

 

[LordPez]

Fascism really can't be described as revolutionary, every example of a fascist regime we can see in history shows accommodation with the reactionary right and purges of any "left" faction of the movement. Even the March on Rome can't honestly be described as revolutionary, it was a coup done in agreement with King Victor Emmanuel III that had the explicit support of the ruling class. Futurism was perhaps culturally revolutionary, but Mussolini never adopted it as cultural doctrine and the Lateran Treaties affirmed the regime as an ally of the church. This led to leading futurists declaring that Jesus was a futurist and championing the Church (Marinetti in 1929), pretty much the definition of cultural reaction. Likewise, as soon as Hitler consolidated power in Germany he purged the populist wing of the party (SA) and ended any chance of a left faction in the NSDAP, preferring the loyalty of the industrialists and military to the mob. "Revolutionary" fascism essentially takes away the greatest strength of the ideology, the ability to reconcile class differences along nationalist, corporatist lines, and turns it into a less universal socialism that offers nothing to the ruling class while remaining less popular than the broader left.

 

[minifidel]

There's been a lot of ink spilled over this, and you are only correct here in some respects. It was genuinely revolutionary at some periods of time, and genuinely serving to preserve the status quo for in others. The Italian fascios formed just after the First World War, Primo de Rivera's FE de las JONS (before the FET y de las JONS/Francoist merger), sections of Röhm's Brownshirts prior to Kolibri, etc. all borrowed significantly from communist revolutionary praxis and rhetoric. These groups sought a radical restructuring of society in their nationalist/harmonious/Völkisch vision that would include the toppling of traditional elites. The problem is that fascism is extremely pliable, and Mussolini's movement for instance underwent multiple different stages of development over its lifetime. Italian fascism looked radically different from 1926 to 1936 and from 1936 to 1944... From what we saw play out in history, the fascists distinguished themselves from similar radical groups by their adaptability to power and their usefulness to ruling elites. Italian fascists got their "in" by acting as strikebreakers and hired thugs for rural landowners and industrialists. The powers that be then deemed the March on Rome as acceptable to stave off a revolution. Italian fascism then adopted a far more amenable "corporatism" that suited its cooperation with King and Business. This collapsed when they defected in 1943, and the Social Republic once again adopted a revolutionary praxis and rhetoric because it was backed solely by German power. In the case of Germany, the Nazis had to purge their vanguardist wing with Kolibri because it was inconvenient with their business/establishment alliance. This cooperation with the German ruling class continued on until the aims of wartime Germany began to fray and the war turned against them, but by that time the two were inextricably linked so there wasn't really much the latter could do without threatening its own interests. In Spain, we can see a similar case with Franco acting as a paternal unifier between the traditional centers of reaction in Spain (Carlists, CEDA, and sections of the military elite that supported the old Primo de Rivera regime) and the formerly revolutionary fascists of the FE de las JONS. Franco merged the FE de las JONS with the reactionaries and managed to weld it into a broad front of right wing groups to form a state party FET y de las JONS which essentially was only pseudo-fascist/had the trappings of fascism but was in character staunchly reactionary.

I agree with you that fascism possessed some revolutionary character, but that is only part of the story and that is the part of the story before power in most cases. The user you are replying to is mostly correct in stating that the fascism we know from history became a force to be reckoned with only because of its abandonment of revolutionary praxis and it offering its services to traditional societal elites and thereby finding a way to power.

Fascism really can't be described as revolutionary, every example of a fascist regime we can see in history shows accommodation with the reactionary right and purges of any "left" faction of the movement. Even the March on Rome can't honestly be described as revolutionary, it was a coup done in agreement with King Victor Emmanuel III that had the explicit support of the ruling class. Futurism was perhaps culturally revolutionary, but Mussolini never adopted it as cultural doctrine and the Lateran Treaties affirmed the regime as an ally of the church. This led to leading futurists declaring that Jesus was a futurist and championing the Church (Marinetti in 1929), pretty much the definition of cultural reaction. Likewise, as soon as Hitler consolidated power in Germany he purged the populist wing of the party (SA) and ended any chance of a left faction in the NSDAP, preferring the loyalty of the industrialists and military to the mob. "Revolutionary" fascism essentially takes away the greatest strength of the ideology, the ability to reconcile class differences along nationalist, corporatist lines, and turns it into a less universal socialism that offers nothing to the ruling class while remaining less popular than the broader left.

I was going to respond to these posts separately - still might, in fact - but I wanted to address them together because they raise a question that I feel is relevant to the discussion but which hasn't been addressed in the thread: are we defining revolutionary as a matter of praxis, as a matter of ideology or as a matter of outcome? Because a lot of the criticisms I've seen towards the idea that fascism was a revolutionary movement focuses on its pro-business and traditionalist outcomes, or on the pragmatic accommodations of fascist governments with business interests and other traditional power structures.

 

[Born in the USSA]

It's not revolutionary fascism* as such, but Bruce Sterling's novella Pirate Utopia sees Carnaran Futurism poised to spread around the world in an orgy of anti-communist, anti-liberalist militarism.

*Mussolini is shot in the groin by his mistress and the main character goes on a small rant about how stupid "fascism" is as a name for the movement they are building, since "you can't use an axe with sticks all over it!"

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

WI: Hindenburg keeps balking at appointing Hitler chancellor, and Hitler seizes power with the SA?

Then there would be a genuinely revolutionary fascist regime.

 

[Deleted member 147289]

OTL fascism went down as a reactionary far right ideology, revolutionary in it's own as other posters have stated that Germany and Italy reshaped their societies with varying degrees of success.

What I am asking is if fascism, in an alternate timelines, could remain a far right ideology but with a slightly different core of ideas, such as national syndicalism (as in earlier italian fascism), feminism (the BUF) and a general reshaping of society along "progressive" (but not as today's progressive) lines in order to wage war against their enemies.

And maybe a more serious cooperation between fascists along the lines of the Fascist International