Mussolini was a total commie lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Political_journalist,_intellectual_and_socialist
He had become one of Italy's most prominent socialists. In September 1911, Mussolini participated in a riot, led by socialists, against the Italian war in Libya. He bitterly denounced Italy's "imperialist war", an action that earned him a five-month jail term.[35] After his release, he helped expel Ivanoe Bonomi and Leonida Bissolati from the Socialist Party, as they were two "revisionists" who had supported the war.
>He was rewarded the editorship of the Socialist Party newspaper Avanti! Under his leadership, its circulation soon rose from 20,000 to 100,000.[36] John Gunther in 1940 called him "one of the best journalists alive"; Mussolini was a working reporter while preparing for the March on Rome, and wrote for the Hearst News Service until 1935.[23] Mussolini was so familiar with Marxist literature that in his own writings he would not only quote from well-known Marxist works but also from the relatively obscure works.[37] During this period Mussolini considered himself a Marxist and he described Marx as "the greatest of all theorists of socialism."[38]
Ahaha get fucked lol
i will copypasta my response to your other wordsalad
yeah, a commie that hitler allied with. do you even proofread your diarrhea or do you operate under spray and pray?
>Muh big papa on top of muh big bureaucracy muh solution!
Interesting, but it's clear that after that period he decided it would be better to control private industry rather than abolish it, which can't be reconciled with the class-conflict core of Marxism.
But what do you get in the end? I mean, you get an all powerful ruling class, that's all, and you think they'll care about your ass? Since when did you start to care about mine? Why would those people of power, turn suddenly morally superior to you or me? Why? Because that aside, moral integrity aside, what is there to prevent them from being corrupted self serving pricks? It happens all the time
I'm not a utopian. I'm perfectly aware that any human system will suffer from corruption... But then, so what? We don't even try? Capitalism and a reasonable degree of liberalism make for a strong society so long as they are subordinated to higher values, but a strong state is necessary to restrain those forces (or we end up with clown world). In my opinion, the best shot is a facist/authoritarian state which explictly declares its purpose to be the well-being of its founding ethnos and does not compromise on that point. In this way, the scope of potential corruption is limited, because there is no ambiguity as to the raison d'etre of the government (sure you'd still get self-serving pricks, but absolute traitorous scum who'd sell out their race would tend to stick out in that environment). I don't believe more laissez-faire national philosphies are realistic, because we can see how powerful/influential big corporations become (even without government favours). It takes a strong hand to restrain capitalism and retard progressive ideological creep.
Now our decline is probably an inevitability as this point, but if somehow we got the chance to start something new it had better be third positional.
...which can't be reconciled with the class-conflict core of Marxism.
Complete control is only nominally different from ownership. The Marxian/Hegelian concept of history as dialectical conflict of collective entities is difficult to reconcile with practical reality. What, for example, would a dictatorship of the proletariat actually look like? The solution to the problem of mapping the collectivist narrative on to the real world was to concentrate power in the hands of the anointed few who claimed to represent the class, the folk, the state. In other words, Mussolini used the same tactic as the Bolsheviks and other Communist movements to establish ideologically based rule.
And yet the fact remains that different policies with respect to race, profit/private enterprise, feminism, eugenics, homosexuality, etc. will have objectively better or worse outcomes for the folk. Regardless of any ostensible con-game required to establish and maintain rule, the proof is always in the pudding.
(post is archived)