Category: Fascism

Fascism was created by a former socialist named Benito Mussolini who organized a violent, nationalist, anti-socialist movement that he named “Fasci”. Eventually, Fasci, which signified “league,” developed into the National Fascist Party which ruled from 1922 to 1943 when Mussolini was deposed by the Grand Council of Fascism. Overall, fascism is incoherent, however, it features ethnically based ultra-nationalism, mass mobilization of public, a charismatic leader, strong state control of the economy, economic corporatism, opposition to liberalism and an emphasis on national culture, masculinity, and violence. Marine Le Pen exemplifies many fascist idiosyncrasies which give the impression that fascism is making a comeback in Western societies such as France. Although she intentionally does not portray herself as a fascist, a closer analysis reveals all the characteristics of classic fascism. To determine whether or not Marine Le Pen and the French National Front can be classified as fascist, we must analyze the core of her ideology, the history of her political formation and the political formation of the French National Front.

When one takes a closer look into the French Presidential candidates of 2017 such as Le Pen, it does give the appearance that fascism is making a comeback in Western societies like France, where Le Pen and the National Rally political party operates. A close analysis of the core of her ideology reveals that her political views are not inextricable from those of her father. She did not have an epiphany which resulted in a significant ideological shift, but rather, the break with him was in an effort to rebrand her image. It was about portraying the party in less harsh light to appeal to a wider range of voters and depict itself as a more mainstream party. In fact, part of the process included going to court on two separate occasions to halt the spread of accusations labeling her a fascist so as not to risk being associated with widely condemned fascists such as Hitler and Mussolini. However, other current political figures such as President Donald Trump are also being accused of being fascist. Thus, it is important to note contrasts between Le Pen and Trump, whom both have very similar rhetoric, to explain why the claims against her are far more substantial. For example, Trump appears to be motivated by what he thinks will win him popularity and always leaves room for interpretation whereas Le Pen has a powerful philosophical foundation. Overall, Le Pen has a coherent ideological program which she markets as authoritarian populism to mask her fascist underpinnings.

Another key indicator in the determination of whether or not she is fascist lies within the history of her political formation. The core of her party, such as her advisors, hold very traditional far-right views which are very closely related to her father. The members who form the inner circle of her party are not just openly anti-Semitic but are also against mixed-race marriages and are concrete conspiracy theorists. However, the outer fringe of members are far less inhibited by these esoteric fascist politics and have a more anti-Islamic and authoritarian outlook who are more concerned with immigration. In conjunction with the anti-immigration rhetoric that all of her party supports, Le Pen displays an ethnically-based common feature of fascism known as ultra-nationalism which is based upon an “emphasis of national culture”. For example, the coded racial diction she employs when she refers to who is or is not French is actually a distinction between who is white versus a french citizen. Her ability to speak in politically correct terms and still have her intended message clearly understood is due to her charismatic qualities. Ultimately her actions betray the far-right and fascist roots at the core of her and her party’s ideology. One of the ways the French National Front differs from other fascist Europeans parties is the unique way in which the French party operates. The pivotal difference is their close link with colonialism and their close connection to resistance to decolonization in the post-war period. In essence, her party arose out of a more extensive tradition of classical fascism and was concretized around resentment of the process of decolonization.

Although she displays fascist tactics, if Le Pen were to rise to power in France, the legislative and judicial branches are too deeply seeded in Democracy for her to be able to convert France to fascism overnight. Even though most of Le Pen’s ideology aligns seamlessly with the common features of fascism, it is the combination of all of the aspects of fascism that makes it fascist. Key features of fascism that she does not implement is a mass mobilization of the public, strong state control and an emphasis on masculinity and violence. However, her opposition to the EU, antipathy towards Muslims and immigrants, and her economic protectionism would most definitely result in the imposition of fascist policies. Her current proposed policies might lack substance, similarly to Trump, but she has powerful rhetoric and a lot of charisma. Thus, if she gained power, she would instigate change in the message being emitted from the government to align it with fascism. The atmosphere created by her rhetoric would inevitably target and make life difficult for minorities, Muslims and migrants. In summation, the system of checks and balances in place in France would necessitate the implementation of a long-term agenda for Le Pen should she attempt to transform France to fit her ideology. In summation, modern mainstream political movements like the National Rally political party should not be considered fascist based on fascist tendencies on the leaders.

The year is 1937, and civil war has broken out throughout Spain. There are so many conflicting political ideologies coming from all over the place. On one side of the war, you have the nationalists, including their leader Fransico Franco. He sure is one charismatic guy, similar to a couple of other leaders in Europe, such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Franco had a successful career in the Spanish military, fighting in the Rif War. He also had a large role in the suppression of the Asturian miners’ strike by Spanish military forces. It seems, at least to me, that Franco wants to model Spain after fascism, similar to Italy. Franco wants the political power to be centralized in the leader of Spain. However, there are other sides in this war. There are people who favor different political ideologies than Franco. There are some in the Republican forces who disagree with the idea of a fascist state. They believe that fascism may allow the leader of the state to become too powerful. Instead, they would prefer to model their country after a liberal democracy. Some of the Republicans believe that the power should reside in the people, not the state. Power should be given by the people to the leader of the state, and the people should have ability to take away power from their leader, if the leader is not looking out for the people’s best interests. There are also others in the Republican forces that believe that Spain should be modeled after a communist state, such as the Soviet Union. The goal of communism is to create a classless society. Everyone is a worker in a communist state, even women. With communism, people are working towards a collective goal, instead of worrying about their individual goals. Communism creates equality among all people. Choosing between these political ideologies is difficult, but I personally want to model Spain after a liberal democracy. I think it is the best option for Spain moving forward. Firstly, I am going to discuss the pitfalls of the other two political ideologies, fascism and communism. Then, I am going to show why liberal democracy is the best option out of these three political ideologies for Spain to be modeled after.

Fransico Franco is the leader of the Nationalists, which is a far right leaning political faction. If Franco and the Nationalists were to win the civil war, Franco would most likely want to model Spain after Italy, who is extremely fascist. Benito Mussolini is the fascist leader of Italy, and he has been since 1922. With fascism comes an authoritarian government, in that it is basically a dictatorship. A dictatorship with one person in control of the entire state, such as the case in Italy and Germany currently. Franco, I presume, will want to be like Mussolini and become the dictator of Spain, if he has the opportunity. Fascism needs all the power to be in the state, thereby putting the state above the individuals. Fascism is fueled by nationalism, which makes sense as to why Franco supports the ideology. With all the power going to the state and the state being led by one dictator, this could lead to the corruption of power for the dictator. The desire for more power becomes stronger and stronger in the dictator as more time goes on. The end goal for the Italian fascists was to create a new Roman Empire. While I would say that the new Roman Empire has not been created yet, Italy has already made some advances, such as the pacification of Libya. Fascism also restricts the voice of the people. People have the right to freedom of speech, but fascists do not like to take criticism very well. Fascists do not do well with opposition either, and this is shown by Hitler banning the communists from running for political office in 1933 because they were a threat to his power. The dictator has control of the whole country, with nothing and no one able to check his power. Fascism usually spends a lot of money on military spending, which could be a disadvantage for countries that do not have a lot of money. Fascism can also be used to oppress certain types of people, such as in Germany and Italy, where antisemitism is very strong. Fascism is definitely not the ideology that I support for the power is all in the state, and rarely ever in the hands of the people. I can see why Franco would want to be a fascist state, but it would not be the best thing for Spain.

Communism is not my preferred political ideology. The main goal of communism is for a classless society, where all people would be equal. This sounds like a great idea! However, that is not what is actually happening in the Soviet Union. The Soviet workers should have all the power in the state. But, Joseph Stalin is the person with the real power in the Soviet Union . The will of the collective is so much more important than the will of the individual in communism. One major disadvantage for communism is that you lose your individual rights. You have to do what is good for the collective, not want is good for yourself. You cannot privately own anything because everything is owned by the government. With communism, nationalism is a means to an end. People are willing to work for the collective will of the state, as long as that means that there is no longer class conflict. Propaganda is huge in communist states such as the Soviet Union, and it is used to try and control their citizens. They would do this by trying to instill a sense of nationalism in its people. In the Soviet Union, under the ideology of communism, there were famines throughout the state. The first was in 1921 until 1922 and the second was in 1932 until 1933, potentially even lasting longer for some people. With communism comes poverty and that is what happened in the Soviet Union five years ago. Also with communism, there is only a single party, meaning no potential opposition to communism. This makes it very difficult for there to be potential revolutions if you need to overthrow the government. The government can do whatever they want to do because there is no check on their powers. Communism wants people to believe that it is creating a classless state and treating everyone equally. However, that is not the case. In the Soviet Union, the communist regime has turned into a dictatorship for Joseph Stalin. He has complete control of the entire government and can do whatever he wants to do. Stalin does not really care about the Soviet people, but more about consolidating more power under his regime. The similarities between Fascism and Communism are very interesting, especially since they despise each other. Both ideologies allow for authoritarian governments to gain power and try to take control of every aspect of life. Both ideologies see liberal democracy as their true enemy, which is part of the reason why I support liberal democracy.

Liberal democracy is probably one of the most important political ideologies around today. In a liberal democracy, the government is elected by the people and responsible to the people. That means that the people have a say in what is happening in the government. For example, if America elected a president that was too corrupted by power, then the people of the state have the ability to change the outcome in the next election. In liberal democracies, there are elections that occur quite frequently. That means if an elected official is doing badly at their job, then the people can vote to get them out of office in the next election cycle. There are also multiple political parties, ensuring that the people have options for who they want to vote for. Czechoslovakian President Tomáš Masaryk gave some ideas for what democracy is, such as, “Democratic states aim for administration, not at domination” and “Democracy is the antithesis of aristocracy and oligarchy”1. Liberal democracy is supposed to bring stability to governance, even though there elections quite frequently. Also, liberal democracy allows for equality, under the law, for all people. People are born with the equal chance of success. In liberal democracies, there is usually a separation of church and state, which Masaryk asks for in The New Europe.

I chose the liberal democracy ideology because it gave the people of the state the power, instead of the power resting in the hands of the government or a dictator. Fascism and communism does not allow for people to be in control of the government. A dictatorship in a liberal democracy would be almost impossible to happen, but dictatorship is common for both fascism and communism. These two ideologies want to control every aspect of life. In Italian fascism, the state has all the power, while communism in the Soviet Union is supposed to give the workers all the power. In liberal democracies, the people have all the power because the elected officials have to answer to the people. The elected officials were elected by the people, for the people, but that can change if the people want it to. Communists and Fascists hate liberal democracies because they feel threatened by liberal democracies. People are not easily controlled when in a liberal democracy, but they are easily controlled in places where fascism and communism are the main political ideology. Instead of thinking about the collective like they do in the Soviet Union, people in liberal democracies are able to think and act for themselves instead of being told what to do. Liberal democracies are not going to try and take over the world for themselves, like Communists and Fascists want to. Liberal democracies give people the freedoms they deserve, while communism and fascism both oppress and control these freedoms against their people. So yes, I 100% favor liberal democracies over fascism and communism.

As it has been observed, contemporary politics are becoming more radical and dominated by authoritarianism as most politicians seem to advocate for totalitarianism. Totalitarianism can be described as the process through which men dominate their experiences in the society with regard to power acquisition and control of resources. Notably, some western nations like US and UK have largely been observed to contain elements of fascism.

According to Gregory (2007, p 235), fascism ideology has largely erupted from rationalism where the most powerful states perceive themselves as being the ultimate controllers of human activities, following the currently increasing globalization among nations. This paper will discuss how United States and United Kingdom nations have been observed to express some elements of fascism in controlling the masses, following the currently experienced neo-liberalism era.

With the massive increase in the earth’s population, totalitarian dominion has been evidenced by the way politicians are engaging in the control of the world’s scarce resources, mainly with personal interests. According to Ball & Dagger (2010, p 173), the act of modern masses becoming superfluity, indicating high competition for scarce resources, reflects the way totalitarianism is becoming deeply rooted in the society.

As it has been revealed, merciless processes where totalitarianism is driving men to organize the masses reveals high degree of suicidal escaping of realty among the men in the society. On this basis, the totalitarian attempt to make men superfluous reflects the experiences of modern masses of their struggle for scarce resources in the currently overpopulated society, as triggered by loneliness among men.

Since industrial production seems to expand at a lower rate than the human population, jobs are becoming scarce and industrial workers get involved in competing for the limited job opportunities.

As Gregory (2007, p 235) reports, lawlessness has become an apparent act among men, as they struggle to maintain the control of the scarce resources. With totalitarianism taking new shapes, men in the contemporary society are becoming more vigilant to maintain their royal status by even involving use of force and terror.

According to Ball & Dagger (2010, p 157), the rise of terrorism in the cold-war era can be described as the ultimate strategy to acquire power and fame among the people. Quite significantly, loneliness has largely participated in enhancing the ideology of ‘terror’ since the currently overpopulated society necessitates power and influence to acquire control of the scarce resources.

Being prospective movements of the contemporary society, fascism and totalitarianism has been revealed to facilitate the various changes observed day to day life. As has been observed, US and UK today seem to be the most influential nations globally, as they seem to overrule most of international strategies in all levels. For instance, the rise of terrorism has largely been attributed to the fascism nature of these nations in controlling the world’s resources.

As held by Gregory (2007, p 237), everything has been kept in motion as a strategy to enhance dominance of power among the most influential nations. Considering the fact that idleness would result into creation of new strategies to overthrow the prevailing powers, men are evidenced to act in merciless manners in their pursuit of maintaining a dynamic society in fear of being overthrown.

As it has been observed, the act of military invasion of Iraq and Baghdad by US in the war of terror can be largely described as a strategy of keeping the Americans in control of the global activities. Such activities as evidenced in the contemporary society seem to be aligned with the fascism ideology to a greater extent.

It has been noted that, fascism can largely be associated with personal interests and the urge to realize self actualization. Notably, it is from a lonely situation that individuals develop the urge to achieve their desires, in which totalitarianism forms the focal part of it.

On this basis, this hypothesis developed by Renton (1999, p 21) can be tested in the current society dominated by various power struggles, especially between western states like UK and US and the Middle East countries. With the world becoming globalized as a result of neo-liberalism, political powers are becoming largely centralized among the powerful states.

Considering the current trend of security patterns across the world, super-power countries like US are becoming dominant in global issues. This can be described as high level of totalitarianism. Particularly, the rise of imperialism among nations has largely impacted on the economic and political uproars currently experienced.

With the current trend of universalism, UK and US states have largely been observed to reveal totalitarian political leadership where there has ultimately been no antidote despair. As Gregory (2007, p 239), “If lawfulness is the essence of non-tyrannical government … then terror is the essence of totalitarian domination”, implying how terror dominates the overall fascisms acts.

With the new security system of privatizing all armed forces, creation and maintenance of political powers among these western states has been evidenced. Though the rulers seem not exercise totalitarianism directly, public behavior is being guided by inflicting fear to pave way and intimidate any uprising terrorism from taking into effect.

Considering the act of US of overriding the Middle East countries, fear seems to be inflicted among the terrorist groups from being active. Mainly, with the adoption of totalitarianism in these western states, their domination and terrorization of the global activities from within has been largely realized.

Through the combination of simple ideology and strategies to govern people, totalitarians are always by the law of the nature where individuals strive to survive. Being a continuous process, totalitarianism has largely been facilitated by the state of ‘loneliness’ among the people, as they struggle to dominate the entire world. Considering the recently established European Union culminating to European citizenship, UK has largely been a focal key player in the union.

Political analysis of this strategy has revealed how UK, seems to dominate most of the decisions made in the Union, with an aim of controlling all the ultimate activities in the region. On this basis, UK can be described as being fascist in its governance by establishing networks to dominate the emerging states in Europe.

More so, Ball & Dagger (2010, p 161) presented the ideology of fascism and totalitarianism as being connected to behaviorism and National Socialism. Through totalitarianism as a result of loneliness, arising from superfluity, we can not easily avert mass suicide.

There is usually struggle for power and total control of the scarce resources among global leaders, in which the subsequent impact of the same facilitates mass suicide. As evidenced in the terrorism attacks in US and UK where the alleged terrorists aimed at causing political threats among the potential world political leaders of US and UK, many people died.

In response, the invasion of Middle East countries by US and UK in the war of terror has been evidenced to cause a lot of blood shed. Mainly, it is usually quite hard to avert mass suicide, as long as totalitarianism prevails in the current global leadership.

As evidenced by Renton (1999, p 24), the approach of totalitarianism is philosophical more than just a mere history on the basis of the current trend world events. Further, such approach on human behavior goes beyond politics, psychology or even personal reflection in the way the current happenings are observed as posing great threat to humanity and the universe at large.

With gangster initiatives of the majority, dangerous totalitarians are creating the worst human crimes ever experienced in history. With the rise of terrorism and invariably war against terror, humanity is brought out as at threat of this dangerous totalitarianism.

This is reflected in Gregory (2007, p 241), “…killing of small socialist functionaries or opposing parties merciless dominates the entire process of totalitarianism.” I have found the contemporary estrangement between Muslims and Americans as being intensely rooted on fascism rudiments of American supremacy.

Conclusion

As it has been revealed, fascism movements are owned by masses, in which perplexed people lack clear sense of reality, since the world they inhabit is ultimately destroyed by the turmoil of high levels of unemployment and pressure on scarce resources. It has been observed that, UK and US nations exercise some practices of fascism in their ultimate struggle to control masses.

In fact, the approach of perceiving the helpless people who are exposed to totalitarian movements as being threat to imperial political leaders reveals the danger of ‘the mob’ and the violent nature of the underworld generations. Mainly, the ‘superfluous’ people are brought out as ideal casualties of the totalitarianism terror.

Since this is traced from the capitalism markets where labor movements resulted into the capitalists being at threat of losing autonomy over human labor, the current trend of totalitarianism seems more dangerous and explosive beyond mere explanation.

Particularly, personal reflections are empowered by collective totalitarianism, in which the upheaval oppressive regimes, is being exercised through terrorism.

References

Ball, T. & Dagger, R. (2010). Fascism. In Political Ideologies and the Democratic Deal (8^th

Edition, p 154-182). New York: Pearson Publishing Co.

Gregory, A. (2007). Fascism in the Western States. International Politics, 23(5): 234-251.

Renton, D. (1999). Fascism: Theory and Practice. London: Pluto Press.

Introduction

Fascism by definition refers to a philosophy which seeks to ensure that the interests of the society always supersede those of the individual. The ideology of fascism advocates for a state that is ruled by a single party which is meant to mobilise people through all means acceptable and unacceptable to ensure that the roots of the society are not drained.

While fascism is rooted from socialism, the approach taken is one of capitalism where force and violence is used to achieve what is targeted. Fascism must be distinguished from socialism whereby socialism was seeking total control of all the processes of economy in the society by ensuring that production is state controlled (Trotsky 340).

Fascism on the other hand has always taken control though indirectly by ensuring that private owners dominate the processes of economy in the country. While fascism is concept that came to be many years ago, there seem to be merging modern examples of fascist thought. This discussion looks at some of the contemporary examples of fascist thoughts and also the limits and freedoms of such expressions.

Nazi Germany

Though it happened many years ago Nazi Germany is a perfect example of fascism (Griffiths 145). While the interests of the people were always kept first, the manner in which these interests were achieved was quite wanting especially because there was a lot of violence and force that was applied.

During the time of Hitler, power was acquired gradually without the need for an uprising or protests and this is what makes fascism dangerous. In modern day, a perfect example of fascism would be leftism or what has come to be known as left wing politics.

This is where change that is social in nature is advocated for with the aim of coming up with a society that is egalitarian. Leftism, pretty much like fascism is driven by emotions which were negative like anger, range and violence and all these negative emotions are directed to the status quo (Mosse 354). Modern fascism like leftism is geared towards changing the status quo or the position held by conservatists. It is the manner in which leftist apply their ideology that is questionable (Mussolini 76).

Al Qaeda

Looking at the Al Qaeda group which was pioneered by their fallen hero Osama Bin Laden may also reveal traits of modern fascism. Osama had a good cause for which he was fighting for and this was the protection of Islamic rights. However, it is the manner in which he carried out his mission that was wanting. He used terrorist’s attacks which led to the death of many people and led to the destruction of property. Modern day fascism is frowned upon leading to modern day fascists changing their tactics and strategy.

Conclusion

Fascist’s expressions have their limits in that they tend to curtain the general freedom of the people by sort of dictating to the people what they ought to and how they ought to behave (Breuilly 97). These expressions however have their fair share of freedom in that the person leading such movements is always a charismatic leader one who is liked by the people he is representing.

Fascism therefore is a double edged sword which can hurt either way or be beneficial in both ways. How effective this ideology is in a society will be highly dependent on how it is implemented.

Works Cited

Breuilly, John. Nationalism and the State. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993. Print

Griffiths, Richard. Fascism. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005. Print

Mosse, George. International Fascism : New Thoughts and New Approaches. Michigan: Sage Publications, 1979. Print

Mussolini, Benito. Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions. Michigan: Ardita, 1935. Print

Trotsky, Leon. Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It. London: Resistance Books. 1999. Print

Fascism

Fascism is a right-wing philosophy that commemorates a state or race as a natural community surpassing all other loyalties. It puts emphasis on a legend of racial regeneration following a period of demolition. Fascism, thus, calls for a religious revolution against signs of immorality such as selfishness and cupidity. It seeks to eliminate alien forces and associations that intimidate the ordinary society.

It tends to rejoice in masculinity, youth, spiritual unity and the regenerative supremacy of violence. It supports racial superiority principles, ethnic harassments, imperialist extension and genocide. Fascism may incorporate a type of internationalism based on ethnic or ideological unity across nationwide boundaries. Typically, fascism promotes open male dominance, though it may at times espouse female unity and new opportunities for females of the privileged state (Griffin 150).

The approach of Fascism to politics is termed as both populist and elitist. It is regarded as populist in the sense that it seeks to stimulate persons against alleged oppressors. It is termed as elitist since it treats the will of its people as personified in a chosen group or one ultimate leader, from whom power proceeds downward. Fascism also seeks to systematize a cadre-led group movement to seize state authority.

It compulsorily subordinates all fields of the community to its ideological hallucination of natural community, usually via a totalitarian state. As an association and as a government, fascism makes use of mass associations as a system of amalgamation and control. It also utilizes planned violence to repress opposition, though the scale of aggression differs widely (Renton 34).

Fascism is antagonistic to Marxism, conservatism and Liberalism though it makes use of concepts from the three. It rebuffs the policies of class struggle and employee internationalism as coercions to state unity. It, however, takes advantage of real grievances in opposition to capitalists and property-owners through racial scape goating. Fascism declines the noninterventionist doctrines of personal autonomy and political pluralism (Griffiths 89).

Typically associated with the Nazi movement and with Hitler’s rule in Germany, Fascism has quite short yet rather impressive historical record. However, there is certain inconsistency in associating Hitler’s reign with the epoch of fascism, since Hitler’s politics itself was based on Nazism, which is quite a different movement. However, according to Griffiths, the issue has rather clear and understandable explanation for the confusion.

The movement aimed at intertwining the Church, the State and the Party into a single entity, which, supposedly, could make the state stronger and eventually turn it invincible to the attacks of the enemies (Griffin) was narrowed to the epoch of the totalitarian regime of Benito Mussolini, as Griffin marked:

The word fascism here, however, is the anglicized form of the Italian proper name fascimo (henceforth to be referred to as ‘Fascism’). To apply it to phenomena outside Italy is to change the status of the word: it becomes a generic term. (1)

However, when applied to the German totalitarian regime in 1933-1945, fascism obtains a different palette of meanings, changing the idea of fascism and shaping it into a new ugly and immense power. As Griffin said,

If Italy’s proto-fascism could be pictured as a few rivulets or trickles of ultra-national sentiment whose confluence was only made possible by the interventionist crisis, then Germany’s evokes a meandering network of tributaries which had still to find a common channel by the time the First World War broke out. (85)

Hence, fascism has a number of faces. Splitting into various types, it was bruising until the WWI broke out. However, even the WWI could not put an end to the hatred and rivalry, since the results of the treaty did not satisfy the Central Powers (Griffin 231).

Socialism

Socialism is a financial system in which production means are both owned by the nation or community and managed cooperatively. Socialism is a form of communal association that is based on joint integration and self-management. The chief aim of socialism is social fairness and wealth allocation based on one’s contribution to the community.

It leads to an economic organization that serves the needs of the community as a whole. Socialism is based on production for consumption and the allocation of economic products to meet financial demands and human needs. In socialism, bookkeeping is based on material resources, physical size and a direct assessment of labor and time.

Products are distributed via markets and income allocation is based on the policy of personal merit. As a political association, socialism involves a wide range of political beliefs that vary from reformism to radical socialism. Supporters of socialism promote the nationalization of production means, allocation and exchange as an approach for executing socialism. Social democrats, however, promote public management of resources in the market economy (Fleming 92).

Socialism deals with a materialistic point of view and a perception that individual behavior is shaped by the communal environment. It holds that societal mores, beliefs, cultural attributes and financial practices are social conceptions and are not the possessions of an absolute natural law.

Socialists claim that socialism leads to human social association up to the degree of modern technological capacity. They assert that capitalism, as a system of allocating wealth, is outdated since it puts both power and riches within a small section of the community. It is, therefore, clear that socialism is the only system to sensibly deal with people fighting against themselves and the natural world (Mill 79).

It is quite peculiar that most people erroneously associate Socialism with Communism, as Fleming notes. However, Fleming emphasizes that the two ideologies are not necessarily to be intertwined into a single entity. As the historian mentions, the two can exist independently, which proves that Socialism is not intertwined with Communism:

Although the collapse of the Soviet empire (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) has tended to discredit communism, socialist ideas (at least in a moderate form) are accepted and praised, even by politicians and journalists who claim to defend the free market. (16-17)

It is essential to mark that the development of socialist ideas is typically split into two epochs, which are the era before the French Revolution and the era after the French Revolution, as Fleming (13) emphasizes.

Indeed, it is essential to mark that the French Revolution has considerably enhanced the development of the socialist ideas, not to mention the fact that it was in the revolutionary France where the famous Equality, Liberty, Fraternity motto was born to be further on spread all over the world as the fundament of a stable and healthy society.

Tracking the differences between the pre-Revolution Socialism and the post-Revolution Socialism, one can see the main landmarks of the ideology development and specify the changes that have been made to the socialist ideas throughout its evolution.

Works Cited

Fleming, Thomas. Socialism. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark, 2008. Print.

Griffin, Roger. The Nature of Fascism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Print.

Griffiths Richard. Fascism. London: Continuum, 2005. Print.

Mill, Stuart. On Socialism. New York: Cosimo, 2009. Print.

Renton, Dave. Fascism: Theory and Practice. London; Sterling, Va.: Pluto Press. Print

Introduction and the main part

We live in times when the application of conventional social, economic, and political terminology, to describe the realities of living in post-industrial world, can no longer be thought of as fully adequate. Nowadays, the politics is much better described in terms of economy, social trends – in terms of psychiatry, and the economy itself – in terms of criminology. The analysis of Tony Blair’s Premiership from 1997 to 2007 substantiates the validity of this statement better then anything else does, because it is namely during this time that British national interests have ceased to serve as the basis for designing socio-political policies in this country. And the reason for this is very simple – ever since he was appointed a British Prime Minister in 1997, Blair had proven his commitment to the promotion of Globalization as being much stronger than his commitment to serving Britain’s citizens. In his article “Tony Blair is Driving Voters to BNP”, Tony Parsons points out to the fact that, during the course of Blair’s reign, the high ranking officials from New Labour Party have completely lost their grasp on reality: “Blair talks about cracking down on organised crime when the working class are far more worried about being knifed by the pack of yobs loitering at the end of their street. The politically correct, metropolitan ponces of New Labour fret about the hole in the ozone layer when most people feel like they have a hole in the middle of their lives.

New Labour waffles about starvation in the Third World when its own people are starved of decent schools, affordable housing and reliable health care” (Parsons 2006). Just like any typical neo-Liberal, Blair had shown himself as being absolutely incapable of addressing this country’s problems in the way they deserve to be addressed, while striving for nothing less then adjusting the objective reality to the set of his obscure beliefs, which is the reason why Britain is now being often referred to as the Northern Pakistan, with British “progressive” politicians seriously discussing the possibility of legitimising the Islamic law of Sharia in Britain. In other words, Blair’s time in the Prime Minister’s office had removed the last doubts as to the fact that neo-Liberalism is nothing but a form of mental disorder, which prompts politicians, affected by it, to commit acts of national treason, without even realising it. It was not by a pure accident that, ever since the beginning of America’s aggression against Yugoslavia and Iraq, Blair wholeheartedly supported George Bush, while he was violating the most basic international laws with unprecedented bluntness, despite the fact that there is seemingly nothing in common between former American President and former British Prime Minister – George Bush is a conservative Bible-thumper and Tony Blair is a neo-Liberal sophisticate, known for his acute sense of political correctness.

Apparently, both countries’ leaders were united by something invisible to ordinary citizens – namely, by their membership in what Dr. William Pierce used to refer as the “Club”: “To have a major policy role in the U.S. government or the government of any major European country, you’re supposed to be a member of what amounts to a private club – the Club – in which you have been carefully checked out and determined to be “safe”: which is to say, determined to be willing to take orders from the secret bosses of the New World Order. You can be a “conservative,” á la Ronald Reagan or George Bush, and be admitted to membership in the Club, or you can be a flaming leftist, á la Bill Clinton or Al Gore. The one requirement is that you be corrupt, that you be a traitor to your people” (Pierce 2000). This is the reason why we cannot seriously consider suggestions that Blair’s reign had even slightly benefited Britain, simply because, ever since he was being appointed a Prime Minister, Bush’s “poodle dog”, became solely preoccupied with undermining the remains of this country’s national integrity – opening doors to the hordes of immigrants from Third World, legitimizing sexual perversions as “celebration of sexual diversity” and passing a variety of so-called “hate speech” laws, which provide lengthy jail sentences to citizens who dare to openly express their political opinions.

It is because of Blair’s strong commitment to shoving the concept of “multiculturalism”, down citizens’ throats, that this country is being gradually turned into a Third World slum itself, where “ethnically diverse” people, with British passports in their pockets, hold mass rallies in the centre of London, while openly proclaiming their hatred to Britain. In the article, from which we have already quoted, Parsons expresses his disgust with innately insane essence of country’s current immigration laws: “Islamic religious fanatics recently paraded through the streets of the capital with gloating slogans promising bombs and murder for the society that gives them a home” (Parsons 2006). The passing of these laws became possible due to Blair’s active promotion of “celebration of diversity” policy. Therefore, it is only very naïve people who can believe that New Labour Party’s social policies have resulted in reducing the gap between country’s poor and rich, or that they helped improving Britain’s educational system, simply because these policies are being based on crazed “lefties’” inadequate perception of surrounding reality, which in its turn, corresponds to their blind belief in people’s “equality”, despite the fact that that the notion of equality is nothing but nicely sounding euphemism for the concept of energetic death. This is the reason why, the more there is “equality”, the less there is “quality”.

In its turn, this explains why, despite the fact that Blair’s government had pumped huge amounts of taxpayer’s money into Britain’s system of education; the educational standards in this country continue to sink ever lower, simply because the dramatic increase in the number of “ethnically unique” students, which had taken place in recent years, cannot be discussed outside of these students’ lessened ability to operate with abstract categories. Nowadays, the British most “progressive” educators even demand that the practice of students’ IQ testing should be banned altogether as “racist”, because it exposes the ideological premise of “racial equality”, upon which Labourites base their worldview, as being nothing but a myth. In his article “Why England is Rotting”, Martin Newland reveals the fact that, despite what it is being commonly believed, during the course of “Blair’s era”, British system of education had actually sustained a heavy blow: “Britain’s record on education declines steadily, despite a doubling of spending from £29 billion ($62 billion, using current exchange rates) in 1997 to £64 billion ($138 billion) projected for 2008.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development last year claimed a quarter of the British population aged between 25 and 34 are “low skilled” in terms of educational attainment, five times the numbers in Japan” (Newland, p. 26). In the same article, author also points out at other “accomplishments” of Blair’s government: “It (Britain) leads Europe in illiteracy, obesity, divorce, drug use, crime and STDs. Bloody hell” (Newland, p. 26). In other words, the beneficial social effects of Labour Party’s governing solely exist in the imagination of “progressive” political scientists, sociologists, and economists that are being hired to intellectually legitimize this country succumbing to neo-Liberal dictatorship. It is namely during the time of Blair’s Premiership, when Britain had been turned into the ideological state, where mainstream media deliberately misinform people on what is going on in the country.

In the controversial 2005 “V for Vendetta” movie, where Britain is shown under the yoke of ideological dictatorship, there is a memorable scene, when revolutionaries destroy Old Bailey, with controlled media referring to it as the “emergency demolition” – thus, intentionally lying to citizens. In the similar manner, British mainstream Medias used to refer to London’s racial riots of 2001 and 2003 as “racist provocation”, “crime against the spirit of tolerance” and “neo-nazi conspiracy”, even though that Londoners who participated in mass rallies against their country being turned into the Northern Pakistan, were ordinary citizens, which simply got fed up with newly arrived Muslim immigrants’ tendency to explore their “ethnic uniqueness”, by gang-raping White women. In other words, there are many good reasons to think of today’s Britain as ideologically oppressive state, thanks Tony Blair and his gang of neo-Liberal cronies, who actually managed to instill citizens with the fear of being charged with “racism”, “sexism”, “male chauvinism” etc.

In his article “Former Soviet Dissident Warns for EU Dictatorship”, Paul Belien quotes a former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who had suggested that slowly but surely, EU (European Union), where Britain plays a prominent role, transforms itself into a quasi-state, intended to destroy democracy in countries-members: “I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on Earth defines anything like this as a crime” (Belien 2006) And, who has been the most ardent supporter of Britain’s euro-integration? Tony Blair. Who had suggested that those who oppose an uncontrolled immigration are “bunch of retards”? Tony Blair. Who has taken Britain into five wars, within a matter of 10 years, simply because his membership in the “Club” required him to do so?

Tony Blair. Therefore, this well-mannered politician is best defined as what he really is – traitor of his race and his nation, and it is of very little importance of what had prompted him to act in the way he did, because it is the actual consequences of his reign that count. These consequences are visible even to a naked eye: there are whole areas in large British cities, where only suicidal White citizens would consider setting their foot, there is a heavy burden of excessive taxation, laying on the shoulders of working citizens, and the most important – there is absolutely no good reasons to think that situation will change for better, thanks to the fact that Tony Blair had succeeded in “globalizing” British economy. There is a direct link between today’s staggering rates of unemployment in Britain and the strategy of economic development, pursued by Blair’s government in earlier years. The essence of this strategy can best defined as follows: “Borrow as much money as possible, distribute it among the “underpowered” citizens in variety of different ways, and let whoever will become the next Prime Minister to deal with the debts”. After having immensely “benefited” Britain, Blair wants to do the same to United States – he now gives lectures on Globalization at Yale University.

Conclusion

Thus, the legacy of Tony Blair appears as not being much different from the legacy of other world’s top ranking left-wing politicians, closely associated with international Plutocracy, who after having exploited citizens’ naivety for a while, would always leave the trail of corruption and degradation behind. This is the reason why Tony Blair will go down the history as George Bush’s “poodle dog”, rather than fully independent British Prime Minister.

Bibliography

Belien, Paul “Former Soviet Dissident Warns for EU Dictatorship”. 2006. The Brussels Journal. Web.

Hiscock, John “Why V for Vendetta spells C for Controversy”. 2006. Telegraph.Co.Uk. Web.

Parsons, Tony “Tony Blair is Driving Voters to BNP”. 2004. Mirror.Co.Uk. News. Web.

Pierce, William “The Club”. 2000. Nationalist Coalition. Web.

Newland, Martin “Why England is Rotting” [Cover story]. Maclean’s. (120) 22, (2007): 24-29.

What is liberty in the Fascist state? Why does the state have total power?

In a fascist state, liberty is what the state deems important and not harmful the state decides on liberties without consultation. A fascist state must have total power because it views the direction it takes in the direction of the masses and believes that severe action must be taken.

Mussolini would have argued that the Fascist state was democratic. Why?

Mussolini was a fascist, and he believed in a fascist state that is strongly based on the popular support of the masses (Mussolini, 2006) that slight resemblance to democracy could be confused with true democracy, but the differences are immense.

What is the Fascist view of war?

War is necessary because the state must pass down to future generations names of military leaders and geniuses who contributed to the enlargement of its territories and also who made the state famous.

Why does Fascist reject socialism and liberal democracy?

Fascism denies that numbers can determine anything in human society thus denying democracy and finally fascists deny the fact that happiness can be a result of material things, thus rejecting socialism.

References

Mussolini, B. (2006). The doctrine of fascism. Laramie, Wyoming: H. Fertig.

The Fascist’ Style of Rule’ is a book authored by Alexander J. De Grand and first published by Routledge in 1995; since then, the book has been revised in later editions. It is about fascism and Nazism, especially that which existed during the reign of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. It covers the entire reign of Adolf Hitler as the leader of the Nazi party and that of Mussolini as the leader and pioneer of fascism.

The book provides concise and provocative highlights on fascism and Nazism as experienced in Italy and Germany respectively. The author examines various aspect related to these two regimes including their similarities and differences at their infant stage of development, use of power by Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, the connection between the two dictators and their regimes, and policies that impacted on the culture, youth and women. The author utilizes thought-provoking and original points of views that are backed by current historical research. Although De Grand makes a general comparison of the two regimes, he provides specific details to support his ideas. Note that the second edition of this book provides a comprehensive discussion on the military role within the two movements.

The author approves of the emergence of fascism and Nazism as reactions to specific “problems inherent in the structure of liberal politics” at the time (De Grand 5). This is indicated in his relative examination of the development of Nazism and Fascism, and especially where he explores the issues that form the basis of support for these parties by the disgruntled middle-classes of Germany and Italy after the World War I. What is more, the author views these developments as solutions to the society, indicating their similarities and differences in approaching the crisis that existed within Europe, and arguing in favor of the fascist rule.

Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany is intended for scholarly purpose although it should charm many lay leaders. It explores the nature and history of fascism and Nazism touching on the leadership of Mussolini of Italy and Hitler of Germany. This is ideal for academician wishing to venture into or beyond advanced subjects like the holocaust, military and political events, and leaders. Furthermore, its clarity in presentation of vital and complex historical ideas is a motivation for scholars to debate on various arguments and thesis.

The book explores both social and political aspects of the Germany Nazism and Italy fascism era. More emphasis is on the political history while social history comes in to augment his arguments. For instance, while attempting to put his ideas across, Alexander makes a comparison of the emergence of the two movements from their inception and development to be a force and the epitome of leadership through the onset World War II while focusing on how these movements managed to organize their states accordingly after obtaining power. Moreover, the central ideas in De Grand’s book is that social issues gave rise to political occurrences. In effect, the author gives great account of the social phenomenon that contributed to the rise of these movements, however, there is substantial examination of the effects of these movement to the society including impact on the youth, women and culture.

References

De Grand, Alexander J., Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: The ‘Fascist’ Style of Rule, 1st edition, Routledge, New York, 1995.

De Grand, Alexander J., Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: The ‘Fascist’ Style of Rule, 2nd edition, Routledge, New York, 2004.

The world between the two wars was transforming, and people were looking for the political, social, and cultural paradigms that could address their needs and perspectives regarding the world order. The global financial crisis of the 1930s that is referred to as the Great Depression was one of the most influential factors that ensured the prominence of authoritarian ideas in many countries, including Italy. Fascism became the reaction to the complete devastation associated with the First World War, insufficient control over the situation in the 1920s, and the economic and social insecurity of the 1930s (Tignor et al. 725). In his essay, Benito Mussolini outlined the essence of Italian Fascism that aimed at ensuring the prosperity of the country. When put in the social, political, economic, and cultural context, the essay unveils its author’s fears regarding the spread of communism, disgust to the impotence of liberalism, and the desire to re-create the might of the Ancient Roman Empire.

The Italian nation was rather homogeneous (as compared to such countries as the USA or the USSR), but the Italian society was divided in terms of political and social trends. Liberalist parties proclaimed their values but failed to deliver a viable plan that could revive the country after the devastating war (Tignor et al. 725). People were tired of the empty promises of liberals with their “flabby materialistic positivism” (Mussolini 165). Moreover, liberals were blamed for the war and its consequences in the first place. Italy had to address serious economic issues that could be solved with the help of capitalistic measures, but Italians chose another path.

Capitalism, with its focus on individualism and its high rate of unemployment during crises, was not popular in the country. Mussolini introduced his ideas that put the state to the fore while the individual was to create “first of all in himself the instrument” to construct a prosperous nation (Mussolini 165). Importantly, the world saw the atrocities of the rule of the working class in the USSR where bloodsheds were a part of the development of the new country. Capitalism obviously failed in Europe after the WWI, but, at the same time, western people, including Italians, were afraid of the Russian kind of socialism, so they hardly had any alternative. Mussolini’s idea of a mutual effort to achieve a higher purpose inspired and united people.

The charismatic leader’s agenda resonated with Italians’ search for stability and guidance. Mussolini emphasized that every person was to sacrifice meaningless short-term pleasures for the good of all that was manifested in the concept of the State (175). The Italian dictator made people believe that “the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people” (Mussolini 175). Importantly, the major values that reigned in the country were not questioned as private property was still protected, and religion was one of the pillars of fascism in Italy. Mussolini’s doctrine was grounded on the primary beliefs and seemed to respond to the basic needs of Italian people, which led to the popularization of fascism. The patriarchal Italian society was a fertile ground for this political system as it was common to accept the complete authority of the Pope, the king, and, eventually, the dictator. The development of technology enhanced the influence of Il Duce who used radio for his propaganda.

Finally, although subjunctive mood can hardly be utilized when dealing with historical facts, it is possible to assume that Italian Fascism could have never appeared without the First World War. The Great War was a result of the rise of nationalism in Europe and led to its complete victory over other trends (Tignor et al. 712). People focused on their national identities and interests and forgot about the global security and consequences of their actions. For instance, instead of trying to resolve the problems that existed or were about to arise, the British Empire, the United States, and France concentrated on carving the world map and taking control over former Germany’s colonies. Italians were also concerned about their national identity, but they were disappointed with their king who could not ensure the rebuilding of the country after the war. The idea of the State became popular as it was believed to be capable of reviving the great Roman Empire.

In conclusion, it is necessary to note that Benito Mussolini’s doctrine outlined his ideas regarding Italian fascism and the role it could play in the history of his country. Italians were tired of the failures of liberalist politicians who could not address the capitalist consequences of the global economic crisis. Different plans and political paths numerous liberal groups offered were associated with the war and economic collapse, while the new order promised stability and consolidation based on traditional values. The political systems chosen by other countries revealed their downsides and turned the people of Italy away from them. They chose to follow their leader and build the State that reminded about the great past of the country.

Works Cited

Mussolini, Benito. “The Basic Philosophy of Fascism.” The Social and Political Doctrines of Contemporary Europe, edited by Michael Oakeshott, Cambridge University Press, 1942, pp. 168-178.

Tignor, Robert, et al. Worlds Together, Wolds Apart. 5th ed., vol. 2, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2017.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was undergoing social and economic turmoil which was characterized by widespread poverty, hunger, and dissatisfaction with the tsarist government. As populist ideologies took place, a series of Revolutions took place in an attempt to establish a new government. The first revolutionary wave occurred early in 1905 in a handful of Russian cities, it was largely ineffective and had little impact, but demonstrated that the Russian people were ready to protest. The first major event was the February Revolution in 1917 when women entered the streets to protest hunger while workers began to unionize and deputize. This event was the first indication of the working class rising and dissatisfied with the rule of the rich bourgeoise while the majority population was barely surviving.¹

In order to survive, the existing regime decided to abdicate power to the Duma, establishing a new temporary government that ruled based on a duality of power. Despite some confrontation, this revolution was relatively peaceful and simply a pause before everything came crashing down. Finally, the October “Bolshevik” Revolution in 1917 resulted in a complete and violent uprising against the tsarist government. Led by Lenin, the Soviet party first acquired political support and then began a military uprising, usurping power and establishing a dictatorship. It was a powerful revolution, led by the elimination of political enemies and the beginning of a prolonged Civil War in Russia.²

The Bolshevik revolution was inherently more successful due to a combination of factors. The primary reason is that the people wanted concrete change, no longer satisfied with promises or interval changes such as the provisional government. Second, the Bolsheviks had strong leadership in the likes of Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky who were confident in their abilities and inspired the people with their knowledge and understanding of their struggles. It is this comprehension that allowed them to implement a communist ideology that they strongly upheld and modify to fit the Russian society, with a belief that the workers should rule themselves which was appealing to the majority of the population.

Marxism was altered significantly by Lenin originally, producing a new ideology of Leninism. It sought to use political opportunism to preserve capitalism. It was also seeking to apply socialist principles in the political experience in the birth of the Soviet Union and apply it to the worldwide revolution. Although sharing some similarities with Marx, Lenin’s New Economic Policy was attempting to find a balance between socialism and capitalism, which was ineffective. When Stalin came into power, he radically changed the ideology by introducing a systemic party and rule. He established strong leadership and control which ruled through terror and suppression. The economy also changed towards a centralized command economy, but it was far from the socialist exchange of commodities that Marx had proposed.³

Before the Revolution, Russia was ruled by an absolute monarchy, giving unlimited power to Tsar Nicholas II. It was ultimately this aspect that led to the overthrow of the government and the rise of Communism. Incompetent decision-making and significant class divide which placed Russian workers in impoverished conditions were further exacerbated by World War I and the violence of the government against its own people. Communism was the direct opposite and an attractive solution to many by providing representation to workers and suggesting that the control and ownership of the industrial system be given to the collective society. Lenin built on this by introducing his three decrees which established peace, abolished land ownership, and gave rights and minimum wages to workers. Other socially oriented policies were implemented such as universal healthcare, education, and women’s rights.⁴

Hitler built on the rising nationalism and Germany’s sentiments that it was unfairly punished for the sins of World War I. Hitler, who was a soldier during the Great War later adopted these sentiments into a nationalistic ideology which he used to gain the power of the population discontent with the government that supported the status quo of Germany’s poor economic and political state. After the war, Hitler becomes disillusioned with the Treaty of Versailles, serving as a vindictive policy not only against the German economy but hitting at the heart of German nationalism. He becomes involved in right-wing political groups like the National Socialist German Workers Party, rising through its ranks due to his leadership and organizational skills. Hitler took advantage of the four dimensions of power to achieving fascism, ideological, military, economic, and political. Using his charisma, he was appealing to both politicians and the masses alike, building a cult of personality which is a pattern in Fascism.⁵ It is his attempt at the Beer Hall Putsch, a small beginning of public protest meant to mimic Mussolini’s March on Rome. It led Hitler to confront the government and gain the support of locals which pushed him to adopt the radical fascist ideology stated in Mein Kampf.⁶

Similar to Hitler, Mussolini was also a soldier and an advent political ideologist for most of his life. He founded the Fascist Party based on his socialist beliefs with the hopes to end discrimination and raise the level of life in Italy which was undergoing economic hardships. He took advantage of the political opportunities and weakness of his opponents to quickly gain support. Similar to other dictators, he used his charisma to promise Italians a new life and a powerful Italy, actions he supported with the invasion of Ethiopia as well as extensive public works programs to benefit the people. While doing this, he dismantled any democratic institutions, consolidating his power and establishing a Fascist stronghold over Italy.⁷ Mussolini gained power during the March on Rome in 1922, impressing people with his ideas. He aligned himself with large businesses and landowners as well, suggesting that Fascism should be a merger between state and corporate power. He was able to present a political front that filled the power void left by previous weak governments and gathered support based on fear of Communism and nationalistic pride.⁸

Finally, Franco was able to achieve his power largely due to the support of the other two dictators. He also had a background in the military and used the chaos of the Civil War in Spain to establish a foothold in power. His involvement in the military and disagreement with commanding officers during the wars of the early 20^th century where Spain was participating, led him to join a military coup. Franco rapidly acquired power and used a combination of Fascist ideology and the backing of the Catholic Church to secure power for the fascist militia groups. They further consolidated control through violent means and murdering of political opponents.

Bibliography

Bosworth, Richard. “Coming to Terms with Fascism in Italy.” History Today 55, no. 11 (2005): 18-20.

Eatwell, Roger. ” Explaining Fascism and Ethnic Cleansing: The Three Dimensions of Charisma and the Four Dark Sides of Nationalism.” Political Studies Review 4, (2006): 263-278.

“Fascism Explained: World History Review.” YouTube video, 18:30. Posted by Hip Hughes. 2016. Web.

Kolonitskii, Boris, and Yisrael Elliot Cohen. “Russian Historiography of the 1917 Revolution: New Challenges to Old Paradigms?.” History Memory 21, no. 2 (2009): 34-59.

Paxton, Robert O., and Julie Hessler. Europe in the Twentieth Century. Boston: Cengage, 2012.

Perry, Marvin, Matthew Berg, and James Krukones. Sources of European History: Since 1900. 2nd ed. Boston: Cengage, 2010.

“Ten Minute History – The Russian Revolution.” YouTube video, 9:59. Posted by History Matters. 2016. Web.

Footnotes

1. Boris Kolonitskii and Yisrael Elliot Cohen, “Russian Historiography of the 1917 Revolution: New Challenges to Old Paradigms?” History Memory 21, no. 2 (2009): 34.
2. Robert O Paxton and Julie Hessler, Europe in the Twentieth Century (Boston: Cengage, 2012), 173.
3. Marvin, Perry, Sources of European History: Since 1900, 2nd ed. (Boston: Cengage, 2010), 263.
4. “Ten Minute History – The Russian Revolution.” YouTube video, 9:59, posted by History Matters. Web.
5. “Fascism Explained: World History Review.” YouTube video, 18:30, posted by Hip Hughes. Web.
6. Roger Eatwell, ” Explaining Fascism and Ethnic Cleansing: The Three Dimensions of Charisma and the Four Dark Sides of Nationalism,” Political Studies Review 4, (2006): 264.
7. Richard Bosworth, “Coming to Terms with Fascism in Italy,” History Today 55, no. 11 (2005): 18.
8. “Fascism Explained: World History Review.” YouTube video, 18:30, posted by Hip Hughes. Web.