I found the first article really interesting. The writer conveyed the scale of unrest and conflict across Italy from troop resentment and reserves, to clashes between socialism and fascism. The author establishes that fascism flourished as a response to what was a perceived socialist threat to middle class/landowning members of society, a threat which essentially challenged the social order, and most importantly as Simon noted, a threat which was not being supressed by the government. This situation seems almost reminiscent of the conditions leading up to the Russian Revolution except it flourished in Russia in the absence of strong opposition from fascism that emerged in Italy. However both governments’ weakness created opportunity, communist in Russia, and Fascist in Italy. I found it particularly interesting that a significant amount of squadristi were very young, often high school age, not even old enough to have fought in the war, yet were eager to jump into a fascist ‘action squad’ and probably become quickly brutalized just the same. The author emphasises this kind of glorification of violence and its importance in fascism more generally, and it does seem a convincing pull factor for young people particularly, who didn’t have the opportunity to fight in a war but did gain an opportunity to defend against a ‘greater’ threat at home.
The second source recognised the Great War, and subsequent revolutions as significant in contributing to fascism. The author establishes some of the main principles of fascism its nationalist ‘base’ and its stance against not just communism but liberalism and conservatism. I thought that Hitler was conveyed as the more ‘extreme’ leader of the two (between himself and Mussolini) in his intensified focus on the ‘Jewish problem’ and the idea of ‘racial cleansing’. The second source, like the first, also makes note of middle class involvement in fascist movements. I was slightly confused by what the author of the source was trying to argue about Fascism in a kind of religious context – I was unsure as to whether it was implying fascism was more of a secular thing, or if it had more religious undertones/context because it seemed to suggest it was secular and then would describe it religiously etc.
Bethany
The chapter by Christopher Duggan was really interesting. In perticular, I found really intriguing how he brough up the situation in Italy through individual stories. For example, how he narrates part of Vincenzo Rabito or Mario Piazzesi’s experiences at the time. I feel like this is a very useful tool to make the reader truly understand the personal experience, the truth of that period of time, better than if the author was just writing historical events or merely descrinig how life was at that time.
However, although it really helps us to understand more personally the time, I also feel like maybe it also compllicates the comprehension of the text. It is true that it helps witht the experience of those people, but by constantly jumping between the personal experiences or texts written by these people and the description/narration of the events of the time it can be slightly confusing and difficult to fully understand the text.
Also, it seemed really interesting that, while reading you could really see some of the most prominent characteristics of the Italian Fascism appear through the text, and seeing the ‘roots’, as they’re called in the lecture.
Thanks, Simon, for this detailed summary of the two articles – and you raise some important points in the final paragraph regarding what Duggan might tell us about the attractiveness of fascism. I hope we can dig into this in the webinar. Thanks also to Bethany and Adriana for starting the conversation! I, too, find the emphasis on individual stories fascinating and this is why I’ve included this particular reading. You note that the personal angle complicates the ordering of the events – I wonder whether it also makes it even more difficult to really understand how fascism rose to power in Italy. How much do these stories tell us?
The point that Bethany raises about political authority and its contested legitimacy is, I think, really important and it is hard to understate the importance of the effects of the war here. I do wonder how far this makes the rise of fascism in Italy comparable to what occurred in other countries, e.g. Germany in the 1930s.
I’m glad you raise the point about religion. This is a reference to Gentile’s theory of fascism, whereby fascism can be explained as a ‘political religion’. Googling political religion should throw up some results. I think it’s also something we could discuss in the seminar.
This week I found the Duggan reading of great interest through his use of the storytelling aspect of his article. This is done by explaining the situation in Fascist Italy through people’s personal experiences through their stories. This is a useful tool used by the author as it engages the reader and possibly also helps the reader to remember the event in a different light by creating a more personal experience for the reader.
Within the article it is also implied that the rise of fascism was due to the impact of World War 1. This was mainly due to the glorification of violence after the war. This was highlighted as many of the squadrisiti members were of a young age, often teenagers. Many of these boys would have been enticed in through this glorification and due to their young age they may have been easier to influence.
To agree with previous points I was also slightly confused by the opinion on whether fascism was religious or secular within movements.
I agree with most of what others have commented.
One of the main themes that stood out for me was the issue of leadership in fascist groups. Of course, many of us automatically think about Hitler and Mussolini. And we’d be right.
Levy makes some very interesting points about both leaders. The image I got of Hitler was that he was more concerned about biological issues such as creating the ‘master race’ than Mussolini was, and for me, this is one of the main differences between Nazism and Italian fascism. Levy also interestingly highlights the speed of Hitler’s ascent compared to Mussolini, highlighting Mussolini’s longevity, building a grassroots movement in Northern Italy before ascending to power.
Duggan explores the issue of leadership further, as he pays a particular concentration on the social conditions in Northern and Central Italy that led to the growth of the fascist party and Mussolini in 1920/21. It is interesting for me that he highlights the methods of Mussolini – recruiting young men (25% of militants were under 21) and students, organising the movement as a military operation.
The fact he mentions that Mussolini say himself as an integral part of the success of the Fascist movement consolidates the importance of leadership at this time.
There are some important ideas coming out here in discussion. Reuben has mentioned youth: fascism was in many ways a movement of youth – and therefore often recruited those who had not directly participated in WWI. It was also often a movement of students (e.g. Romania, with the Iron Guard; Spain, with Falange). Communism was also a youthful movement (although less student-oriented). I wonder if we can read anything into this?
The question of religion is a thorny one, as Rhys notes, and I think that the Duggan chapter doesn’t clarify things. One way that scholars have attempted to understand fascism is to describe it as a ‘political religion’ (see work by Gentile), which tends to focus on the way that politics is ‘sacralised’ and mystical under fascism, and emphasises its reliance on ritual and spectacle, its language of sacrifice etc. Do you see fascism as a ‘religion’? It can be problematic – as the Duggan chapter shows, fascism did not replace Catholicism in Italy; in fact many young Italians connected with fascism through a shared language of faith, religion etc. And of course the idea of ‘political religion’ is very western-centric: it is predicated on Christian understandings of what a religion is.
I found the first article really interesting. The writer conveyed the scale of unrest and conflict across Italy from troop resentment and reserves, to clashes between socialism and fascism. The author establishes that fascism flourished as a response to what was a perceived socialist threat to middle class/landowning members of society, a threat which essentially challenged the social order, and most importantly as Simon noted, a threat which was not being supressed by the government. This situation seems almost reminiscent of the conditions leading up to the Russian Revolution except it flourished in Russia in the absence of strong opposition from fascism that emerged in Italy. However both governments’ weakness created opportunity, communist in Russia, and Fascist in Italy. I found it particularly interesting that a significant amount of squadristi were very young, often high school age, not even old enough to have fought in the war, yet were eager to jump into a fascist ‘action squad’ and probably become quickly brutalized just the same. The author emphasises this kind of glorification of violence and its importance in fascism more generally, and it does seem a convincing pull factor for young people particularly, who didn’t have the opportunity to fight in a war but did gain an opportunity to defend against a ‘greater’ threat at home.
The second source recognised the Great War, and subsequent revolutions as significant in contributing to fascism. The author establishes some of the main principles of fascism its nationalist ‘base’ and its stance against not just communism but liberalism and conservatism. I thought that Hitler was conveyed as the more ‘extreme’ leader of the two (between himself and Mussolini) in his intensified focus on the ‘Jewish problem’ and the idea of ‘racial cleansing’. The second source, like the first, also makes note of middle class involvement in fascist movements. I was slightly confused by what the author of the source was trying to argue about Fascism in a kind of religious context – I was unsure as to whether it was implying fascism was more of a secular thing, or if it had more religious undertones/context because it seemed to suggest it was secular and then would describe it religiously etc.
Bethany
The chapter by Christopher Duggan was really interesting. In perticular, I found really intriguing how he brough up the situation in Italy through individual stories. For example, how he narrates part of Vincenzo Rabito or Mario Piazzesi’s experiences at the time. I feel like this is a very useful tool to make the reader truly understand the personal experience, the truth of that period of time, better than if the author was just writing historical events or merely descrinig how life was at that time.
However, although it really helps us to understand more personally the time, I also feel like maybe it also compllicates the comprehension of the text. It is true that it helps witht the experience of those people, but by constantly jumping between the personal experiences or texts written by these people and the description/narration of the events of the time it can be slightly confusing and difficult to fully understand the text.
Also, it seemed really interesting that, while reading you could really see some of the most prominent characteristics of the Italian Fascism appear through the text, and seeing the ‘roots’, as they’re called in the lecture.
Thanks, Simon, for this detailed summary of the two articles – and you raise some important points in the final paragraph regarding what Duggan might tell us about the attractiveness of fascism. I hope we can dig into this in the webinar. Thanks also to Bethany and Adriana for starting the conversation! I, too, find the emphasis on individual stories fascinating and this is why I’ve included this particular reading. You note that the personal angle complicates the ordering of the events – I wonder whether it also makes it even more difficult to really understand how fascism rose to power in Italy. How much do these stories tell us?
The point that Bethany raises about political authority and its contested legitimacy is, I think, really important and it is hard to understate the importance of the effects of the war here. I do wonder how far this makes the rise of fascism in Italy comparable to what occurred in other countries, e.g. Germany in the 1930s.
I’m glad you raise the point about religion. This is a reference to Gentile’s theory of fascism, whereby fascism can be explained as a ‘political religion’. Googling political religion should throw up some results. I think it’s also something we could discuss in the seminar.
This week I found the Duggan reading of great interest through his use of the storytelling aspect of his article. This is done by explaining the situation in Fascist Italy through people’s personal experiences through their stories. This is a useful tool used by the author as it engages the reader and possibly also helps the reader to remember the event in a different light by creating a more personal experience for the reader.
Within the article it is also implied that the rise of fascism was due to the impact of World War 1. This was mainly due to the glorification of violence after the war. This was highlighted as many of the squadrisiti members were of a young age, often teenagers. Many of these boys would have been enticed in through this glorification and due to their young age they may have been easier to influence.
To agree with previous points I was also slightly confused by the opinion on whether fascism was religious or secular within movements.
I agree with most of what others have commented.
One of the main themes that stood out for me was the issue of leadership in fascist groups. Of course, many of us automatically think about Hitler and Mussolini. And we’d be right.
Levy makes some very interesting points about both leaders. The image I got of Hitler was that he was more concerned about biological issues such as creating the ‘master race’ than Mussolini was, and for me, this is one of the main differences between Nazism and Italian fascism. Levy also interestingly highlights the speed of Hitler’s ascent compared to Mussolini, highlighting Mussolini’s longevity, building a grassroots movement in Northern Italy before ascending to power.
Duggan explores the issue of leadership further, as he pays a particular concentration on the social conditions in Northern and Central Italy that led to the growth of the fascist party and Mussolini in 1920/21. It is interesting for me that he highlights the methods of Mussolini – recruiting young men (25% of militants were under 21) and students, organising the movement as a military operation.
The fact he mentions that Mussolini say himself as an integral part of the success of the Fascist movement consolidates the importance of leadership at this time.
There are some important ideas coming out here in discussion. Reuben has mentioned youth: fascism was in many ways a movement of youth – and therefore often recruited those who had not directly participated in WWI. It was also often a movement of students (e.g. Romania, with the Iron Guard; Spain, with Falange). Communism was also a youthful movement (although less student-oriented). I wonder if we can read anything into this?
The question of religion is a thorny one, as Rhys notes, and I think that the Duggan chapter doesn’t clarify things. One way that scholars have attempted to understand fascism is to describe it as a ‘political religion’ (see work by Gentile), which tends to focus on the way that politics is ‘sacralised’ and mystical under fascism, and emphasises its reliance on ritual and spectacle, its language of sacrifice etc. Do you see fascism as a ‘religion’? It can be problematic – as the Duggan chapter shows, fascism did not replace Catholicism in Italy; in fact many young Italians connected with fascism through a shared language of faith, religion etc. And of course the idea of ‘political religion’ is very western-centric: it is predicated on Christian understandings of what a religion is.