Does anyone wanna help me make a big chart of reading for the three big political theories? I've added what I presume to be the absolute basics and necessary groundwork, but haven't even touched on the different schools of thought within each. I feel like fiction should also have a place.
I'm doing this because I don't know that much about what these ideologies actually entail, and I want to get a bigger perspective on political thought. I'm sure others on /lit/ could benefit from it, too.
Republic - Plato
Leviathan - Hobbes
The Decline of the West - Spengler
The Doctrine of Fascism - Mussolini
My Autobiography - Mussolini
Mein Kampf - Hitler
The Myth of the 20th Century - Rosenberg
The Greater Britain - Mosley
The Social Contract - Rosseau
The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism - Lenin
The Communist Manifesto - Marx, Engels
Capital - Marx
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Engels
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - Lenin
What is to be done? - Lenin
The Foundations of Leninism - Stalin
Two Treatises - Locke
Candide - Voltaire
The Rights of Man - Paine
The Wealth of Nations - Smith
On Liberty - J.S. Mill
Utilitarianism - J.S. Mill
Principles of Political Economy - J.S. Mill
Democracy in America - de Tocqueville
If I left something out or put something that you think shouldn't be there, let me know. I haven't read but three or four of these books. Also I'm aware that these lists need subcategories. I don't really know where to start with those, but I figured some of you would.
I wasn't saying that he was a fascist, but a lot of his ideas are central to fascism. Also, he inspired Mussolini.
>rejected social equality
>believed in a ruler with unlimited power; rejected democracy
Why shouldn't it be there?
Fascism embraces social equality to an extent though. All volk are equal before the state in that they are to be made subordinate to it. The state is not a person, though it is run by them, and thus it cannot be used as something to be compared to. Hence, all people are rendered socially equal. Likewise there are calls for the volk to work with each other and to share what they have for the betterment of their fellow person. If you substitute racial terms for class terms into communist writings you basically get a rough approximation of fascism.
I have read it, and you guys seem to be misinterpreting it's purpose on the list.
Just like Rosseau isn't a communist, neither is Plato a fascist. But their works are pertinent to the respective ideologies, don't you think?
Either one is true, but I was more stressing the latter. Politics today flows out of the French Revolution (it's what gave us the terms Left-Wing and Right-Wing, afterall). Likewise the terms Liberal, Conservative and Reactionary have their roots in that time.
Conservatism, favoring prior traditions, tends towards things that have already been done (in its original context it was toward the continued existence of a monarchy and continued empowerment of it).
Reactionary politics is a revolutionary branch of Conservatism, following the beheading of Louis XVI and the establishment of the First French Republic. Reactionaries wanted to overthrow the current government and reinstate the Ancien Regime.
Liberals are those who favored the ideas of Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite (and to an extent Democracy).
Anything pushing for a Republican form of government (which all Fascist nations were) is inherently rooted in liberalism. Fascism is zealously proselytized liberalism, in the trappings of Conservatism. A fascist government is not a monarchy in the sense of the Ancien Regime, it is a highly centralized and authoritarian Republic.
Not Op, but I agree with you on most of your points.
I think it is important to note that fascism (while birthed from liberalism) doesn't hold the ties to it in the way you describe. Communist ideology is also birthed from liberalism while maintaining distinct traits and ideology.
Fascism claims to be a radically new system of society, culture, and government based upon an older ideal within a nation or culture. Note the ideal, because no fascist force has ever actually reinstated the past, they only claim to do so.
If a communist movement is revolutionary, then fascism is the counter-revolution. Not in the 1600’s Reformation sense of counter-reformation (where the old is attempting to reestablish itself) it is literally a revolution in the fact that fascism is a new force trying to reestablish an ideal old. Carrying on with the Reformation analogy, conservatism would be the Council of Trent and fascism would be the Jesuits (with the communists being represented by the Munster Rebellion). Of course this is only a weak example because the Jesuits were extremely different in several ways from a fascist movement, but hopefully you see my point.
Anyways, another important point is that liberalism is more than a simple market economy, it is a bourgeoisie based system of government, ethics, and individual liberties. Fascism breaks away from almost all of these tenets of liberalism, in that it calls for the betterment of society via a strong eliet (not a class) that represents the people in a way that the plebeians simply can not comprehend. So my major point of disagreement with you lays in your statement that fascism is “zealously proselytized liberalism” because liberal values and even the market system are independent of fascism. Unless by liberalism you mean capitalism, then I would be misunderstanding you and we would be in agreement. Though some would argue that a fascist market and a liberal market are two entirely different creatures.