Why did fascists like this play so much? Or at least the protagonist?

National Socialism is not the only brand of fascism.

>>1621234
Everything I've said applies to formal fascism as well.

>>1620584
read Evola or the Futurist manifesto
also the populism in Fascism is largely superficial, mostly to steal support form Socialists. in practice its extremely aristocratic.

>>1621272
Evola was a reactionary, not a fascist.

Fascism isn't aristocratic in either practice or theory, unless by "aristocratic" you mean authoritarian.

>>1620584
>Why did fascists like this play so much?
[citation needed]

Coriolanus is forged as an Apollonian hero rather than European hero, concrete and absolutist rather than abstract and existential. Coriolanus is a failure of the Apollonian hero, and a reminder of the weaknesses of all men. He is very much an existential hero though, and he, and the play are as great as Hamlet. Hamlet reveals himself through soliloquy. Coriolanus does not give soliloquy and so he does not reveal himself to the audience. He is a tragic hero in the style of the Greeks, the hero that Rome needed and not the one they deserved. Coriolanus is revealed at the end of the play, when he cries "mother". Hamlet and Coriolanus are both men driven by revenge, both become ambiguous toward the end of the play, both are individualistic. The difference is that Hamlet's existentialism is explicit, even expressionist, whereas Coriolanus' is implicit, and his torments and doubts only slip out few times, the famous "mother" scene being the most powerful.

Using terms like "anti-democratic" shows that you failed to understand the play, much like the reactionaries that also fail to understand it.

Because it has "anus" in the title and fascism is ass.

>>1623304
>Because it has "anus" in the title and fascism is ass.
is this the famous ''dialectical materialism''?

>>1623212
i think what was meant is it creates a ruling elite largely interested in manipulating the socio-politic-economic setting such to maintain that favored few remain such.

>>1623300
Trying to strip away all political context from Shakespeare's most political play shows *you* don't understand it. Shakespeare's very plays were politically protested against, and when the son of the king he wrote this under fled London, they were immediately banned by parliament (along with all plays), and of course, the son would eventually be beheaded. Shakespeare also wrote this no long after bread riots that happened where he lived, which were caused by merchant hoarding coupled with enclosure (something King James eventually had to actively oppose in order to keep public order, and something his son would continue to oppose, which contributed to parliament hating him).

Please, don't try to compare Coriolanus to Hamlet, they are completely the opposite. Hamlet is highly passive-aggressive about expressing himself, Coriolanus is the opposite. Hamlet is plagued by thinking rather than doing, Coriolanus is the opposite. Hamlet is troubled by disgust with his mother, Coriolanus respects only the opinion of his mother. Hamlet consummates his revenge at the cost of his life, Coriolanus forgoes his revenge at the cost of his life. Hamlet is exiled because of a boo-boo, Coriolanus is exiled virtually by deliberate defiance and virtually by his own will. Hamlet is beloved by the people (which is why his uncle is hesitant to kill him, because it could cause a rebellion), Coriolanus is hated by the people and in fact wants to be on some level.

>>1623331
By that standard, communism is "aristocratic"

>>1623340
he is such an opposite he is like a mirror image and that is why they are relatedfam

>>1623330
>everone who don't into based fascism is a fuggin GOMMIE

kys

>>1623344
No, Hamlet is anti-classical hero, being existentialist. Coriolanus is very much in the vein of Achilles, although he has a great deal more depth because he ties into modern politics (which is intentionally on Shakespeare's part, he isn't trying to sell a politics, but he is definitely exploring them). Hamlet has zero to do with politics, Coriolanus has a lot to do with some many political issues. You can see these issues explored in parallel in Eikon Basilike, the work King Charles wrote to defend when preparing for his execution

>I would rather choose to wear a crown of thorns with my Saviour, than to exchange that of gold, which is due to me, for one of lead, whose embased flexibleness shall be forced to bend and comply to the various and oft contrary dictates of any factions, when instead of reason and public concernments they obtrude nothing but what makes for the interest of parties, and flows from the partialities of private wills and passions. I know no resolutions more worthy a Christian king, than to prefer his conscience before his kingdoms.

But Shakespeare, once again, was not trying to write a simply pro-reactionary play. The bread riot, more than anything else, is an illustration of Shakespeare's understanding of the masses, where it is said, in the play, the riot has nothing to do with petty revenge (which drives Coriolanus), but hunger. Shakespeare was responding in way to the contempt held for the rioters in his own time. The sheriff of his area, though saying the shortage was the fault of "covetous" merchants, expressed at the same time utter contempt for the masses and a suggestion they should be immediately put down.