Post.
As for the draining of marshes myth. Italians have certainly heard this one before that under Mussolini's regime, there was an ambitious project to drain numerous marshlands across Italy to make the lands available for Italian Farmers to settle and cultivate. The concept of draining marshlands didn't originate with Mussolini ni nor was he the pionner. In unified Italy to embark on such Endeavors the idea of a systematic reclamation dates back to the 15th century initiated by the papacy and the first comprehensive legislation aimed at marshland reclamation was enacted in 1878 by the unified Kingdom of Italy. A deeper dive into the legislative efforts of that era reveals a significant focus on marshlands reclamation well before Mussolini rises into power. Specifically in the year 1922 just before the march on Rome, approximately 20 Royal decrees were issued to intensify state-backed Reclamation projects. Some will argue back saying that it might not have been his idea but that was
he who managed to reclaim the marshes. We need to analyze whether fascist measures for land reclamation were more effective than those of the previous governments. Upon initiating their reclamation projects the fascist government encountered a familiar obstacle that had also challenged previous regimes. The marshlands were owned by numerous individuals who were reluctant to relinquish their property without compensation. This resistance led to the suspension of several of Mussolini's ambitious reclamation plans and resulted in the resignation of Arrigo Serpieri, who was the economist responsible for crafting their relevant legislation from the outset. The fascists didn't meet more success than previous governments. In an effort to overcome these hurdles the fascist government sought investment from the private sector but the industrialists lacked confidence in Mussolini's committment to the reclamation's efforts.
Consequently the financial burden of the project fell entirely upon the state's budget. Despite facing numerous challenges, Mussolini was determined to see the land reclamation project through going so far as to attach his own name to the official law and integral reclamation passed in 1928. He was putting a lot of stakes on his own image to make this project work. It was a point of no return and if the fascists failed it would be a huge propaganda loss for them. However the legislation itself did not introduce groundbreaking solutions to the prevailing issues. Its primary feature was a series of long-term Financial commitments leading to a steady increase in the Project's budget from 1930 : 13,5 million to 257 million in 1943. He was just throwing money at the problem hoping it would go away. The law incentivized land reclamation by promising substantial Financial rewards to those who participated yet the strategy was fundamentally flawed from the outset as the government initially lacked the necessary funds to finance such an ambitious project. This led to a reliance on future budgets to cover the escalating costs. Mussolini ambitiously proclaimed that 8 million hectar of land would be reclaimed under his directive a figure that was highly unrealistic given that Italy encompasses only 27 million hectares of land. In total as the reclamation project concluded the fascist regime announced the establishment of numerous towns claiming that 4 million hectar of land were prepared for cultivation. Source :" La bonifica in Italia " E. Novello. Page 280.
While this achievement fell short of the initial 8 million hectar goal the reported 4 million hectars was still a considerable accomplishment. However a closer scrutiny revealed that only 2 million hectars were actually ready for farming moreover of this land 1 and a half million hectars had been previously reclaimed under the liberal governments. So during the 10 years of reclamation the fascists only managed to claim 500,000 hectars. That was a massive failure. As it turns out the fascists never had all the money for land reclamation as they made it seem with their budget. Instead it was only made to look like it for propaganda purposes. In fact very few projects were completed as the economic historian Rolf Petri wrote : " Many Reclamation consortia announc the commencement of work but often only formally. " Source : " Storia economica d'Italia " Prtri. Page 252. To maintain their reputation musolini orchestrated a perception that the reclamation efforts were proceeding successfully despite the fact that very little actual work had commenced. Renzo De Felice, one of Italy's leading historians on fascism had this to say in regards to land reclamation : " Overall, the results of integral land reclamation were inferior not only to those scheduled in his original plan by serpieri but also to the expectations raised in the country by the massive propaganda campaign and were eventually disproportionate to the magnitude of the economic efforts sustained. " Source : " Mussolini il Duce " Page 144.
Of for the myth consisting of believing that Mussolini was a man of law and justice, That espite the inherent corruption and abuses of power typical of totalitarian regimes musolini was a paragon of honesty and morality within Italian politics upholding Justice and law. From the outset adherence to strict rules was hardly the norm for Mussolini and his followers. The fascist paramilitaries frequently resorted to violent beatings and vigilante justice with with Mussolini and the party largely ignoring these actions. Even if we supposed that it was necessary to put Italy on the right path, there is another problem. That of corruption, one of the core messages championed by the fascists was the imperative to liberate the country from the corrupt dishonest and parasitic political system of liberal Italy which had been mared by scandals revealing corruption and misuse of public funds. The fascists claim to be Crusaders against corruption intent on cleansing Italy of its malactor and imprisoning them. GIacomo Matteotti prove it's not the case. From the start, Matteotti was a thorn inside of Mussolini's party due to the fact that he was an Incorruptible defender of the rule of law and that he was also an expert on budget policies and economic Affairs. An Italian journalist Carlos Silvestri would recall that : " Matteotti was a man who read the government budget as I would read a novel. And from his reading, Matteotti had come to the hair raising conclusions about some of the expenditure items the slipshot accounting and so on. " Source : " Mussolini, e il dramma italiano " Silvestro. Page 58.
In early 1924 as a member of the Chamber of deputies budget committee, Matteotti had pointed out the disorder of accounts and the fact that the figures have been deliberately altered by the government stating openly : " From the figures anticipated by the premier, it transpired that the balanced budget that the government officially submitted to Parliament and The Sovereign on the occasion of the opening of the legislature, was a fake, whereas the real one which envisaged a deficit of 2 billion lire, was the one the government was trying to have passed by the general budget committee. " Source : ' Il delitto Matteotti " by Mc Canali. Page 40. The threat that Matteotti posed to the fascist party was clear. His ability to uncover and expose Financial corruption within the government made him a significant enemy. He diligently worked to reveal government counting frauds and hold officials accountable for their deceit and failures. More importantly, Matteotti, aimed to demonstrate that melini's party was no better than its predecessors. Arguably it was even worse, despite its claims of eradicating corruption. On the eve of a critical speech he was scheduled to deliver in the chamber of deputies about the provisional budget, Matteotti was abducted by fascist operatives. He was tor tortured and eventually killed. According to Pietro Nenni, former Italian politician : " there was a good reason why he was murdered the day before that session " Matteotti intended to attack the policy of De Stefani ( Mussolini's finance minister ) and draw the country's attention to the characters who had got rich too quick in the shadow of Palazzo Chigi and The Palazzo Del Viminale and a level of corruption identical to the one that had characterized the second French Empire. " Source : " Mussolini il fascista " Page 625.
As for the draining of marshes myth. Italians have certainly heard this one before that under Mussolini's regime, there was an ambitious project to drain numerous marshlands across Italy to make the lands available for Italian Farmers to settle and cultivate. The concept of draining marshlands didn't originate with Mussolini ni nor was he the pionner. In unified Italy to embark on such Endeavors the idea of a systematic reclamation dates back to the 15th century initiated by the papacy and the first comprehensive legislation aimed at marshland reclamation was enacted in 1878 by the unified Kingdom of Italy. A deeper dive into the legislative efforts of that era reveals a significant focus on marshlands reclamation well before Mussolini rises into power. Specifically in the year 1922 just before the march on Rome, approximately 20 Royal decrees were issued to intensify state-backed Reclamation projects. Some will argue back saying that it might not have been his idea but that was
he who managed to reclaim the marshes. We need to analyze whether fascist measures for land reclamation were more effective than those of the previous governments. Upon initiating their reclamation projects the fascist government encountered a familiar obstacle that had also challenged previous regimes. The marshlands were owned by numerous individuals who were reluctant to relinquish their property without compensation. This resistance led to the suspension of several of Mussolini's ambitious reclamation plans and resulted in the resignation of Arrigo Serpieri, who was the economist responsible for crafting their relevant legislation from the outset. The fascists didn't meet more success than previous governments. In an effort to overcome these hurdles the fascist government sought investment from the private sector but the industrialists lacked confidence in Mussolini's committment to the reclamation's efforts.
Consequently the financial burden of the project fell entirely upon the state's budget. Despite facing numerous challenges, Mussolini was determined to see the land reclamation project through going so far as to attach his own name to the official law and integral reclamation passed in 1928. He was putting a lot of stakes on his own image to make this project work. It was a point of no return and if the fascists failed it would be a huge propaganda loss for them. However the legislation itself did not introduce groundbreaking solutions to the prevailing issues. Its primary feature was a series of long-term Financial commitments leading to a steady increase in the Project's budget from 1930 : 13,5 million to 257 million in 1943. He was just throwing money at the problem hoping it would go away. The law incentivized land reclamation by promising substantial Financial rewards to those who participated yet the strategy was fundamentally flawed from the outset as the government initially lacked the necessary funds to finance such an ambitious project. This led to a reliance on future budgets to cover the escalating costs. Mussolini ambitiously proclaimed that 8 million hectar of land would be reclaimed under his directive a figure that was highly unrealistic given that Italy encompasses only 27 million hectares of land. In total as the reclamation project concluded the fascist regime announced the establishment of numerous towns claiming that 4 million hectar of land were prepared for cultivation. Source :" La bonifica in Italia " E. Novello. Page 280.
While this achievement fell short of the initial 8 million hectar goal the reported 4 million hectars was still a considerable accomplishment. However a closer scrutiny revealed that only 2 million hectars were actually ready for farming moreover of this land 1 and a half million hectars had been previously reclaimed under the liberal governments. So during the 10 years of reclamation the fascists only managed to claim 500,000 hectars. That was a massive failure. As it turns out the fascists never had all the money for land reclamation as they made it seem with their budget. Instead it was only made to look like it for propaganda purposes. In fact very few projects were completed as the economic historian Rolf Petri wrote : " Many Reclamation consortia announc the commencement of work but often only formally. " Source : " Storia economica d'Italia " Prtri. Page 252. To maintain their reputation musolini orchestrated a perception that the reclamation efforts were proceeding successfully despite the fact that very little actual work had commenced. Renzo De Felice, one of Italy's leading historians on fascism had this to say in regards to land reclamation : " Overall, the results of integral land reclamation were inferior not only to those scheduled in his original plan by serpieri but also to the expectations raised in the country by the massive propaganda campaign and were eventually disproportionate to the magnitude of the economic efforts sustained. " Source : " Mussolini il Duce " Page 144.
Of for the myth consisting of believing that Mussolini was a man of law and justice, That espite the inherent corruption and abuses of power typical of totalitarian regimes musolini was a paragon of honesty and morality within Italian politics upholding Justice and law. From the outset adherence to strict rules was hardly the norm for Mussolini and his followers. The fascist paramilitaries frequently resorted to violent beatings and vigilante justice with with Mussolini and the party largely ignoring these actions. Even if we supposed that it was necessary to put Italy on the right path, there is another problem. That of corruption, one of the core messages championed by the fascists was the imperative to liberate the country from the corrupt dishonest and parasitic political system of liberal Italy which had been mared by scandals revealing corruption and misuse of public funds. The fascists claim to be Crusaders against corruption intent on cleansing Italy of its malactor and imprisoning them. GIacomo Matteotti prove it's not the case. From the start, Matteotti was a thorn inside of Mussolini's party due to the fact that he was an Incorruptible defender of the rule of law and that he was also an expert on budget policies and economic Affairs. An Italian journalist Carlos Silvestri would recall that : " Matteotti was a man who read the government budget as I would read a novel. And from his reading, Matteotti had come to the hair raising conclusions about some of the expenditure items the slipshot accounting and so on. " Source : " Mussolini, e il dramma italiano " Silvestro. Page 58.
In early 1924 as a member of the Chamber of deputies budget committee, Matteotti had pointed out the disorder of accounts and the fact that the figures have been deliberately altered by the government stating openly : " From the figures anticipated by the premier, it transpired that the balanced budget that the government officially submitted to Parliament and The Sovereign on the occasion of the opening of the legislature, was a fake, whereas the real one which envisaged a deficit of 2 billion lire, was the one the government was trying to have passed by the general budget committee. " Source : ' Il delitto Matteotti " by Mc Canali. Page 40. The threat that Matteotti posed to the fascist party was clear. His ability to uncover and expose Financial corruption within the government made him a significant enemy. He diligently worked to reveal government counting frauds and hold officials accountable for their deceit and failures. More importantly, Matteotti, aimed to demonstrate that melini's party was no better than its predecessors. Arguably it was even worse, despite its claims of eradicating corruption. On the eve of a critical speech he was scheduled to deliver in the chamber of deputies about the provisional budget, Matteotti was abducted by fascist operatives. He was tor tortured and eventually killed. According to Pietro Nenni, former Italian politician : " there was a good reason why he was murdered the day before that session " Matteotti intended to attack the policy of De Stefani ( Mussolini's finance minister ) and draw the country's attention to the characters who had got rich too quick in the shadow of Palazzo Chigi and The Palazzo Del Viminale and a level of corruption identical to the one that had characterized the second French Empire. " Source : " Mussolini il fascista " Page 625.
Post.
So not only had the fascist been caught misusing public funds and trying to cover it up an act of corruption, They seemingly vowed to fight against but they also murdered and tortured the man who was going to expose them. Matteotti also seemed to contain information on the American Sinclair Oil Corporation bringing local fascists leaders for the right to exploit potential oil reserves in some areas of Italy. Among those involved figured Mussolini's brother Arnaldo Mussolini. The italian historian Mauro Tanali wrote : " Aldo Gibelli, the Corriere Italiano accountant let sleep a number of serious indiscretions which were pounced on by the communist Deputy Ezio Riboldi. Gibelli had confided to acquaintances of his that he knew for a fact that Matteotti was kidnapped because he was was believed to be in possession of a document regarding the Sinclair agreement that proved it was reached on the condition of the payment of six hefty bribes to as many leading members of the fascist government. " Source : Il delitto Mussolini " Page 237.
In January 1925 musolini himself in a famous speech in Parliament assumed : " Political moral and historical responsibility for all that has happened. " Source : Mussolini, il fascista " De Felice. Page 721. As Renzo De Feliche wrote again : " Judging from the way Mussolini talked his moral in transigence was absolute. But in reality he applied the rule only to the small fry when condemnation of minor cases was unlikely to provoke scandal and, indeed, when he thought punishing the culprits might even benefit the regime. His behavior was entirely different in more serious cases involving figures in the public eye that would provoke scandal. " Source : Mussolini, il duce " Page 203. The case of Roberto Farinacci is also a prime example. He was a senator and fascist leader. Historian Paul Corner wrote about him : " Despite his dubious professional credentials as a lawyer Roberto Farinacci was able to demand and receive six figure fees for interventions in in legal cases in which he used his political Cloud to fix sentences. " Source : " Corruzione di sistema " Paul Corner. Page 10. Mussolini was aware of this but turned a blind eye on it.
Thenwe have the myth about the good fascist economy. Some claim that under his leadership Italians were wealthier than they are today and that his economic policies pulled Italy out of the Great Depression. To see if that's true, we must take a look at the state of the Italian economy before and under Mussolini's rule. After WW1 their economy was in serious trouble. Due to the war's heavy expenses public debt soared from just 15 000 lire to 92 million between 1914 and 1918. Ratio debt to GDP has been raied to 125%. Many credit Mussolini for rescuing Italy from this economic crisis something the previous liberal government failed to accomplish. But in 1922 even before the march on Rome the Liberals were already introducing decent measures to combat the debt and it even began to fall. As the historian Gaetano Salvemini wrote : In 1922 hence before the march on Rome AC situation was achieved in which it was possible to half and pair down the growth of public debt. " Source : Storia economica d'Italia dalla grande guerra at miracolo economico " Reti. Page 61. Saying the liberal party was completely incompetent in handling the economy isn't entirely accurate yet some Mussolini's fans say that he and the fascist sped up Italy's recovery. When musolini took over his government didn't actually improve the situation. Throughout the 1920s fascist Italy's GDP never quite caught up with the glob Global recovery while France and the UK were already stabilizing their economies. Some will say that in 1925 Italy actually managed to turn out a balanced budget after so many harsh years of debt and deficit. That in 2 years, he was able to declare the state budget to be balanced and this is true. Mussolini was quick to capitalize on this issue and take credit for it. However the interesting part is that this one wasn't due to his economic policies. If you look into the archives you'll find that it was the repayment of major war debts that led to the balanced budget.
The repayments were funded partly by War operations from Germany not by fascist policies. Italian economist Giorgio Mortara pointed out in 1922 that if Mussolini hadn't implemented any of its policies and the previous liberal strategy had continued the budget deficit would have resolved itself by 1924 without the war debts. So instead of speeding up recovery melini's policies may have actually delayed it. Future Italian president Luigi Einaudi said that the budget had already been balanced. : " In short I say that the budget inherited from the war and after the war has already been balanced for two fiscal years, and if there is to be a deficit then it will be a novelty with new causes that will have nothing to do with previous and presennt rulers. " Source : " Lineamenti dell'evoluzione del debito pubblico in italia " Dr Fausto. Page 92. Alberto de Stefani was appointed by Mussolini as Minister of Finance. However Stefani didn't bring anything new to the economy. He mainly continued the liberal party's policy of austerity but when he attempted more explicitly fascist policies it triggered a stock market crash and a financial crisis that rippled throughout the entire banking system. Some might think that only the first few years were turbulent but the rest was ok. Not quite. Many Mussolini's initiatives yielded disappointing results and a notable example was his so-called quota 90 monetary Revolution. He wanted to stabilize Italy's currency, the lira by setting it at a fixed rate of 90 lira = 1 british pound. The British pound was a stable currency tied to the value of gold. By pegging the Lira to the pound, the currency couldn't change with Italy's economic conditions or its relationship to other Global currencies.
To strenghten the Lira, one of the measures taken involved reducing wages for nearly the entire Italian work force. In 1927 when the exchange rate was set at 88 Lira for 1 British pound, Mussolini celebrated the success of his plan. This situation helped big companies close to his government because they could buy raw materials from other countries more cheaply and reduce their workers wages by nearly 20%. However this meant that most Italian workers ended up earning less money and couldn't save as much. The first fascist intervention in the economy thus made Italians not richer but poorer in terms of spending power by an average of 15% and worst of all, the prices of consumer goods did not change. As the historian La Francesca pointed out : " Wages and salaries were cut by 10 to 20% in a situation that deprived workers of the right to strike and access to authentic Trade union representation with retail prices staying relatively stable. This trend was to continue in the years that followed. " Source : " La politica economica del fascismo " La Francesca, page 47. Mussolini is also sometimes credited to have saved Italy from the Great Depression making Italy recover faster than other Western Nations. While Italy was less impacted by the financial crash in 1929 it was partly because its economic system was less developed than those of other nations. To measure the impact let's take it Italian income in 1929 as 100 and see how it changed. In the following years between 1930 and 1931 income didn't drop significantly with only 93 and it saw slight growth in 1937 with 110. For Italy, all data is taken from the Finance Minsitry. As for Britain and France, they are coming from United Nations statistics office. All cited in " Mussolini il duce " by Renzo de Felice. Page 59.
However from then until World War II the Italian economy essentially stagnated in contrast Britain and France recovered much more robustly despite experiencing a harsher impact from the crash with France's income reaching a minimum of 153 in 1938. Italy's industrial production only returned to pre-depression levels after 1937 and real salaries didn't get back to 1928 levels until after 1938. However it wasn't just poor decisionmaking that impacted the Italian economy. The fascist expansionist policies also played a role these included included the occupation of Libya, the war in Ethiopia, mass participation in the Spanish Civil War, the invasion of Albania and eventually World War II. A study on public debt by the treasury Ministry revealed that the cost of these military Expeditions was around 5.2 billion Lire, roughly 2/3 more than the cost of World War I . Mussolini's aggressive foreign policies didn't significantly increase Italy's public debt which remained around 9 % of GDP until World War II started. This might seem like good news because it looks like the government kept depth under control. However the real reason is that Italy had trouble borrowing money from other countries because Mussolini's government was often in conflict with countries like Great Britain which dominated the Global Lending Market. Italy found it hard to get loans. This lack of access to International loans made Mussolini look for money elsewhere. He asked Italians to save more which made it more expensive for the government to manage its debt, he stopped trying to balance the budget and used risky economic strategies. He reduced public services that improve people's lives like welfare, he increased taxes and he even used Italy's gold reserves which are supposed to protect the country's economic stability for regular spending.
So not only had the fascist been caught misusing public funds and trying to cover it up an act of corruption, They seemingly vowed to fight against but they also murdered and tortured the man who was going to expose them. Matteotti also seemed to contain information on the American Sinclair Oil Corporation bringing local fascists leaders for the right to exploit potential oil reserves in some areas of Italy. Among those involved figured Mussolini's brother Arnaldo Mussolini. The italian historian Mauro Tanali wrote : " Aldo Gibelli, the Corriere Italiano accountant let sleep a number of serious indiscretions which were pounced on by the communist Deputy Ezio Riboldi. Gibelli had confided to acquaintances of his that he knew for a fact that Matteotti was kidnapped because he was was believed to be in possession of a document regarding the Sinclair agreement that proved it was reached on the condition of the payment of six hefty bribes to as many leading members of the fascist government. " Source : Il delitto Mussolini " Page 237.
In January 1925 musolini himself in a famous speech in Parliament assumed : " Political moral and historical responsibility for all that has happened. " Source : Mussolini, il fascista " De Felice. Page 721. As Renzo De Feliche wrote again : " Judging from the way Mussolini talked his moral in transigence was absolute. But in reality he applied the rule only to the small fry when condemnation of minor cases was unlikely to provoke scandal and, indeed, when he thought punishing the culprits might even benefit the regime. His behavior was entirely different in more serious cases involving figures in the public eye that would provoke scandal. " Source : Mussolini, il duce " Page 203. The case of Roberto Farinacci is also a prime example. He was a senator and fascist leader. Historian Paul Corner wrote about him : " Despite his dubious professional credentials as a lawyer Roberto Farinacci was able to demand and receive six figure fees for interventions in in legal cases in which he used his political Cloud to fix sentences. " Source : " Corruzione di sistema " Paul Corner. Page 10. Mussolini was aware of this but turned a blind eye on it.
Thenwe have the myth about the good fascist economy. Some claim that under his leadership Italians were wealthier than they are today and that his economic policies pulled Italy out of the Great Depression. To see if that's true, we must take a look at the state of the Italian economy before and under Mussolini's rule. After WW1 their economy was in serious trouble. Due to the war's heavy expenses public debt soared from just 15 000 lire to 92 million between 1914 and 1918. Ratio debt to GDP has been raied to 125%. Many credit Mussolini for rescuing Italy from this economic crisis something the previous liberal government failed to accomplish. But in 1922 even before the march on Rome the Liberals were already introducing decent measures to combat the debt and it even began to fall. As the historian Gaetano Salvemini wrote : In 1922 hence before the march on Rome AC situation was achieved in which it was possible to half and pair down the growth of public debt. " Source : Storia economica d'Italia dalla grande guerra at miracolo economico " Reti. Page 61. Saying the liberal party was completely incompetent in handling the economy isn't entirely accurate yet some Mussolini's fans say that he and the fascist sped up Italy's recovery. When musolini took over his government didn't actually improve the situation. Throughout the 1920s fascist Italy's GDP never quite caught up with the glob Global recovery while France and the UK were already stabilizing their economies. Some will say that in 1925 Italy actually managed to turn out a balanced budget after so many harsh years of debt and deficit. That in 2 years, he was able to declare the state budget to be balanced and this is true. Mussolini was quick to capitalize on this issue and take credit for it. However the interesting part is that this one wasn't due to his economic policies. If you look into the archives you'll find that it was the repayment of major war debts that led to the balanced budget.
The repayments were funded partly by War operations from Germany not by fascist policies. Italian economist Giorgio Mortara pointed out in 1922 that if Mussolini hadn't implemented any of its policies and the previous liberal strategy had continued the budget deficit would have resolved itself by 1924 without the war debts. So instead of speeding up recovery melini's policies may have actually delayed it. Future Italian president Luigi Einaudi said that the budget had already been balanced. : " In short I say that the budget inherited from the war and after the war has already been balanced for two fiscal years, and if there is to be a deficit then it will be a novelty with new causes that will have nothing to do with previous and presennt rulers. " Source : " Lineamenti dell'evoluzione del debito pubblico in italia " Dr Fausto. Page 92. Alberto de Stefani was appointed by Mussolini as Minister of Finance. However Stefani didn't bring anything new to the economy. He mainly continued the liberal party's policy of austerity but when he attempted more explicitly fascist policies it triggered a stock market crash and a financial crisis that rippled throughout the entire banking system. Some might think that only the first few years were turbulent but the rest was ok. Not quite. Many Mussolini's initiatives yielded disappointing results and a notable example was his so-called quota 90 monetary Revolution. He wanted to stabilize Italy's currency, the lira by setting it at a fixed rate of 90 lira = 1 british pound. The British pound was a stable currency tied to the value of gold. By pegging the Lira to the pound, the currency couldn't change with Italy's economic conditions or its relationship to other Global currencies.
To strenghten the Lira, one of the measures taken involved reducing wages for nearly the entire Italian work force. In 1927 when the exchange rate was set at 88 Lira for 1 British pound, Mussolini celebrated the success of his plan. This situation helped big companies close to his government because they could buy raw materials from other countries more cheaply and reduce their workers wages by nearly 20%. However this meant that most Italian workers ended up earning less money and couldn't save as much. The first fascist intervention in the economy thus made Italians not richer but poorer in terms of spending power by an average of 15% and worst of all, the prices of consumer goods did not change. As the historian La Francesca pointed out : " Wages and salaries were cut by 10 to 20% in a situation that deprived workers of the right to strike and access to authentic Trade union representation with retail prices staying relatively stable. This trend was to continue in the years that followed. " Source : " La politica economica del fascismo " La Francesca, page 47. Mussolini is also sometimes credited to have saved Italy from the Great Depression making Italy recover faster than other Western Nations. While Italy was less impacted by the financial crash in 1929 it was partly because its economic system was less developed than those of other nations. To measure the impact let's take it Italian income in 1929 as 100 and see how it changed. In the following years between 1930 and 1931 income didn't drop significantly with only 93 and it saw slight growth in 1937 with 110. For Italy, all data is taken from the Finance Minsitry. As for Britain and France, they are coming from United Nations statistics office. All cited in " Mussolini il duce " by Renzo de Felice. Page 59.
However from then until World War II the Italian economy essentially stagnated in contrast Britain and France recovered much more robustly despite experiencing a harsher impact from the crash with France's income reaching a minimum of 153 in 1938. Italy's industrial production only returned to pre-depression levels after 1937 and real salaries didn't get back to 1928 levels until after 1938. However it wasn't just poor decisionmaking that impacted the Italian economy. The fascist expansionist policies also played a role these included included the occupation of Libya, the war in Ethiopia, mass participation in the Spanish Civil War, the invasion of Albania and eventually World War II. A study on public debt by the treasury Ministry revealed that the cost of these military Expeditions was around 5.2 billion Lire, roughly 2/3 more than the cost of World War I . Mussolini's aggressive foreign policies didn't significantly increase Italy's public debt which remained around 9 % of GDP until World War II started. This might seem like good news because it looks like the government kept depth under control. However the real reason is that Italy had trouble borrowing money from other countries because Mussolini's government was often in conflict with countries like Great Britain which dominated the Global Lending Market. Italy found it hard to get loans. This lack of access to International loans made Mussolini look for money elsewhere. He asked Italians to save more which made it more expensive for the government to manage its debt, he stopped trying to balance the budget and used risky economic strategies. He reduced public services that improve people's lives like welfare, he increased taxes and he even used Italy's gold reserves which are supposed to protect the country's economic stability for regular spending.
Post.
Galeazzo Ciano, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and son-in-law to Mussolini, wrote in his diary that musolini was confident in gold reserves but : " But the Duce does not add that during that time we consumed 12 billions in foreign securities and 5 billions in gold. Now our reserves have been reduced to 1.4 miserable billions and when these are gone, we shall have only our eyes to weep with. " Source :" The CIano Diaries, 1939 - 1943 " Ciano. Page 207. So, if anything the fascist period was a difficult one for the Italian economy on account of both the international economic situation and of the national systems age old structural problems and worst of all almost all the initiatives undertaken during this period only helped to make things worse.
Also, did Mussolini really made Italy great and respected by reforming the Italian Army and instiling the fascist spirit into the hearts of Italians. Some argue that Italy's underperformance during World War II was mainly due to royalist generals and fascist officials who lacked the skill to manage the war. Over time fascist propaganda created a myth surrounding Mussolini, presenting him as both a military and political leader through elaborate uniforms and theatrical parades.When the fascist took power after the March on Rome, their primary goal as outlined by the fascist ideology was to completely transform society and give birth to a new fascist man. Italian historian Del Boca described what this new man was actually supposed to be : "For Mussolini the new Italian meant above all a new soldier more tenacious, more aggressive and even more cruel who worthily befitted the myth of the Roman spirit and made people forget the mediocre or dire showings of italietta over the years. " Source :" Italiani, Brava Gente? " Page 44. Over the years for two decades the fascist regime aimed to mold the Italian people according to principles of force and militaristic masculinity. A harsh militarism that sometimes surpassed even that of the German Empire. To instill this mindset children were taught from a young age how to handle rifles and March information laying the groundwork for the new Italian man as they grew older. While some might view this approach as positive it had a significant downside. The requirement for the fascist man to be aggressive and ferocious led certain parts of the army especially the colonial administration to adopt these extreme principles.
A notable example is the pacification of Somalia, a territory controlled by Italy since the late 19th century. Compared to other colonies Somali had been relatively stable with local populations generally tolerating the Italian authorities. However this changed when Cesare de Vecchi, a fascist party leader became Governor. To gain glory and align with fascist ideals dichi waged a brutal Guerilla campaign against a small local resistance alienating the population which resulted in increased rebellion. Similarly during the war with Ethiopia many local fascist leaders went to the front to gain prestige. Among them Bruno and Vittorio Mussolini, the sons of the Duce. The brutal tactics employed by these fascist principles were evident in in the pacification of Ethiopia where MarshallRodolfo Graziani. used Terror to subdue the local population. To suppress International criticism and prevent aid from reaching the Ethiopians, the Italian military even bombed the Red Cross marking the first time in history this organization was targeted. In this way when World War II began it's no surprise that with a stagnating economy and scattered armed forces in Africa, Mussolini declared that Italy wasn't ready for war and initially refused to enter it. Yet when Italy officially joined the conflict the military remained largely unprepared. Many poor decisions had been made regarding the armed forces. The Italian Navy for example consumed a significant portion of the military budget with Mussolini focusing on building massive battleships as propaganda symbols of military power. hese ships were impressive but outdated in a period when Naval Warfare was shifting towards air superiority. By 1940 airplanes were crucial to Naval battles but Mussolini stuck to 19th century Naval theories and continued to build battleships. These vessels were costly in both construction and operation.
They consumed vast amounts of oil making them impractical for active use and they were considered too valuable to risk in combat. As a result, these battleships were mainly used to escort Supply ships to Libya during World War II and another significant problem within the Armed Forces was the emphasis on loyalty. To the fascist party the fascist aimed to reshape Society including the military. When it came to appointing officers or generals loyalty to Fascism often outweighs skill or competence. This approach meant that if there were two candidates one with excellent skills but no allegiance to Fascism and another with average skills but complete loyalty, the last was almost always chosen. You don't need to be a military expert to know that when you have politics to infiltrate military and even enforcing it can lead to disastrous outcomes. When people in power are chosen solely for their blind loyalty to an ideology it means that key positions are likely filled with individuals who are either incompetent or at best inexperienced. This might work when fighting African tribes armed with bows and Spears or terrorizing civilians but when faced with a professional Army, the Italian military was often humiliated. The chain of command was riddled with politicized middle level officers were confused and the soldiers were demotivated and poorly equipped. For example when Italy declared war on France it failed to break through the Savoie Front, suffering 1,258 dead while the French only lost 20. Source : " La guerre italiane. " G. Rochat. Page 250. Similarly when musine decided to open the Balkan front to demonstrate Italian military power, by attacking Greece his forces were completely humiliated and pushed back into Albania. 20 years of fascism hadn't created a new warrior spirit within the Italian people. When the time came for them to prove themselves they couldn't match the military tradition.
Appointing inept military commanders based on ideological loyalty was probably the most damaging move.
One of the most comon misconception is that Mussolini represented totalitarianism with a human face. This perception paints him as different from the Nazis and Adolf Hitler suggesting that wasn't inherently racist as power. The 1938 racial laws were imposed on Italy rather than willingly adopted. As for Mussolini however, his regime targeted various ethnic groups based on their origins. Consider the treatment of Germans in South theole who had the protection of the Fuhrer. A plan was devised to deport them but slavs like croats and slovenians faced much harsher Fates during World War II. The RAB concentratino camp alone held around 35,000 slovenians and given the region's population of about 330 000, about 8% of all Slovenian was held in the Arbe CC. " Il cattivo tebesco e il bravo italiano " F. Focardi. Page 132. If you were an ethnic minority you were at best treated as a second class citizen. Mussolini on the slavs : " When dealing with such a race as Slavic inferior and barbarian, we must not pursue the carrot but the stick policy. We should not be afraid of new victims. The Italian border should run across the Brenner Pass, Monte Nevoso and the Dinaric Alps. I would say we can easily sacrifice 500,000 barbaric slaves for 50,000 Italians. " Mussolini, speech in Pula, September 20, 1920. Emilio Gentile, historian pointed out : " Mussolini believed that race is a fact as hard as granite, as he wrote in February 1st 1921 and this fact rendered internationalism an absurd fairy tale, because the deep masses do not and cannot override and this is a great Fortune, the irrepressible fact of race and Nation. " source : " Fascismo di pietra" by Gentile. Page 47. Claretta Petacci, Mussolini's mistress, would write in her diary that musolini told her : " I have been a racist since 1921. I don't know how they can think I'm imitating Hitler, we must give Italians a sense of a race. " Source :" " Mussolini's segreto. "Claretta Petacci.
Galeazzo Ciano, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and son-in-law to Mussolini, wrote in his diary that musolini was confident in gold reserves but : " But the Duce does not add that during that time we consumed 12 billions in foreign securities and 5 billions in gold. Now our reserves have been reduced to 1.4 miserable billions and when these are gone, we shall have only our eyes to weep with. " Source :" The CIano Diaries, 1939 - 1943 " Ciano. Page 207. So, if anything the fascist period was a difficult one for the Italian economy on account of both the international economic situation and of the national systems age old structural problems and worst of all almost all the initiatives undertaken during this period only helped to make things worse.
Also, did Mussolini really made Italy great and respected by reforming the Italian Army and instiling the fascist spirit into the hearts of Italians. Some argue that Italy's underperformance during World War II was mainly due to royalist generals and fascist officials who lacked the skill to manage the war. Over time fascist propaganda created a myth surrounding Mussolini, presenting him as both a military and political leader through elaborate uniforms and theatrical parades.When the fascist took power after the March on Rome, their primary goal as outlined by the fascist ideology was to completely transform society and give birth to a new fascist man. Italian historian Del Boca described what this new man was actually supposed to be : "For Mussolini the new Italian meant above all a new soldier more tenacious, more aggressive and even more cruel who worthily befitted the myth of the Roman spirit and made people forget the mediocre or dire showings of italietta over the years. " Source :" Italiani, Brava Gente? " Page 44. Over the years for two decades the fascist regime aimed to mold the Italian people according to principles of force and militaristic masculinity. A harsh militarism that sometimes surpassed even that of the German Empire. To instill this mindset children were taught from a young age how to handle rifles and March information laying the groundwork for the new Italian man as they grew older. While some might view this approach as positive it had a significant downside. The requirement for the fascist man to be aggressive and ferocious led certain parts of the army especially the colonial administration to adopt these extreme principles.
A notable example is the pacification of Somalia, a territory controlled by Italy since the late 19th century. Compared to other colonies Somali had been relatively stable with local populations generally tolerating the Italian authorities. However this changed when Cesare de Vecchi, a fascist party leader became Governor. To gain glory and align with fascist ideals dichi waged a brutal Guerilla campaign against a small local resistance alienating the population which resulted in increased rebellion. Similarly during the war with Ethiopia many local fascist leaders went to the front to gain prestige. Among them Bruno and Vittorio Mussolini, the sons of the Duce. The brutal tactics employed by these fascist principles were evident in in the pacification of Ethiopia where MarshallRodolfo Graziani. used Terror to subdue the local population. To suppress International criticism and prevent aid from reaching the Ethiopians, the Italian military even bombed the Red Cross marking the first time in history this organization was targeted. In this way when World War II began it's no surprise that with a stagnating economy and scattered armed forces in Africa, Mussolini declared that Italy wasn't ready for war and initially refused to enter it. Yet when Italy officially joined the conflict the military remained largely unprepared. Many poor decisions had been made regarding the armed forces. The Italian Navy for example consumed a significant portion of the military budget with Mussolini focusing on building massive battleships as propaganda symbols of military power. hese ships were impressive but outdated in a period when Naval Warfare was shifting towards air superiority. By 1940 airplanes were crucial to Naval battles but Mussolini stuck to 19th century Naval theories and continued to build battleships. These vessels were costly in both construction and operation.
They consumed vast amounts of oil making them impractical for active use and they were considered too valuable to risk in combat. As a result, these battleships were mainly used to escort Supply ships to Libya during World War II and another significant problem within the Armed Forces was the emphasis on loyalty. To the fascist party the fascist aimed to reshape Society including the military. When it came to appointing officers or generals loyalty to Fascism often outweighs skill or competence. This approach meant that if there were two candidates one with excellent skills but no allegiance to Fascism and another with average skills but complete loyalty, the last was almost always chosen. You don't need to be a military expert to know that when you have politics to infiltrate military and even enforcing it can lead to disastrous outcomes. When people in power are chosen solely for their blind loyalty to an ideology it means that key positions are likely filled with individuals who are either incompetent or at best inexperienced. This might work when fighting African tribes armed with bows and Spears or terrorizing civilians but when faced with a professional Army, the Italian military was often humiliated. The chain of command was riddled with politicized middle level officers were confused and the soldiers were demotivated and poorly equipped. For example when Italy declared war on France it failed to break through the Savoie Front, suffering 1,258 dead while the French only lost 20. Source : " La guerre italiane. " G. Rochat. Page 250. Similarly when musine decided to open the Balkan front to demonstrate Italian military power, by attacking Greece his forces were completely humiliated and pushed back into Albania. 20 years of fascism hadn't created a new warrior spirit within the Italian people. When the time came for them to prove themselves they couldn't match the military tradition.
Appointing inept military commanders based on ideological loyalty was probably the most damaging move.
One of the most comon misconception is that Mussolini represented totalitarianism with a human face. This perception paints him as different from the Nazis and Adolf Hitler suggesting that wasn't inherently racist as power. The 1938 racial laws were imposed on Italy rather than willingly adopted. As for Mussolini however, his regime targeted various ethnic groups based on their origins. Consider the treatment of Germans in South theole who had the protection of the Fuhrer. A plan was devised to deport them but slavs like croats and slovenians faced much harsher Fates during World War II. The RAB concentratino camp alone held around 35,000 slovenians and given the region's population of about 330 000, about 8% of all Slovenian was held in the Arbe CC. " Il cattivo tebesco e il bravo italiano " F. Focardi. Page 132. If you were an ethnic minority you were at best treated as a second class citizen. Mussolini on the slavs : " When dealing with such a race as Slavic inferior and barbarian, we must not pursue the carrot but the stick policy. We should not be afraid of new victims. The Italian border should run across the Brenner Pass, Monte Nevoso and the Dinaric Alps. I would say we can easily sacrifice 500,000 barbaric slaves for 50,000 Italians. " Mussolini, speech in Pula, September 20, 1920. Emilio Gentile, historian pointed out : " Mussolini believed that race is a fact as hard as granite, as he wrote in February 1st 1921 and this fact rendered internationalism an absurd fairy tale, because the deep masses do not and cannot override and this is a great Fortune, the irrepressible fact of race and Nation. " source : " Fascismo di pietra" by Gentile. Page 47. Claretta Petacci, Mussolini's mistress, would write in her diary that musolini told her : " I have been a racist since 1921. I don't know how they can think I'm imitating Hitler, we must give Italians a sense of a race. " Source :" " Mussolini's segreto. "Claretta Petacci.
Post.
In a speech in Bologna, April 3, 1921, Mussolini would write : " How then was this fascism born it was bored of the profound and perennial need of our Mediterranean and Aryan race... We feel those bonds of race to be alive which bind us not only to the Italians of Zara, Ragusa, and Cattaro, but also to those of the Canton Ticino and Corsica, to those beyond the oceans, to all that great family of 50 million men whom wished to be united in sahe same pride of race. " In early 1938 the grand Council of fascism would release an official statement after a few fascist intellectuals released a Manifesto of race. The council would state : " Following the conquest of the Empire the Grand Council of fascism declares the Urgent interest of racial problems and the need for a racial conscience. It points out that for 16 years fascism played and is still playing a positive role in the quantitative and qualitative improvement of the Italian race, an improvement that might be gravely compromised with incalculable political consequences by cross breathing and bastardization. " Source : Order Paper of the Fascist National Party, October 26, 1938. All of that being said, I am not saying that fascist regime in Italy was completly evil. In fact, it introduced some beneficial legislation for Italian population like : the introduction for unemployment insurance ( Regio Decroto no 3158 ) , insurance for disabled and eldery ( Regio Decreto no 3184 ), compulsory tuberculosis insurance ( Regio Decreto no 2055 ) and establishment of credit Unions for farmers and artisans ( Regio Decreto no 1706. ). Yet I would say that the negatives clearly outweigh the positives.
Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist, known as Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism, democracy, and marxist interpretation of socialism ("class warfare"). Instead, it advocated for class collaboration where the means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions / Fascist Corporatism), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism (Neo-Hegelianism).
Being an outgrowth of Sorelian Syndicalism, (which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism), its idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the State, or "embody" the State (corpus = body). The purpose was the centralization and synchronization of society under the State, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
As finalized by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile ("the Doctrine of Fascism"), Fascism came from the belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot be achieved, and that only the State can properly organize a socialist society. Therefore, Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
[01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile
[02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile
[03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri
[04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice
[05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor
[06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio
[07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio
[08] "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Zeev Sternhell
[09] Any work from Emilio Gentile
In a speech in Bologna, April 3, 1921, Mussolini would write : " How then was this fascism born it was bored of the profound and perennial need of our Mediterranean and Aryan race... We feel those bonds of race to be alive which bind us not only to the Italians of Zara, Ragusa, and Cattaro, but also to those of the Canton Ticino and Corsica, to those beyond the oceans, to all that great family of 50 million men whom wished to be united in sahe same pride of race. " In early 1938 the grand Council of fascism would release an official statement after a few fascist intellectuals released a Manifesto of race. The council would state : " Following the conquest of the Empire the Grand Council of fascism declares the Urgent interest of racial problems and the need for a racial conscience. It points out that for 16 years fascism played and is still playing a positive role in the quantitative and qualitative improvement of the Italian race, an improvement that might be gravely compromised with incalculable political consequences by cross breathing and bastardization. " Source : Order Paper of the Fascist National Party, October 26, 1938. All of that being said, I am not saying that fascist regime in Italy was completly evil. In fact, it introduced some beneficial legislation for Italian population like : the introduction for unemployment insurance ( Regio Decroto no 3158 ) , insurance for disabled and eldery ( Regio Decreto no 3184 ), compulsory tuberculosis insurance ( Regio Decreto no 2055 ) and establishment of credit Unions for farmers and artisans ( Regio Decreto no 1706. ). Yet I would say that the negatives clearly outweigh the positives.
Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist, known as Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism, democracy, and marxist interpretation of socialism ("class warfare"). Instead, it advocated for class collaboration where the means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions / Fascist Corporatism), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism (Neo-Hegelianism).
Being an outgrowth of Sorelian Syndicalism, (which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism), its idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the State, or "embody" the State (corpus = body). The purpose was the centralization and synchronization of society under the State, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
As finalized by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile ("the Doctrine of Fascism"), Fascism came from the belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot be achieved, and that only the State can properly organize a socialist society. Therefore, Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
[01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile
[02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile
[03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri
[04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice
[05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor
[06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio
[07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio
[08] "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Zeev Sternhell
[09] Any work from Emilio Gentile
Post.
Why Conservatives Need To Embrace Idealism
When it comes to conservatism, you have variants like paleoconservatism, neoconservatism and classical conservatism. Conservatives have been among the most vocal critics of utopian thinking arguing that it's dangerous impractical and even naive. Conservatism by its very nature is grounded in the belief that society should be guided by rationality and logical thinking, firmly rooted in what is realistic. This has made it a fundamentally anti-utopian ideology deeply skeptical of grand schemes to create a perfect world. Always believing that rationality is superior over everything else and always getting annoyed when emotions get in the way of people analyzing and looking at something. That can be defined as the cult of rationality. The aim being to create a world that is dominated by rational and logical thought while making sure emotions do not interfere in this process. Perhaps this completely one-sided approach is more of a burden to conservatives than an advantage when it comes to actually winning in the modern world. As controversial as this statement may be among fellow conservatives I believe that instead of fighting it like the plague perhaps conservatives should take a note or two and even embrace idealism and utopianism with within their own ranks. Or maybe at least just idealism. Conservatism has always been more or less an elitist ideology because of the fact that they were always in power back then. Intellectual debates among officials and intellectuals was much more important regarding policy decisions and what approach the government was going to take but then came the era of mass politics where now the masses and almost every citizen of the country is involved in these political games. While other ideologies have adapted to this new system conservatives stubbornly stated their old strategy trying to appeal to the masses solely through reason.
The problem conservatives don't want to face today is that we don't live in an era anymore where governance was completely up to an educated and noble class Now the masses from the factory workers of the peasants are players as well and in order to achieve the changes we desire we are going to have to play along and adapt our strategies. Even if you returned to the old ways where power was in the hands of an educated few and deeply despised the current state of mass politics trust me that is something I sympathize with you cannot stick your head in the and hope that your old ways are somehow going to save you. If we are serious about wanting our ideals to Prevail in the modern world we are going to have to learn how to ride and tame the tiger of emotionalism. Rationality alone today will not destroy the lips and bring us back to the good old days. Emotions are a key part of what makes us human for better or for worse and at any given time we are experiencing some form of emotion even if we are watching paint drying. The same thing is true about certain opinions whether they are political or not we are all to some degree emotionally attached to the views we hold. Whenever we see a person attacking an opinion we agree with it naturally evokes an emotional reaction within us like anger. Even the most rationalistic people who can and will accept when they are wrong on a topic will still feel an emotional hit to their ego. Changes in opinion are slow and gradual because emotions are always intertwined in the process. The truth is that people by Nature are driven more by feelings of self-importance and belonging than by abstract reason when faced with floods of conflicting and hard to digest data and arguments all claiming to hold the monopoly of truth.
They will usually choose the easier path and the emotionally and socially more comfortable option. For example the truth offered by one side could mean easier social integration and higher rewards this means that at the end of the day the question of " truth " becomes secondary to the question of life design, especially in a materialistic society. If you live in an area where a certain belief is taboo and you could face serious consequences for expressing it like being ostracized and losing your property you are naturally not going to go out into the streets screaming about it because your basic survival because your survival instincts tell you otherwise. Emotions are always present and always active and when it really comes down to it in the end they will almost always overpower. And this is where idealism and utopianism come in because it shows how one could get people to support a certain ideology and get them to consider it solely through the power of emotions and aesthetics. even being able to go as far as to get people to act completely against their rational self-interest. Many right-wing authors and figures spend most of their energy analyzing and criticizing modern dystopia. While necessary it's not enough pointing out that we have ended up at the wrong station and pointing out that we should be elsewhere without saying where to go. It only shows their failure. To get things moving a clear communicable goal is needed a sort of Utopia of the movement. Utopias exist only in the imagination convey through art or literature. At best they are only partially or imperfectly realized and at worst they are extremely unrealistic and impractical but. This doesn't mean utopianism is useless it is essential for initiating change and getting people to act in the pursuit of it.
The driving force of utopianism is not scientific accuracy but its ability to release a massive emotional power in large groups. The charge for pionners dreamers and artists is to free us from cognitive cages and break the hypnosis imposed upon us by the status quo which makes us believe that anything marked as taboo is unthinkable. I want you to imagine that there are two trailers marketing the next big Blockbuster movie. The First One features all the fancy visuals beautiful lighting and camera angles breadcrumbs for the audience and small Cliffhangers of the story making you wonder what will happen next and then these beautiful shots of all the characters looking amazing and cool and stuff and then in the other trailer you have just a normal guy sitting there with a white wall behind him telling you what you can expect. I don't think I need to precise which trailer will make you see the movie. Because the way this message is conveyed will be the deciding factor. You can create the absolute best movie of all time but if you do not Market your movie in such a way that it will make the cinema halls completely packed then almost no one will know how amazing the movie is. And what's the point of even making the movie if no one's going to show up and see it? Consumer Society isn't based on utilitarian logic but on romance and Daydreams, s ymbols and utopian ideas. These things work because people invest large sums of money in advertising to boost human consumption. Consumer psychology shows us how style and Aesthetics can be used to consistently create the desired behavior. When it comes to political ideologies it is absolutely no different and the exact same rules apply. One example are the Libertarians.
I can't deny that the libertarian Community is home to some of the smartest and most enlightened people I have seen and they are able to defend their ideas and challenge other ones with such Vigor and knowledge as they do have so many things like science logic and data on their side particularly when debating socialists but good Lord they wouldn't be able to sell their ideas in such a way that would resonate with people. Libertarians are naturally very frustrated that despite the fact that they have all the data and arguments to back them up on why socialism never works people still choose to follow communism and socialism but their aesthetics and approaches are grounded in such a objectivist realist and rationalist way that there is nothing that inherently drives people towards their ideas. Socialists completely obliterate them when it comes to these things they have such a way in history of colorful art depicting the struggle of the working class and the oppressed. This distinctive and unique atmosphere that you feel when entering their neighborhoods for better or for worse. A way to reach out to people to get them hooked on their values and some of the absolute hardest hitting music that will ever grace your ears and these things are going to be more attractive to the average Joe and he is naturally going to gravitate towards it. Libertarians have pretty much none of this because they reject any form of utopianism and stick to the cold hard facts, no sugar coating. Many on the right still cling to the illusion that only Enlightenment and rationalism is needed political campaigns are absolutely no different. Sure policies and such can be important but ultimately style and aesthetics are going to be what will make or break your campaign. Look at United States life presidential debates I have not seen a single person who tunes into these things expecting to see the two candidates debating policies but rather expecting some grand highlights and roast.
Why Conservatives Need To Embrace Idealism
When it comes to conservatism, you have variants like paleoconservatism, neoconservatism and classical conservatism. Conservatives have been among the most vocal critics of utopian thinking arguing that it's dangerous impractical and even naive. Conservatism by its very nature is grounded in the belief that society should be guided by rationality and logical thinking, firmly rooted in what is realistic. This has made it a fundamentally anti-utopian ideology deeply skeptical of grand schemes to create a perfect world. Always believing that rationality is superior over everything else and always getting annoyed when emotions get in the way of people analyzing and looking at something. That can be defined as the cult of rationality. The aim being to create a world that is dominated by rational and logical thought while making sure emotions do not interfere in this process. Perhaps this completely one-sided approach is more of a burden to conservatives than an advantage when it comes to actually winning in the modern world. As controversial as this statement may be among fellow conservatives I believe that instead of fighting it like the plague perhaps conservatives should take a note or two and even embrace idealism and utopianism with within their own ranks. Or maybe at least just idealism. Conservatism has always been more or less an elitist ideology because of the fact that they were always in power back then. Intellectual debates among officials and intellectuals was much more important regarding policy decisions and what approach the government was going to take but then came the era of mass politics where now the masses and almost every citizen of the country is involved in these political games. While other ideologies have adapted to this new system conservatives stubbornly stated their old strategy trying to appeal to the masses solely through reason.
The problem conservatives don't want to face today is that we don't live in an era anymore where governance was completely up to an educated and noble class Now the masses from the factory workers of the peasants are players as well and in order to achieve the changes we desire we are going to have to play along and adapt our strategies. Even if you returned to the old ways where power was in the hands of an educated few and deeply despised the current state of mass politics trust me that is something I sympathize with you cannot stick your head in the and hope that your old ways are somehow going to save you. If we are serious about wanting our ideals to Prevail in the modern world we are going to have to learn how to ride and tame the tiger of emotionalism. Rationality alone today will not destroy the lips and bring us back to the good old days. Emotions are a key part of what makes us human for better or for worse and at any given time we are experiencing some form of emotion even if we are watching paint drying. The same thing is true about certain opinions whether they are political or not we are all to some degree emotionally attached to the views we hold. Whenever we see a person attacking an opinion we agree with it naturally evokes an emotional reaction within us like anger. Even the most rationalistic people who can and will accept when they are wrong on a topic will still feel an emotional hit to their ego. Changes in opinion are slow and gradual because emotions are always intertwined in the process. The truth is that people by Nature are driven more by feelings of self-importance and belonging than by abstract reason when faced with floods of conflicting and hard to digest data and arguments all claiming to hold the monopoly of truth.
They will usually choose the easier path and the emotionally and socially more comfortable option. For example the truth offered by one side could mean easier social integration and higher rewards this means that at the end of the day the question of " truth " becomes secondary to the question of life design, especially in a materialistic society. If you live in an area where a certain belief is taboo and you could face serious consequences for expressing it like being ostracized and losing your property you are naturally not going to go out into the streets screaming about it because your basic survival because your survival instincts tell you otherwise. Emotions are always present and always active and when it really comes down to it in the end they will almost always overpower. And this is where idealism and utopianism come in because it shows how one could get people to support a certain ideology and get them to consider it solely through the power of emotions and aesthetics. even being able to go as far as to get people to act completely against their rational self-interest. Many right-wing authors and figures spend most of their energy analyzing and criticizing modern dystopia. While necessary it's not enough pointing out that we have ended up at the wrong station and pointing out that we should be elsewhere without saying where to go. It only shows their failure. To get things moving a clear communicable goal is needed a sort of Utopia of the movement. Utopias exist only in the imagination convey through art or literature. At best they are only partially or imperfectly realized and at worst they are extremely unrealistic and impractical but. This doesn't mean utopianism is useless it is essential for initiating change and getting people to act in the pursuit of it.
The driving force of utopianism is not scientific accuracy but its ability to release a massive emotional power in large groups. The charge for pionners dreamers and artists is to free us from cognitive cages and break the hypnosis imposed upon us by the status quo which makes us believe that anything marked as taboo is unthinkable. I want you to imagine that there are two trailers marketing the next big Blockbuster movie. The First One features all the fancy visuals beautiful lighting and camera angles breadcrumbs for the audience and small Cliffhangers of the story making you wonder what will happen next and then these beautiful shots of all the characters looking amazing and cool and stuff and then in the other trailer you have just a normal guy sitting there with a white wall behind him telling you what you can expect. I don't think I need to precise which trailer will make you see the movie. Because the way this message is conveyed will be the deciding factor. You can create the absolute best movie of all time but if you do not Market your movie in such a way that it will make the cinema halls completely packed then almost no one will know how amazing the movie is. And what's the point of even making the movie if no one's going to show up and see it? Consumer Society isn't based on utilitarian logic but on romance and Daydreams, s ymbols and utopian ideas. These things work because people invest large sums of money in advertising to boost human consumption. Consumer psychology shows us how style and Aesthetics can be used to consistently create the desired behavior. When it comes to political ideologies it is absolutely no different and the exact same rules apply. One example are the Libertarians.
I can't deny that the libertarian Community is home to some of the smartest and most enlightened people I have seen and they are able to defend their ideas and challenge other ones with such Vigor and knowledge as they do have so many things like science logic and data on their side particularly when debating socialists but good Lord they wouldn't be able to sell their ideas in such a way that would resonate with people. Libertarians are naturally very frustrated that despite the fact that they have all the data and arguments to back them up on why socialism never works people still choose to follow communism and socialism but their aesthetics and approaches are grounded in such a objectivist realist and rationalist way that there is nothing that inherently drives people towards their ideas. Socialists completely obliterate them when it comes to these things they have such a way in history of colorful art depicting the struggle of the working class and the oppressed. This distinctive and unique atmosphere that you feel when entering their neighborhoods for better or for worse. A way to reach out to people to get them hooked on their values and some of the absolute hardest hitting music that will ever grace your ears and these things are going to be more attractive to the average Joe and he is naturally going to gravitate towards it. Libertarians have pretty much none of this because they reject any form of utopianism and stick to the cold hard facts, no sugar coating. Many on the right still cling to the illusion that only Enlightenment and rationalism is needed political campaigns are absolutely no different. Sure policies and such can be important but ultimately style and aesthetics are going to be what will make or break your campaign. Look at United States life presidential debates I have not seen a single person who tunes into these things expecting to see the two candidates debating policies but rather expecting some grand highlights and roast.
Post.
There is no cure for it they work even if we want to go back to the good old days we need to adapt our strategies to even have a chance of succeeding. One could rightfully say that the dreamer the utopian who can appeal to people with his dreams is more pragmatic than the self-proclaimed pragmatist who seeks to convince through pure reason.The former understands human Nature's irrationality in plays with it like a cat with a mouse while the latter dreams of abstract humans who always act based on rational self-interest and that is in of itself kind of utopian. Considering all this it's really not that hard to imagine just how easily these styles and aesthetics can be weaponized and utilized to make the masses react and act in a certain way another and honestly the most prominent example of this can be music culture especially if it is a niche or underground sub genre. Through them you can easily identify the various stages of how individual consciousness changes in the beginning an individual gets to know a particular genre of music through contact with a friend or group. The reaction can be negative or positive usually direct and instinctive if the reaction is negative well too bad but if the reaction is positive a process of exploration and collecting begins. The more positive the reaction the more intense this process will be potentially leading to a complete immersion in the subculture a associated with a band or genre. You know how a random song can suddenly get stuck in your head from just hearing it the first or second time and then you get obsessed with it and keep playing it on loop over and over again. Youth cultures are easily identifiable by their distinctive Styles and symbols they have their own ideologies so to speak whose values are often reflected in the music and must be conveyed sometimes these values align with generally accepted mainstream ones other times they oppose them and could be considered counterculture.
Sometimes the ideology is superficial sometimes not but fans moving within the respective subcultures will at least partially adopt and internalize this ideology. Depending on the nature of this ideology members of a subculture may undergo a radical shift in consciousness sometimes proudly expressing their outsider status and carrying this change within them as they outgrow their scene. According to a psychopedia journal study on the relationship between music preference and personality : " A person's personality is shaped by their thoughts emotions and perceptions of the world. Since music has shaped our culture and identity in many ways it also has an impact on our personal personalities. Everything that a person does feels or perceives reveals something about their personality. When someone has been exposed to a particular musical genre on a regular basis it can greatly impact who they are and the kinds of things they may enjoy. People use music to express themselves and to identify with themselves. " All of this was achieved solely through aesthetics. The intensity with which certain values are internalized has absolutely nothing to do with logical or scientifically correct presentation but solely with artful attractive and aesthetically appealing forms of communication that can evoke strong emotional reactions in people. We are all aware of the videos of women acting hysterically at the performances of their favorite bands and fantasizing in a worrying way about their favorite band members and willing to go through any lengths to get their attention. Anyone with a sense of popular culture's power knows just how powerful its ability is to trigger extreme emotions and mobilize masses to the point of acting irrationally even violently and against their rational self-interest. It's really not surprising to see why conservatives are scared of this this is something any rationally minded man would be horrified of.
The activists are the kinds of people who are all about action going out on the streets, giving fiery speeches, rallying people and getting their hands dirty if necessary. They are the ones who indulge in Revolutionary fantasies about a day when the liberal system collapses the masses rise up and the evil doers are hanged from lampost they are all about action and expression and not much thinking. The intellectuals are the exact opposite. They like to sit around read write essays and engage in debates but when it comes to concrete action they are a bit spineless they are all about thinking and not much action. It's not surprising to see what why these two like to clash with each other frequently. One views the other as being nothing but bookworms and eccentrics who prefer to engage in obscure intellectual squabbles instead of being active in the real world and the other sees the former as hooligans and animals who run solely based on emotions and rage but there is one thing both of them have in common both in some way are escaping from reality. This escapism in my opinion is a manifestation of their feelings of powerlessness both groups have avand card tendencies.
There is no cure for it they work even if we want to go back to the good old days we need to adapt our strategies to even have a chance of succeeding. One could rightfully say that the dreamer the utopian who can appeal to people with his dreams is more pragmatic than the self-proclaimed pragmatist who seeks to convince through pure reason.The former understands human Nature's irrationality in plays with it like a cat with a mouse while the latter dreams of abstract humans who always act based on rational self-interest and that is in of itself kind of utopian. Considering all this it's really not that hard to imagine just how easily these styles and aesthetics can be weaponized and utilized to make the masses react and act in a certain way another and honestly the most prominent example of this can be music culture especially if it is a niche or underground sub genre. Through them you can easily identify the various stages of how individual consciousness changes in the beginning an individual gets to know a particular genre of music through contact with a friend or group. The reaction can be negative or positive usually direct and instinctive if the reaction is negative well too bad but if the reaction is positive a process of exploration and collecting begins. The more positive the reaction the more intense this process will be potentially leading to a complete immersion in the subculture a associated with a band or genre. You know how a random song can suddenly get stuck in your head from just hearing it the first or second time and then you get obsessed with it and keep playing it on loop over and over again. Youth cultures are easily identifiable by their distinctive Styles and symbols they have their own ideologies so to speak whose values are often reflected in the music and must be conveyed sometimes these values align with generally accepted mainstream ones other times they oppose them and could be considered counterculture.
Sometimes the ideology is superficial sometimes not but fans moving within the respective subcultures will at least partially adopt and internalize this ideology. Depending on the nature of this ideology members of a subculture may undergo a radical shift in consciousness sometimes proudly expressing their outsider status and carrying this change within them as they outgrow their scene. According to a psychopedia journal study on the relationship between music preference and personality : " A person's personality is shaped by their thoughts emotions and perceptions of the world. Since music has shaped our culture and identity in many ways it also has an impact on our personal personalities. Everything that a person does feels or perceives reveals something about their personality. When someone has been exposed to a particular musical genre on a regular basis it can greatly impact who they are and the kinds of things they may enjoy. People use music to express themselves and to identify with themselves. " All of this was achieved solely through aesthetics. The intensity with which certain values are internalized has absolutely nothing to do with logical or scientifically correct presentation but solely with artful attractive and aesthetically appealing forms of communication that can evoke strong emotional reactions in people. We are all aware of the videos of women acting hysterically at the performances of their favorite bands and fantasizing in a worrying way about their favorite band members and willing to go through any lengths to get their attention. Anyone with a sense of popular culture's power knows just how powerful its ability is to trigger extreme emotions and mobilize masses to the point of acting irrationally even violently and against their rational self-interest. It's really not surprising to see why conservatives are scared of this this is something any rationally minded man would be horrified of.
The activists are the kinds of people who are all about action going out on the streets, giving fiery speeches, rallying people and getting their hands dirty if necessary. They are the ones who indulge in Revolutionary fantasies about a day when the liberal system collapses the masses rise up and the evil doers are hanged from lampost they are all about action and expression and not much thinking. The intellectuals are the exact opposite. They like to sit around read write essays and engage in debates but when it comes to concrete action they are a bit spineless they are all about thinking and not much action. It's not surprising to see what why these two like to clash with each other frequently. One views the other as being nothing but bookworms and eccentrics who prefer to engage in obscure intellectual squabbles instead of being active in the real world and the other sees the former as hooligans and animals who run solely based on emotions and rage but there is one thing both of them have in common both in some way are escaping from reality. This escapism in my opinion is a manifestation of their feelings of powerlessness both groups have avand card tendencies.
Post.
The Fascist Card: Why Does the Left Label Opponents as Fascists?
This strategy by the left to label everyone on the right as a fascist and Nazi is not uncommon. Actually it is extremely prevalent among these people and many famous left-wing content creators on YouTube do love using the f word a lot when discussing their opponents and the further left you go towards the more radical sides like communism you will see that their followers are even more trigger happy with that term. I myself have seen so many Communists unironically calling social Democrats and even liberals as fascists or simply fascists in disguise. Of course anyone who is even a little bit mature in political discourse can see how ludicrous it is to go around and label everyone who disagrees with you a fascist but despite it being so obvious the question comes up. Why exactly is the strategy so popular what exactly makes it so effective? Why is the left so keen on preserving it these are the questions? Not being any real opposition to the idea people can start manipulating it by spreading outright lies and saying that the other side believes in. Things they actually don't but since there is no real or open opposition about it from the other side this narrative will get accepted and we have seen this plenty of times in totalitarian systems throughout history censoring and banning the thoughts and ideas of anything they deem to oppose their own narrative and making sure that the people do not learn about them. Rather just focus on their own ideologies but then there are times where the idea isn't directly banned but it is heavily suppressed and I could not give a better example of this than the infamous Red Scare in the United States. The Red Scare also sometimes called McCarthyism after U.S senator Joseph McCarthy who was spearheading this idea advocated the idea that communism was an evil force that infiltrated the United States, how communism was going to ruin America and kill everyone, how being communist was anti-American and so on.
The term communist in the us at the time was more used as a slander tool than an actual identification of someone belonging to the Communist ideology. U.S politicians with very common label critics journalists and anyone else a communist and considering the reputation Communism had, it had the possibility of ruining someone's career. If you would ask a normal American teenager around that time period about communism they would always say that communism is bad, that communism is evil. But how many of them actually give you a proper definition on what communism actually was or why it was evil? The vast majority of Americans despite knowing and seeing communism as bad they could never properly identify or Define it because the Red Scare made sure to be as vague about communism as possible. The Communist Party of the United States however was not banned and they were still accepting memberships but due to the political climate they were barred from entering anything mainstream or even giving them a platform to speak from. Despite their technically being in opposition they had practically no voice being suppressed at every turn and Americans were being told to stay away from them and not fall for their communist lies. Obviously today in America the Red Scare is over people are more " informed " about communism so it managed to relatively die down. Because there was practically no opposition from actual Communists in the United States and abroad Senator McCarthy and other U.S politicians changed the meaning of what it meant to be a communist at their own will and since their voice was the dominant and only one, people were buying into everything they said and believed that. By being the only voice without opposition one could Define communism as really whatever they wanted. If you take everything about the Red Scare slash McCarthyism and change the word communism into fascism you will start noticing how things are getting a little similar.
If you want to learn about fascism and what fascists actually believe in then go pick up a book from fascist thinkers and start reading and making your own conclusions and then apply your own world view to it and criticize. But that is exactly the issue. The isn't even properly criticizing fascist thought when they say they are criticizing fascism. What they truly mean is they don't like Trump or any group that's just a bit on the right spectrum of politic. I have yet to see for example any kind of leftist breaking down Giovanni Gentile's essays on Fascism and go over each chapter properly understanding what he is trying to say and properly applying criticism to it. But obviously that is too much work for them. My point is by taking the term fascist the left is able to twist and change the meaning of fascism to whatever they want thanks to the fact that the opposition doesn't even exist or is never heard and the average Joe will most likely never even question it. They themselves don't even know or can properly define what fascism is and in true Red Scare fashion instead use it as a giant slander tool to bring down their opponents without engaging in an actual debate.
https://ytscribe.com/fr/v/zGWpeSi2eU4
If we look at the state of politics in the vast majority of countries specifically the West we will see that fascism is practically a dead ideology. When I say that I don't mean that they do not exist. There are still organizations and groups that identify as fascist and undoubtedly there are many people who believe in it but what I mean is that fascism has no actual political power and has barely if any influence in any government of a developed Nation. This has not however stopped leftists from calling many mainstream right-wing parties and figures as fascists like Donald Trump and the Republican Party, Le Pen in France and the list goes on. Think of pretty much any public right-wing figure and I can tell you that they have definitely been called fascists once or twice at least, since the definition of fascism has been completely distorted to be nothing more than a slander term. It's very easy to label them all as fascist the moment there is even a shred of " similarity " between them like for example, standing on a balcony. The reason why the strategy is so effective is because it plays with the anxieties of people saying how there is a hidden enemy among them and how fascism is about to jump out at any second and take over. Everyone knows that fascism is bad and when you start saying that Trump is a fascist they will start thinking that Trump is going to do something on a scale of Adolf Hitler. I would say there are five big reasons why the strategy of an unseen enemy lurking in the shadows is efficient to fool people.
1 : Primal Fear and survival instincts. Humans have evolved to be highly sensitive to threats especially as those that are not easily identifiable or tangible. This primal Fear and survival Instinct can be easily triggered by the idea of an unseen enemy lurking among the population. In this case the notion of fascists lurking Among Us tapped into this instinctual fear making people more susceptible to accept the idea idea without demanding concrete evidence. 2 : Confirmation bias and group think. Once fears are stoked people tend to interpret ambiguous information in a way that confirms their pre-existing beliefs. This is known as confirmation bias. In this context those who are already predisposed to believing in the existence of fascists in the government were more likely to interpret any suspicious behavior or association as evidence. Additionally, the fear-driven environment encouraged groupthink where individuals were more inclined to adopt the prevailing beliefs of the larger society, reinforcing their idea. 3 : Cognitive dissonance and simplification. This has created cognitive a dissonance a state of psychological discomfort arising from holding contradictory beliefs or ideas. To alleviate this discomfort people might simplify complex situations and accept black and white explanations such as the notion that anyone with right-wing or nationalist views must be a fascist. Simplification allowed people to make sense of a complex world and reinforce the beliefs in a widespread presence of fascism.
4 : Influence of authority figures. Political leaders and other authority figures can play a crucial role in shaping public opinion around these issues whether it be a prominent YouTuber real life activist politician or organization. When such claims come from authoritative sources people may be more inclined to accept them without questioning especially if doing so aligns with their existing fears and biases. 5 : Social and peer pressure . The fear of being labeled as a fascia sympathizer or soft on fascism can contribute to social pressure to conform. People may be afraid of these consequences of being seen as insufficiently committed to the cause of rooting out fascism which leads them to buy into this narrative, to demonstrate their loyalty and avoid suspicion. For example in Austria just being under suspicion of having Nazi sympathies can lead to your life getting ruined and fired from your job. And a normal man obviously does not want to risk that in my personal opinion. I believe social and peer pressure is the biggest reason why people are adopting this narrative. Solomon Asch is a psychologist who pioneered social psychology during his lifetime. He had run a few interesting experiments called The Ash Conformity experiments. This is how the experiments went.
The Fascist Card: Why Does the Left Label Opponents as Fascists?
This strategy by the left to label everyone on the right as a fascist and Nazi is not uncommon. Actually it is extremely prevalent among these people and many famous left-wing content creators on YouTube do love using the f word a lot when discussing their opponents and the further left you go towards the more radical sides like communism you will see that their followers are even more trigger happy with that term. I myself have seen so many Communists unironically calling social Democrats and even liberals as fascists or simply fascists in disguise. Of course anyone who is even a little bit mature in political discourse can see how ludicrous it is to go around and label everyone who disagrees with you a fascist but despite it being so obvious the question comes up. Why exactly is the strategy so popular what exactly makes it so effective? Why is the left so keen on preserving it these are the questions? Not being any real opposition to the idea people can start manipulating it by spreading outright lies and saying that the other side believes in. Things they actually don't but since there is no real or open opposition about it from the other side this narrative will get accepted and we have seen this plenty of times in totalitarian systems throughout history censoring and banning the thoughts and ideas of anything they deem to oppose their own narrative and making sure that the people do not learn about them. Rather just focus on their own ideologies but then there are times where the idea isn't directly banned but it is heavily suppressed and I could not give a better example of this than the infamous Red Scare in the United States. The Red Scare also sometimes called McCarthyism after U.S senator Joseph McCarthy who was spearheading this idea advocated the idea that communism was an evil force that infiltrated the United States, how communism was going to ruin America and kill everyone, how being communist was anti-American and so on.
The term communist in the us at the time was more used as a slander tool than an actual identification of someone belonging to the Communist ideology. U.S politicians with very common label critics journalists and anyone else a communist and considering the reputation Communism had, it had the possibility of ruining someone's career. If you would ask a normal American teenager around that time period about communism they would always say that communism is bad, that communism is evil. But how many of them actually give you a proper definition on what communism actually was or why it was evil? The vast majority of Americans despite knowing and seeing communism as bad they could never properly identify or Define it because the Red Scare made sure to be as vague about communism as possible. The Communist Party of the United States however was not banned and they were still accepting memberships but due to the political climate they were barred from entering anything mainstream or even giving them a platform to speak from. Despite their technically being in opposition they had practically no voice being suppressed at every turn and Americans were being told to stay away from them and not fall for their communist lies. Obviously today in America the Red Scare is over people are more " informed " about communism so it managed to relatively die down. Because there was practically no opposition from actual Communists in the United States and abroad Senator McCarthy and other U.S politicians changed the meaning of what it meant to be a communist at their own will and since their voice was the dominant and only one, people were buying into everything they said and believed that. By being the only voice without opposition one could Define communism as really whatever they wanted. If you take everything about the Red Scare slash McCarthyism and change the word communism into fascism you will start noticing how things are getting a little similar.
If you want to learn about fascism and what fascists actually believe in then go pick up a book from fascist thinkers and start reading and making your own conclusions and then apply your own world view to it and criticize. But that is exactly the issue. The isn't even properly criticizing fascist thought when they say they are criticizing fascism. What they truly mean is they don't like Trump or any group that's just a bit on the right spectrum of politic. I have yet to see for example any kind of leftist breaking down Giovanni Gentile's essays on Fascism and go over each chapter properly understanding what he is trying to say and properly applying criticism to it. But obviously that is too much work for them. My point is by taking the term fascist the left is able to twist and change the meaning of fascism to whatever they want thanks to the fact that the opposition doesn't even exist or is never heard and the average Joe will most likely never even question it. They themselves don't even know or can properly define what fascism is and in true Red Scare fashion instead use it as a giant slander tool to bring down their opponents without engaging in an actual debate.
If we look at the state of politics in the vast majority of countries specifically the West we will see that fascism is practically a dead ideology. When I say that I don't mean that they do not exist. There are still organizations and groups that identify as fascist and undoubtedly there are many people who believe in it but what I mean is that fascism has no actual political power and has barely if any influence in any government of a developed Nation. This has not however stopped leftists from calling many mainstream right-wing parties and figures as fascists like Donald Trump and the Republican Party, Le Pen in France and the list goes on. Think of pretty much any public right-wing figure and I can tell you that they have definitely been called fascists once or twice at least, since the definition of fascism has been completely distorted to be nothing more than a slander term. It's very easy to label them all as fascist the moment there is even a shred of " similarity " between them like for example, standing on a balcony. The reason why the strategy is so effective is because it plays with the anxieties of people saying how there is a hidden enemy among them and how fascism is about to jump out at any second and take over. Everyone knows that fascism is bad and when you start saying that Trump is a fascist they will start thinking that Trump is going to do something on a scale of Adolf Hitler. I would say there are five big reasons why the strategy of an unseen enemy lurking in the shadows is efficient to fool people.
1 : Primal Fear and survival instincts. Humans have evolved to be highly sensitive to threats especially as those that are not easily identifiable or tangible. This primal Fear and survival Instinct can be easily triggered by the idea of an unseen enemy lurking among the population. In this case the notion of fascists lurking Among Us tapped into this instinctual fear making people more susceptible to accept the idea idea without demanding concrete evidence. 2 : Confirmation bias and group think. Once fears are stoked people tend to interpret ambiguous information in a way that confirms their pre-existing beliefs. This is known as confirmation bias. In this context those who are already predisposed to believing in the existence of fascists in the government were more likely to interpret any suspicious behavior or association as evidence. Additionally, the fear-driven environment encouraged groupthink where individuals were more inclined to adopt the prevailing beliefs of the larger society, reinforcing their idea. 3 : Cognitive dissonance and simplification. This has created cognitive a dissonance a state of psychological discomfort arising from holding contradictory beliefs or ideas. To alleviate this discomfort people might simplify complex situations and accept black and white explanations such as the notion that anyone with right-wing or nationalist views must be a fascist. Simplification allowed people to make sense of a complex world and reinforce the beliefs in a widespread presence of fascism.
4 : Influence of authority figures. Political leaders and other authority figures can play a crucial role in shaping public opinion around these issues whether it be a prominent YouTuber real life activist politician or organization. When such claims come from authoritative sources people may be more inclined to accept them without questioning especially if doing so aligns with their existing fears and biases. 5 : Social and peer pressure . The fear of being labeled as a fascia sympathizer or soft on fascism can contribute to social pressure to conform. People may be afraid of these consequences of being seen as insufficiently committed to the cause of rooting out fascism which leads them to buy into this narrative, to demonstrate their loyalty and avoid suspicion. For example in Austria just being under suspicion of having Nazi sympathies can lead to your life getting ruined and fired from your job. And a normal man obviously does not want to risk that in my personal opinion. I believe social and peer pressure is the biggest reason why people are adopting this narrative. Solomon Asch is a psychologist who pioneered social psychology during his lifetime. He had run a few interesting experiments called The Ash Conformity experiments. This is how the experiments went.
Post.
There would be 10 participants. One participant would be a genuine one while the other nine participants were fake ones, decoys intentionally planted for the sake of the experiment. And their task would be a very simple. 1 : They were presented with three lines and they all had to decide together on which line was the longest simple enough right but here is where it gets interesting. Those nine fake participants would intentionally agree that for example line C is the longest instead of the obvious line B and Ash were discovered that the one genuine participant would agree with the group 40 to 50 % of the time despite it being plainly obvious that the other line was the longest. Source " Groups, leadership and men : research in human relations. " by Solomon Asch, pages 177 - 190. 75% of the participants conformed to at least one obvious lie. Solomon Asch would say : " The fact that intelligent well-meaning young people are willing to call white to black is a matter of concern . " If you are active in areas that have a very leftist leaning and people you interact with share these same values you are expected to adopt this narrative as well in order to not seem like an outsider. Even if you might disagree with this notion in the beginning and just parrot it without actually meaning it over time it will come to genuinely believe in it because the environment around you demands it. You don't even know yourself what actually makes Trump a Nazi but because everyone around you and in your social circle says it, you start believing it without question. This isn't just limited why they're being accepted but also because of the fear of the possible repercussions of what might happen if they find out that you don't actually believe in these things. Let me give you a recent example of the drama that happened with Vicky 1999.
The first one before the whole grooming allegations, discord server charts were leaked where Vicky was seen saying some unfavorable things towards Palestinians and supposedly standing in support of Israel. And then this basically started a whole public lynching of Viki because people thought that she supported Israel instead of Palestine.
It works like a hive mind the moment you have your own opinions on a matter like. For example saying that not all right-wingers are fascists you can expect that all the ties and reputation you build up can be ruined in an instant. Because of it and no wonder that people can be fearful of saying what they truly think and just continue parroting the same narrative. Observing many prominent radical ideologies and political movements that have risen to power over the years specifically in the 20th century we will see that one of the central components and programs by these movements was the elimination of a boogeyman, the Jews for the Nazis or the filthy capitalists for the Communists . One narrative was always clear : "we the good guys who want to help you versus them the bad guys who want to hurt you. " Undoubtedly this Us Versus Them narrative doesn't just exist within radical ideologies, even in normal right-wing and left-wing circles. I don't think that is necessarily bad the difference is that the further radical you go whether right or left wing you will see that the solutions and what to do with these enemies become much more extreme. And their presence and influence is vastly more exaggerated for propaganda reason since it's extremely effective. While most political activists share their thoughts on how to improve the country battle crime and so forth they sell something that goes beyond all of that. That there is a group of people who are present and powerful and want to harm you that they are the saviors the people can trust to, break their chains and defeat this enemy . This is exactly what a prominent organization is doing. When antifa was first established as a movement in the early 20th century they had an actual understandable role to play it was the age when fascism was on the rise in Europe and the ideology has even started taking over entire countries and obviously antifa was there to combat their rise and raise awareness about fascism.
Their entire purpose as the name suggests was to take a stand and fight fascism but today as I have explained with fascism being a relatively dead ideology with no significant political power whatsoever what is the point of them being around in the first place and that's exactly the point a movement with entire existence is centered around standing against something, rather than for something, will never make it in the long term and in order to keep their whole gist up they had to resort to pretending that fascism is still very much a threat because what's a hero without a villain. That is why they resort to calling anything right-wing as fascist in order to give their organization a reason to still exist pretending and saying that fascism is on the rise and that fascists are everywhere and leftist accepted antifa with open arms because they are aware how much they can use them as a propaganda tool. And naturally people going around and seeing graffiti-like fascists out kill Nazis and generally seeing them Marching In the Street, might make them start believing that fascism is still very much around. We can actually see this in modern Communists for example. Communists believe that capitalism is the ultimate enemy that should be destroyed and fascism to them is nothing more than a branch a tentacle of this great demon and yet they keep using the term fascist and not capitalist because let's be honest telling a random Jewish person that fascists are after you and your family is gonna sound much more threatening and serious than saying capitalists are after you.
Having this boogeyman that is fascism and parading it around like it's coming to kill everyone is valuable to boost their numbers and have their members and believers in this fantasy land. Now more than ever since antifa and the radical left generally started getting more and more militant in the past few years going on this Witch Hunt for an enemy that is no longer a legitimate, threat using this approach by calling all their critics and anyone who identifies themselves on the right as fascists. Leftists are able to slander them easily and the tactic they are using is nothing new. While not as successful, they took the strategies and approached by Joseph McCarthy and the way he handled the Red Scare and applied it for their own benefit just crossing out communism with fascism. Cecause there is almost non-existent opposition and pushback they were able to manipulate the term Fascism and shape it in any way they saw fit someone is against immigration they're fascist, they don't like leftist policies, fascist and so on..By intentionally keeping the definition as vague and simple as possible they are able to apply it to almost anything and their followers will accept it without question. By manipulating people's fears of fascism and the horrors that came with it they are subconsciously convincing people around them and their circles that fascism is on the rise and that it is a genuine real threat to their lives. And these people despite even themselves knowing that these things said are wrong still cave in due to the social pressure and the surrounding that keeps telling them these things and eventually they adopted as their own without fully understanding why themselves.
There would be 10 participants. One participant would be a genuine one while the other nine participants were fake ones, decoys intentionally planted for the sake of the experiment. And their task would be a very simple. 1 : They were presented with three lines and they all had to decide together on which line was the longest simple enough right but here is where it gets interesting. Those nine fake participants would intentionally agree that for example line C is the longest instead of the obvious line B and Ash were discovered that the one genuine participant would agree with the group 40 to 50 % of the time despite it being plainly obvious that the other line was the longest. Source " Groups, leadership and men : research in human relations. " by Solomon Asch, pages 177 - 190. 75% of the participants conformed to at least one obvious lie. Solomon Asch would say : " The fact that intelligent well-meaning young people are willing to call white to black is a matter of concern . " If you are active in areas that have a very leftist leaning and people you interact with share these same values you are expected to adopt this narrative as well in order to not seem like an outsider. Even if you might disagree with this notion in the beginning and just parrot it without actually meaning it over time it will come to genuinely believe in it because the environment around you demands it. You don't even know yourself what actually makes Trump a Nazi but because everyone around you and in your social circle says it, you start believing it without question. This isn't just limited why they're being accepted but also because of the fear of the possible repercussions of what might happen if they find out that you don't actually believe in these things. Let me give you a recent example of the drama that happened with Vicky 1999.
The first one before the whole grooming allegations, discord server charts were leaked where Vicky was seen saying some unfavorable things towards Palestinians and supposedly standing in support of Israel. And then this basically started a whole public lynching of Viki because people thought that she supported Israel instead of Palestine.
It works like a hive mind the moment you have your own opinions on a matter like. For example saying that not all right-wingers are fascists you can expect that all the ties and reputation you build up can be ruined in an instant. Because of it and no wonder that people can be fearful of saying what they truly think and just continue parroting the same narrative. Observing many prominent radical ideologies and political movements that have risen to power over the years specifically in the 20th century we will see that one of the central components and programs by these movements was the elimination of a boogeyman, the Jews for the Nazis or the filthy capitalists for the Communists . One narrative was always clear : "we the good guys who want to help you versus them the bad guys who want to hurt you. " Undoubtedly this Us Versus Them narrative doesn't just exist within radical ideologies, even in normal right-wing and left-wing circles. I don't think that is necessarily bad the difference is that the further radical you go whether right or left wing you will see that the solutions and what to do with these enemies become much more extreme. And their presence and influence is vastly more exaggerated for propaganda reason since it's extremely effective. While most political activists share their thoughts on how to improve the country battle crime and so forth they sell something that goes beyond all of that. That there is a group of people who are present and powerful and want to harm you that they are the saviors the people can trust to, break their chains and defeat this enemy . This is exactly what a prominent organization is doing. When antifa was first established as a movement in the early 20th century they had an actual understandable role to play it was the age when fascism was on the rise in Europe and the ideology has even started taking over entire countries and obviously antifa was there to combat their rise and raise awareness about fascism.
Their entire purpose as the name suggests was to take a stand and fight fascism but today as I have explained with fascism being a relatively dead ideology with no significant political power whatsoever what is the point of them being around in the first place and that's exactly the point a movement with entire existence is centered around standing against something, rather than for something, will never make it in the long term and in order to keep their whole gist up they had to resort to pretending that fascism is still very much a threat because what's a hero without a villain. That is why they resort to calling anything right-wing as fascist in order to give their organization a reason to still exist pretending and saying that fascism is on the rise and that fascists are everywhere and leftist accepted antifa with open arms because they are aware how much they can use them as a propaganda tool. And naturally people going around and seeing graffiti-like fascists out kill Nazis and generally seeing them Marching In the Street, might make them start believing that fascism is still very much around. We can actually see this in modern Communists for example. Communists believe that capitalism is the ultimate enemy that should be destroyed and fascism to them is nothing more than a branch a tentacle of this great demon and yet they keep using the term fascist and not capitalist because let's be honest telling a random Jewish person that fascists are after you and your family is gonna sound much more threatening and serious than saying capitalists are after you.
Having this boogeyman that is fascism and parading it around like it's coming to kill everyone is valuable to boost their numbers and have their members and believers in this fantasy land. Now more than ever since antifa and the radical left generally started getting more and more militant in the past few years going on this Witch Hunt for an enemy that is no longer a legitimate, threat using this approach by calling all their critics and anyone who identifies themselves on the right as fascists. Leftists are able to slander them easily and the tactic they are using is nothing new. While not as successful, they took the strategies and approached by Joseph McCarthy and the way he handled the Red Scare and applied it for their own benefit just crossing out communism with fascism. Cecause there is almost non-existent opposition and pushback they were able to manipulate the term Fascism and shape it in any way they saw fit someone is against immigration they're fascist, they don't like leftist policies, fascist and so on..By intentionally keeping the definition as vague and simple as possible they are able to apply it to almost anything and their followers will accept it without question. By manipulating people's fears of fascism and the horrors that came with it they are subconsciously convincing people around them and their circles that fascism is on the rise and that it is a genuine real threat to their lives. And these people despite even themselves knowing that these things said are wrong still cave in due to the social pressure and the surrounding that keeps telling them these things and eventually they adopted as their own without fully understanding why themselves.
Post.
Lenin's Terror: The Brutal Reality of the Bolshevik Rise
Rather than freeing the people of Russia but then brought more terror and suffering unto them than any previous tsar regime. In 1918 as a means of trying to win the Russian Civil War and solidify their control over Russia the Bolshevik set up a temporary political and economic system called War communism. To be fair to Lenin and the Bolsheviks were communism in Lenin's eyes was only temporary until the political and military struggle was over and for the transition to real socialism would begin. However it does not change the fact that millions of Russians suffered because of this policy and it was especially the Russian impoverished peasants who were hit the hardest with war communism. The Peasants were all obligated to meet strict coils of their labor and hand it all over to the Bolsheviks without keeping any of their wheat fruits or vegetables. Even before War communism was made an official policy in 1917 the Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka, reported more than 4 000 " peasant disturbances " Source : " Peasant Russia, Civil War " Orlando Figes. Page 321. Cheka reported between October and November 1918 that there were 44 separate peasant uprisings. The forced food requisitions were obviously detested universally by every Russian peasant. The requisition levels were set by officials in Moscow across Russia and none of them knew or even cared about the size of any local food surpluses which led to a single family farm being demanded much more than they were able to produce? The Bolshevik requisitioners had to arm themselves whenever they went to collect since they found resistance practically everywhere. They went so they resolved the creating " food armies " that bludgeoned any peasant into submission and for the Russian peasants it was practically like a second serfdom. And the situation would get even worse because depending on the resistance in entire Villages and towns were burned and destroyed.
The town of Kalinovskaya was completely raced to the ground and the whole population of 4220 either deported or expelled. Source : " Black book of communism. " Nicholas Werth. Page 101 - 102. The town of Ermolovskaya completely emptied of all 3218 inhabitants were also either deported or expelled. In several regions The Peasant Revolt became so huge that several divisions of the Red Army had to be called to quash them and the situation became so bad that Commander Vladimir Antonov Ovseenko, who was in charge of crushing the partisans openly admitted that : " Half of the peasantry was starving. " In the regions around the Volga River the situation was especially terrible. As the commander of the Volga military District reported : " Crowds of thousands of starving peasants are besieging the barns where the food attachments have stored the grain. The Army has been forced to open fire repeatedly on the enraged crowd. " Source : " Black book of communism. " Page 111. Initially the Bolsheviks were struggling to fend off The Peasants but with the influx of new arms and other weapons, from abroad the rebellions were being swiftly dealt with. Tambov Rebellion was the last major peasant uprising. In the span of two years from 1920 to 1922 the Red Army suffered a humiliating loss of 237 908 soldiers to opponents who lacked firearms and fought mostly with farm equipments. Source : " Russia under the Bolshevik regime " by Richard Pipes. Page 373. Lenin finally realizing how much suffering their Acquisitions were causing repealed them in favor of mild grain taxes with a slight tolerance for a sort of grain market. But this came way too late for millions of peasants who by mid 1922 faced starvation on an unprecedented scale. In the end the Bolsheviks never really won over the peasants rather they systematically bashed them into submission and starvation, who in the end were too weakened by hunger to fight.
In a way I believe war communism was also a deliberate plot by Lenin to indirectly wage a war on the Russian peasants. Lenin once said that the peasants were : " Far more dangerous than all the Denikins, Yudeniches,and Kolchaks put together since we are dealing with a country where the proletariat represents a minority. " Source :" Behind the front lines of the civil war " Vladimir Brovkin. Lenin saw the peasants as a bigger threat than the entire White Army and anti communist resistance. With the peasants now being forced into submission and being so weak to even fight it would open the door for more radical changes in Russian society. The situation was not much better in the large cities either. By 1920, Petrogradand Moscow, once the crowned jewels of a mighty Empire, had practically become ghost towns. The population of petrograd before mid-1917 was around 2.5 million. In the span of three years from the October Revolution until mid-1920 the population was reduced to just 750 000. Source : " The Russian Revolution " Sean McMeekin. Page 276. Both petrograd and Moscow had nearly run out of fuel with entire buildings being torn down just for wood. Citizens could barely stand in line for bread which sold on the black market for millions of rubles.Edward RYan, an American Red Cross commissioner was investigating the humanitarian situation in Russia. : " Moscow and petrograd are indescribably filthy and outward appearance. I was told the streets had not been cleaned for more than three years. The dirt and rubbish is in all places at least ankle deep and in most places it is up to one's knees. And there are many places where it is as high as one's head. " Source : " The Russian Revolution " Sean McMeekin Page 277.
10 minutes.
Lenin's Terror: The Brutal Reality of the Bolshevik Rise
Rather than freeing the people of Russia but then brought more terror and suffering unto them than any previous tsar regime. In 1918 as a means of trying to win the Russian Civil War and solidify their control over Russia the Bolshevik set up a temporary political and economic system called War communism. To be fair to Lenin and the Bolsheviks were communism in Lenin's eyes was only temporary until the political and military struggle was over and for the transition to real socialism would begin. However it does not change the fact that millions of Russians suffered because of this policy and it was especially the Russian impoverished peasants who were hit the hardest with war communism. The Peasants were all obligated to meet strict coils of their labor and hand it all over to the Bolsheviks without keeping any of their wheat fruits or vegetables. Even before War communism was made an official policy in 1917 the Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka, reported more than 4 000 " peasant disturbances " Source : " Peasant Russia, Civil War " Orlando Figes. Page 321. Cheka reported between October and November 1918 that there were 44 separate peasant uprisings. The forced food requisitions were obviously detested universally by every Russian peasant. The requisition levels were set by officials in Moscow across Russia and none of them knew or even cared about the size of any local food surpluses which led to a single family farm being demanded much more than they were able to produce? The Bolshevik requisitioners had to arm themselves whenever they went to collect since they found resistance practically everywhere. They went so they resolved the creating " food armies " that bludgeoned any peasant into submission and for the Russian peasants it was practically like a second serfdom. And the situation would get even worse because depending on the resistance in entire Villages and towns were burned and destroyed.
The town of Kalinovskaya was completely raced to the ground and the whole population of 4220 either deported or expelled. Source : " Black book of communism. " Nicholas Werth. Page 101 - 102. The town of Ermolovskaya completely emptied of all 3218 inhabitants were also either deported or expelled. In several regions The Peasant Revolt became so huge that several divisions of the Red Army had to be called to quash them and the situation became so bad that Commander Vladimir Antonov Ovseenko, who was in charge of crushing the partisans openly admitted that : " Half of the peasantry was starving. " In the regions around the Volga River the situation was especially terrible. As the commander of the Volga military District reported : " Crowds of thousands of starving peasants are besieging the barns where the food attachments have stored the grain. The Army has been forced to open fire repeatedly on the enraged crowd. " Source : " Black book of communism. " Page 111. Initially the Bolsheviks were struggling to fend off The Peasants but with the influx of new arms and other weapons, from abroad the rebellions were being swiftly dealt with. Tambov Rebellion was the last major peasant uprising. In the span of two years from 1920 to 1922 the Red Army suffered a humiliating loss of 237 908 soldiers to opponents who lacked firearms and fought mostly with farm equipments. Source : " Russia under the Bolshevik regime " by Richard Pipes. Page 373. Lenin finally realizing how much suffering their Acquisitions were causing repealed them in favor of mild grain taxes with a slight tolerance for a sort of grain market. But this came way too late for millions of peasants who by mid 1922 faced starvation on an unprecedented scale. In the end the Bolsheviks never really won over the peasants rather they systematically bashed them into submission and starvation, who in the end were too weakened by hunger to fight.
In a way I believe war communism was also a deliberate plot by Lenin to indirectly wage a war on the Russian peasants. Lenin once said that the peasants were : " Far more dangerous than all the Denikins, Yudeniches,and Kolchaks put together since we are dealing with a country where the proletariat represents a minority. " Source :" Behind the front lines of the civil war " Vladimir Brovkin. Lenin saw the peasants as a bigger threat than the entire White Army and anti communist resistance. With the peasants now being forced into submission and being so weak to even fight it would open the door for more radical changes in Russian society. The situation was not much better in the large cities either. By 1920, Petrogradand Moscow, once the crowned jewels of a mighty Empire, had practically become ghost towns. The population of petrograd before mid-1917 was around 2.5 million. In the span of three years from the October Revolution until mid-1920 the population was reduced to just 750 000. Source : " The Russian Revolution " Sean McMeekin. Page 276. Both petrograd and Moscow had nearly run out of fuel with entire buildings being torn down just for wood. Citizens could barely stand in line for bread which sold on the black market for millions of rubles.Edward RYan, an American Red Cross commissioner was investigating the humanitarian situation in Russia. : " Moscow and petrograd are indescribably filthy and outward appearance. I was told the streets had not been cleaned for more than three years. The dirt and rubbish is in all places at least ankle deep and in most places it is up to one's knees. And there are many places where it is as high as one's head. " Source : " The Russian Revolution " Sean McMeekin Page 277.
10 minutes.
Post.
Corporatism: The Alternative To Both Capitalism And Socialism
In the public consciousness there exists primarily two economic models : on one side there is capitalism with its emphasis on free markets and entrepreneurship and on the other side we have socialism with its planned economy and focus on social welfare. Interestingly enough there is a third economic model that was prevalent in the early to mid 20th century and due to being associated with multiple controversial regimes this model has been largely forgotten. In the modern day and when it is brought up it is rejected as elitist exploitative and oppressive this economic model is called corporatism. Many people who have researched about the second world war and fascist ideologies in general definitely have come across this world. At some point corporatism was the main economic model in numerous right-wing authoritarian countries in the 20th century primarily italy germany austria spain portugal and so on and because this economic model was associated with these authoritarian regimes it was very easily dismissed as a backwards and infeasible system which stirred the flames of oppression in europe. With the decline of fascism and other authoritarian right-wing ideologies after world war ii corporatism also started declining alongside these ideologies because as i stated its reputation was heavily damaged due to its association with these regimes. So in the modern world corporatism has become nothing more than another footnote in history books. In late 18th and early 19th century europe was beginning the process of industrialization and businessmen with a keen sense of entrepreneurship started their own factories and founded the first industrial plants. Factories needed workers to man the machines in order to produce goods and wares so the owner could make a profit. In the early days of this industrialization the conditions under which these workers lived and labored in were truly appalling and the first demands for better treatment started to appear.
A famous example of these early voices would be none other than Karl Marx who in 1848 with his communist manifesto demanded radical changes and called on workers to seize the means of production via a global workers revolution after which the wealth and fruits of the labor would be equally distributed. This is in stark contrast to a different work by the scottish economist Adam Smith whose 1776 book" the wealth of nations " heavily influenced the start of the industrial revolution. In contrast to marx he advocated for free markets and as little government involvement in the economy as possible. It has to be taken into account however that smith and marx were alive during completely different times in history and that their respective ideologies were therefore heavily influenced by the world they lived in. Smith for example was born in 1723 and died in 1790 which rendered him unable to see and reflect on the impacts of his ideas whilst Marx was born in 1818 with him seeing the many problems and the injustice of industrial capitalism. Corporatism started to emerge as an idea in the 1880s and 1890s a few years after marxists. Century after adam smith's death and therefore it had the power of hintsight compared to the other economic models. This model was heavily influenced by the papal encyclial " Rerum Novarum " which was issued by the pope Leo XIII in 1891. In this publication the pope criticized the " Misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class. " whilst he also rejected socialism and affirmed the right to private property and so the idea of corporatism was born. Corporatism = Corpus. According to the theories of corporatism an economy should work the same way as a human body with the organs representing the various industries and parts of the economy and only if they work together can they make sure that the body, our country stays alive.
If we look at capitalism and socialism we can see that in both systems there is a hint of class conflict where a certain economic class whether a high middle or lower dominates the rest of the classes. In capitalism it is the high ranking class that dominates over both the middle and lower working classes and in socialism it is the lower working classes that exert their influence in unions over the higher and middle classes. But in the theories of corporatism class conflict will only make the country and economy unstable and inefficient as these classes struggle for power over the other. Corporatism believes that in order for an economy to be stable there needs to be harmony among the working classes with all three working together in order to ensure prosperity for their nation. Let's say for example you have construction workers and architects the architects make sure to lay out the plans on how a building should be constructed and the construction workers are the ones who build the building and the foreman supervise their work. If there is conflict between these groups the building will certainly never be able to be built or at least will take much longer. Without the architects the construction workers will not know the layouts and how to build while the architects despite having the blueprints can never build the building on their own. It is only when both groups learn and realize that they are both dependent on each other and choose to cooperate can the construction project be realized the same exact way organs cooperate and work together in order to keep the body healthy. And this is the core pillar of corporatism choosing to promote class cooperation rather than class conflict where all three classes realized that they need the other classes in order to function properly and efficiently.
Unlike class conflict where the working classes are engaged in a constant power struggle corporatism seeks to end class conflict once and for all and bring harmony and prosperity to all three working classes.
Corporatism: The Alternative To Both Capitalism And Socialism
In the public consciousness there exists primarily two economic models : on one side there is capitalism with its emphasis on free markets and entrepreneurship and on the other side we have socialism with its planned economy and focus on social welfare. Interestingly enough there is a third economic model that was prevalent in the early to mid 20th century and due to being associated with multiple controversial regimes this model has been largely forgotten. In the modern day and when it is brought up it is rejected as elitist exploitative and oppressive this economic model is called corporatism. Many people who have researched about the second world war and fascist ideologies in general definitely have come across this world. At some point corporatism was the main economic model in numerous right-wing authoritarian countries in the 20th century primarily italy germany austria spain portugal and so on and because this economic model was associated with these authoritarian regimes it was very easily dismissed as a backwards and infeasible system which stirred the flames of oppression in europe. With the decline of fascism and other authoritarian right-wing ideologies after world war ii corporatism also started declining alongside these ideologies because as i stated its reputation was heavily damaged due to its association with these regimes. So in the modern world corporatism has become nothing more than another footnote in history books. In late 18th and early 19th century europe was beginning the process of industrialization and businessmen with a keen sense of entrepreneurship started their own factories and founded the first industrial plants. Factories needed workers to man the machines in order to produce goods and wares so the owner could make a profit. In the early days of this industrialization the conditions under which these workers lived and labored in were truly appalling and the first demands for better treatment started to appear.
A famous example of these early voices would be none other than Karl Marx who in 1848 with his communist manifesto demanded radical changes and called on workers to seize the means of production via a global workers revolution after which the wealth and fruits of the labor would be equally distributed. This is in stark contrast to a different work by the scottish economist Adam Smith whose 1776 book" the wealth of nations " heavily influenced the start of the industrial revolution. In contrast to marx he advocated for free markets and as little government involvement in the economy as possible. It has to be taken into account however that smith and marx were alive during completely different times in history and that their respective ideologies were therefore heavily influenced by the world they lived in. Smith for example was born in 1723 and died in 1790 which rendered him unable to see and reflect on the impacts of his ideas whilst Marx was born in 1818 with him seeing the many problems and the injustice of industrial capitalism. Corporatism started to emerge as an idea in the 1880s and 1890s a few years after marxists. Century after adam smith's death and therefore it had the power of hintsight compared to the other economic models. This model was heavily influenced by the papal encyclial " Rerum Novarum " which was issued by the pope Leo XIII in 1891. In this publication the pope criticized the " Misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class. " whilst he also rejected socialism and affirmed the right to private property and so the idea of corporatism was born. Corporatism = Corpus. According to the theories of corporatism an economy should work the same way as a human body with the organs representing the various industries and parts of the economy and only if they work together can they make sure that the body, our country stays alive.
If we look at capitalism and socialism we can see that in both systems there is a hint of class conflict where a certain economic class whether a high middle or lower dominates the rest of the classes. In capitalism it is the high ranking class that dominates over both the middle and lower working classes and in socialism it is the lower working classes that exert their influence in unions over the higher and middle classes. But in the theories of corporatism class conflict will only make the country and economy unstable and inefficient as these classes struggle for power over the other. Corporatism believes that in order for an economy to be stable there needs to be harmony among the working classes with all three working together in order to ensure prosperity for their nation. Let's say for example you have construction workers and architects the architects make sure to lay out the plans on how a building should be constructed and the construction workers are the ones who build the building and the foreman supervise their work. If there is conflict between these groups the building will certainly never be able to be built or at least will take much longer. Without the architects the construction workers will not know the layouts and how to build while the architects despite having the blueprints can never build the building on their own. It is only when both groups learn and realize that they are both dependent on each other and choose to cooperate can the construction project be realized the same exact way organs cooperate and work together in order to keep the body healthy. And this is the core pillar of corporatism choosing to promote class cooperation rather than class conflict where all three classes realized that they need the other classes in order to function properly and efficiently.
Unlike class conflict where the working classes are engaged in a constant power struggle corporatism seeks to end class conflict once and for all and bring harmony and prosperity to all three working classes.
Post.
The True Reason Why Monarchies Got Overthrown
Whether you are in history class or watching your favorite history YouTuber there is a very particular way we are taught about revolutions. Revolutions are always portrayed as struggles between the commoners and the ruling establishment. The people either become conscious of their situation and class or the establishment messes up and starts burdening the commoners more and then they rise up to fix the wrongs and bring prosperity to the average Joe. The French Revolution is portrayed as a popular Uprising against Royal tyranny. The German Revolutions of 1848 as a struggle for civil liberties and the Russian Empire fell in 1917 when the working class and peasants could no longer tolerate oppression and reach the breaking point. Basically you have two sides the rich establishment made up of Kings Aristocrats clergymen and businessmen who are always Allied and best friends with each other and then the Common People the 99% Factory workers peasants and so. The first side wants to suppress and squeeze the commoners as much as possible for their own benefit while the average people well just don't want to starve and be treated like. Many people don't realize but this is an approach adopted for Marxist historiography. In this view class struggle is seen as the driving force behind historical developments. Basically history is largely seen as a series of conflicts between different classes most notably the working class and the ruling class or the Bourgeois. Thus revolutions are pivotal moments when the oppressed classes rise up against their oppressors leading to significant social economic political changes as Marx and Engels would write in The Communist Manifesto.
" Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf huild master and journeyman, in a word oppressor and oppressed stood in constant opposition to one anothercarried on an uninterrupted Now hidden now open fight a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. " " The history of all hitherto is existing society is the history of class struggles. " People often ask hy did the overwhelming majority of them fall. Why is the majority of Europe today made up of democratic republics. Why did monarchy start crumbling as the Age of Enlightenment and democracy rolled in. Why did these people rise up in so many countries wanting to tear it down if monarchies really are such beneficial forms of governance why does no one want to return a monarchy after they became a republic. Also about why there are so many coutries republics. You rarely if at all hear about revolutions aiming to restore a monarchy but always revolutions aiming to dismantle monarchies. The reason why no one is able to properly debunk this thesis is because there isn't much to debunk it makes sense again but the problem is that people still try to address it through this populist interpretation but what if we completely ditch Marx and Engels and start looking at this issue through another lens, one that might actually make more sense than the previous one. I don't believe that monarchies fell because they were such bad systems that people rose up to tear them down. I believe there is another cold perent reason here one we could very easily notice if we change our interpretations of these events. One Thing Remains consistent there are two classes of people.
There's a class that rules and a class that is ruled over. Now egalitarians try to bridge this Gap as best as possible by advocating for equality and having the masses have a voice in how their country is run with democracy but the question arises. If societies always have a a ruling class and the ruled class no matter whether they are democratic or not, can the people trully be sovereign? In his book " The ruling class " Gaetano Mosca emphasized that it is always inevitable that a small minority of people will be able to effectively control and keep the majority population in line and because every society has this distinction between ruler and ruled, the people can never truly be in charge. " In reality the Dominion of an organized minority obeying a single impulse over the unorganized majority is inevitable. The power of any minority is irresistable as against each single individual in the majority who stands alone before the totality of the organized minority. 100 men acting uniformly in concert with a common understanding will triumph over a thousand men who are not in accord and can therefore be dealt with one by one. " " Meanwhile it will be easier for the former to act in conquer and have a mut ual understanding simply because they are a 100 and not a thousand. It follows that the larger the political Community the smaller will the proportion of the governing minority to the govern majority be and the more difficult will it be for the majority to organize for reaction against the minority. " Page 53. Robert Michels would write about the same thing. : " The most striking proof of the organic weakness of the mass is furnished by the way in which when deprived of the leaders in time of action they abandon the field of battle in disordered flight; they eem to have no power of instinctive reorganization and are useless until new captains arise capable of replacing those that have been lost. " Source : " Political Parties " By Michels. Page 90.
So the solution then is for the people to have a leader that leads them towards victory. And the very moment that happens Michelle's famous iron law of oligarchy comes into effect. Michelle's law states that : " All forms of organization regardless of how democratic they may be at the start will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies. " especially in large groups and complex organizations he would write : " Organization implies a tendency to oligarchy. In every organization whether it be a political party a professional Union or any other association of any kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly. As a result of organization every party or professional Union becomes divided into a minority of directors and the majority of directed. Who says organization says oligarchy. " Source :" Political Parties " Page 70. Large complex organizations as opposed to smaller and simpler ones tend to become more controlled by a few leaders. Matter of fact is most people don't have the time or interest to constantly participate in voting or decision making and due to this you have to narrow down choices to a few main ones. Many prominent political parties have hundreds of thousands of members. But not all of them are active in decision making. For that reason a specific number of active members is going to take charge of the party. And if that is the case how can you claim that your movement represents the will of the people if it is led by the select and active view. Take communism as a prime example. In its doctrine, it claims that a dictatorship of the proletariat needs to emerge where the proletariat is elevated to the ruling class. " Proletariat race to a governing class ". What does it mean? Factory workers number in the millions will all millions be members of the government? The entire nation will apparently rule but no one will be ruled. But if that is the case then there will be no government, there will be no state.
But if there is a state there will also be those who are ruled. So it doesn't matter the point of view we look at this question, it always comes down to the same dismal result : government of the vast majority of the people by a privileged minority. Some marxist saying this government will consist of workers. Yyes perhaps of former workers who as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers World from the heights of the state and not from below as an ordinary worker. They will no longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretentions to govern them. Anyone who doubts this is not at all familiar with human nature. Because of this the Democratic principle has to give way to the oligarchical principle for practical reasons. But still these movements and organizations need countless bureaucratic tasks that must be managed to keep it all running. Groups aiming for power have to handle finances, administration and diplomacy. It must also organize voting canvas supporters provide information to speakers raise funds and maintain its legal status. To keep this machine well oiled you must then have people who are more educated and are in higher positions than normal people so you need elite backing. Here is the crux of the Italian Elite Theory. It doesn't view historical events as fights between Elites and the people but rather Elites and other Elites. They are not natural allies but competitors aiming to take power and consolidate it. Evolutions occur when the existing ruling class loses the capability and motivation to stay in power leading to widespread public discontent. This then creates an opening for a counter Elite group to step in and take control. Rebellions happen revolutions are engineered and whether the counter Elite is actually fighting for the people or taking advantage of it is another story.
The True Reason Why Monarchies Got Overthrown
Whether you are in history class or watching your favorite history YouTuber there is a very particular way we are taught about revolutions. Revolutions are always portrayed as struggles between the commoners and the ruling establishment. The people either become conscious of their situation and class or the establishment messes up and starts burdening the commoners more and then they rise up to fix the wrongs and bring prosperity to the average Joe. The French Revolution is portrayed as a popular Uprising against Royal tyranny. The German Revolutions of 1848 as a struggle for civil liberties and the Russian Empire fell in 1917 when the working class and peasants could no longer tolerate oppression and reach the breaking point. Basically you have two sides the rich establishment made up of Kings Aristocrats clergymen and businessmen who are always Allied and best friends with each other and then the Common People the 99% Factory workers peasants and so. The first side wants to suppress and squeeze the commoners as much as possible for their own benefit while the average people well just don't want to starve and be treated like. Many people don't realize but this is an approach adopted for Marxist historiography. In this view class struggle is seen as the driving force behind historical developments. Basically history is largely seen as a series of conflicts between different classes most notably the working class and the ruling class or the Bourgeois. Thus revolutions are pivotal moments when the oppressed classes rise up against their oppressors leading to significant social economic political changes as Marx and Engels would write in The Communist Manifesto.
" Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf huild master and journeyman, in a word oppressor and oppressed stood in constant opposition to one anothercarried on an uninterrupted Now hidden now open fight a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. " " The history of all hitherto is existing society is the history of class struggles. " People often ask hy did the overwhelming majority of them fall. Why is the majority of Europe today made up of democratic republics. Why did monarchy start crumbling as the Age of Enlightenment and democracy rolled in. Why did these people rise up in so many countries wanting to tear it down if monarchies really are such beneficial forms of governance why does no one want to return a monarchy after they became a republic. Also about why there are so many coutries republics. You rarely if at all hear about revolutions aiming to restore a monarchy but always revolutions aiming to dismantle monarchies. The reason why no one is able to properly debunk this thesis is because there isn't much to debunk it makes sense again but the problem is that people still try to address it through this populist interpretation but what if we completely ditch Marx and Engels and start looking at this issue through another lens, one that might actually make more sense than the previous one. I don't believe that monarchies fell because they were such bad systems that people rose up to tear them down. I believe there is another cold perent reason here one we could very easily notice if we change our interpretations of these events. One Thing Remains consistent there are two classes of people.
There's a class that rules and a class that is ruled over. Now egalitarians try to bridge this Gap as best as possible by advocating for equality and having the masses have a voice in how their country is run with democracy but the question arises. If societies always have a a ruling class and the ruled class no matter whether they are democratic or not, can the people trully be sovereign? In his book " The ruling class " Gaetano Mosca emphasized that it is always inevitable that a small minority of people will be able to effectively control and keep the majority population in line and because every society has this distinction between ruler and ruled, the people can never truly be in charge. " In reality the Dominion of an organized minority obeying a single impulse over the unorganized majority is inevitable. The power of any minority is irresistable as against each single individual in the majority who stands alone before the totality of the organized minority. 100 men acting uniformly in concert with a common understanding will triumph over a thousand men who are not in accord and can therefore be dealt with one by one. " " Meanwhile it will be easier for the former to act in conquer and have a mut ual understanding simply because they are a 100 and not a thousand. It follows that the larger the political Community the smaller will the proportion of the governing minority to the govern majority be and the more difficult will it be for the majority to organize for reaction against the minority. " Page 53. Robert Michels would write about the same thing. : " The most striking proof of the organic weakness of the mass is furnished by the way in which when deprived of the leaders in time of action they abandon the field of battle in disordered flight; they eem to have no power of instinctive reorganization and are useless until new captains arise capable of replacing those that have been lost. " Source : " Political Parties " By Michels. Page 90.
So the solution then is for the people to have a leader that leads them towards victory. And the very moment that happens Michelle's famous iron law of oligarchy comes into effect. Michelle's law states that : " All forms of organization regardless of how democratic they may be at the start will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies. " especially in large groups and complex organizations he would write : " Organization implies a tendency to oligarchy. In every organization whether it be a political party a professional Union or any other association of any kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly. As a result of organization every party or professional Union becomes divided into a minority of directors and the majority of directed. Who says organization says oligarchy. " Source :" Political Parties " Page 70. Large complex organizations as opposed to smaller and simpler ones tend to become more controlled by a few leaders. Matter of fact is most people don't have the time or interest to constantly participate in voting or decision making and due to this you have to narrow down choices to a few main ones. Many prominent political parties have hundreds of thousands of members. But not all of them are active in decision making. For that reason a specific number of active members is going to take charge of the party. And if that is the case how can you claim that your movement represents the will of the people if it is led by the select and active view. Take communism as a prime example. In its doctrine, it claims that a dictatorship of the proletariat needs to emerge where the proletariat is elevated to the ruling class. " Proletariat race to a governing class ". What does it mean? Factory workers number in the millions will all millions be members of the government? The entire nation will apparently rule but no one will be ruled. But if that is the case then there will be no government, there will be no state.
But if there is a state there will also be those who are ruled. So it doesn't matter the point of view we look at this question, it always comes down to the same dismal result : government of the vast majority of the people by a privileged minority. Some marxist saying this government will consist of workers. Yyes perhaps of former workers who as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers World from the heights of the state and not from below as an ordinary worker. They will no longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretentions to govern them. Anyone who doubts this is not at all familiar with human nature. Because of this the Democratic principle has to give way to the oligarchical principle for practical reasons. But still these movements and organizations need countless bureaucratic tasks that must be managed to keep it all running. Groups aiming for power have to handle finances, administration and diplomacy. It must also organize voting canvas supporters provide information to speakers raise funds and maintain its legal status. To keep this machine well oiled you must then have people who are more educated and are in higher positions than normal people so you need elite backing. Here is the crux of the Italian Elite Theory. It doesn't view historical events as fights between Elites and the people but rather Elites and other Elites. They are not natural allies but competitors aiming to take power and consolidate it. Evolutions occur when the existing ruling class loses the capability and motivation to stay in power leading to widespread public discontent. This then creates an opening for a counter Elite group to step in and take control. Rebellions happen revolutions are engineered and whether the counter Elite is actually fighting for the people or taking advantage of it is another story.
Post.
We always heard about the people versus aristocracy Monarch and clergy. If we apply it here that means this Triple Alliance never truly existed but rather they were competing against one another and this is in fact true. Historically this Alliance was extremely rare. Numerous monarchs and Kings throughout history had conflicts with both the aristocracy and clergy. French historian Marc Bloch in his work " Feudal society " or " Société féodale " made it clear : " The Monarch's Authority was constantly checked by the Ambitions of the nobility and the church each seeking to assert its own autonomy and influence. The notion of a harmonious alliance between these powers is more of a reflection of idealized medieval theory than of historical reality. The actual relationships were marked by tension and conflict as each sought to expand its own power at the expense of the others. " Source : Feudal Society. Page 48. Erik Von Leddihn also odescribed in his book " Menace of the herd " : We must not forget in that connection that the intimate alliance between monarchy aristocracy and clergy was unknown prior to the French Revolution. Only second rate historians would consider the Coalition between Throne alter and nobility a standard phenomenon these elements formed usually a triangle of opposing forces. Kings and Emperors usually received support from the urban elements in their struggle against the powerful aristocratic oligarchs and in some religious Rebellion we see similarly a coalition between the first and Third Estate against the Second. " Source :" Menace of the Herd " Page 71. When talking about King Louis the 16th and the French Revolution the common story is that Louie disregarded the Third Estate and let the first and second do with them as they pleased in the Estates General.
However the historian John Hardman in his book " The life of Louis XVI " challenges this narrative making the point that it was not uncommon for him to actually side with a Third Estate against the first two Estates. One notable instance is that during a session there was a debate over whether the Estates should verify their credentials separately or together. The first and second were against verifying it together because it would favor the third state by giving them a stronger position against them. Louis actually sided with the Third Estate on this one. One frustrated Aristocrat would write in his Memoirs : " We never ceased repeating to the king that the Third Estate would wreck everything and we were right. We begged him to restrain them to impose his Sovereign Authority on party Intrigue. The king replied : " But it is not clear that the theor are wrong different forms have been followed each time the Estates have been held so why reject verification in common? I am for it. " The king has to be admitted was then numbered among revolutionaries : a strange fatality which can only be explained by detecting the hand of Providence. " Source :" The Life of Louis XVI " Page 383.
Now sure these three sides definitely competed with one another for power but they were all still in favor of a monarchy and they all generally had some benefit of their class by upkeeping the system. so if the Italian elite theory is followed What kind of elite would benefit from breaking this statu quo? Who would benefit from the the monarchy being overthrown? It was in fact a certain class that was rapidly on the rise during this time. I am talking about none other than the Bourgeoisie. Before the French Revolution there were numerous republics across Europe. Most notably you had those centered in Italy prominent republics like Venice Florence Genoa. The interesting thing about them was that their ruling class was not made up of aristocrats or clergymen but rather merchants and bankers and from them many banking families and political dynasties emerged. But what made them different from Aristocrats and Kings is that they governed not in accordance with a noble and divine duty but rather financially and what was good for business. In his book " A history of Florence "
John M. Najemy would describe how the government of Florence operated. " Florence was in many respects the quintessential Mercantile Republic it was a city whose political life was dominated by merchants and bankers who used their economic resources to secure and maintain political power. The ruling Elite compromising a handful of powerful families like the Medici, Albizzi, and Strozzi did not merely participate in political life; they controlled it. These families turned political office into to an instrument of their private economic interests, using their control over the Republic's institutions to manipulate laws taxes and public resources to favor their businesses. " " The great families were thus at the center of a political system that revolved around the preservation and augmentation of wealth which meant that the political structure of the Republic was inherently oligarchic, despite its nominal Republican form political competition was less about ideology or public good and more about controlling the economic resources of the state. " Source : " A History of Florence " Page 22. That all sounds oddly identical to what we have today no in our modern world. It's not that easy to know how exactly corrupt and Shady of businesses you are buying from or an organization that you are working withWhat if we came up with a way of measuring how corrupt an organization is using data and people using the results when making decisions. Here we can with Mystick.dk. Historically merchants and Aristocrats really did not get along well with each other.
They practically lived and experienced two different worlds and French historian Fernand Braudel would also take a note of this in one of his works on the early developments of capitalism : " Merchants and Aristocrats lived in different worlds shaped by opposing values and interests. The aristocracy was entrenched in a social order that was static dependent on land honor and inherited privilege. They viewed merchants with suspicion as disruptive forces driven by profit and change who undermine traditional hierarchies and values. Merchants in turn, saw the aristocracy as barriers to economic freedom and growth, wielding power to protect their privileges and impose their will over commerce. " " This mutual distrust and hostility defined their relations for Centuries with Merchants often finding themselves on the defensive against aristocratic power struggling for autonomy within a system that was fundamentally geared to sustain aristocratic rule. " Source : " Civilization and capitalism. Page 371. It inherently within their class interest to gear more towards a republican form of governance than a monarchical one. Keep in mind the way merchants and bankers exercised their power was through finance and money but the Monarch did not run a business that could go bankrupt. His as well as the rule of his offsprings was codified in the law and he could not be bribed because he was already at the top of the hierarchy. As it turns out your usual strategy of throwing money at the problem and coercing doesn't exactly work with a monarch. No matter how you see it from their point of view the mere presence of a figure at the top that is outside of their sphere of influence is a big liability to their plans of gaining power.
They have to either restrict his powers to such an extent that he could never pose a threat or abolish the system as a whole and it just so happens that coincidentally revolutionary Republican movements and ideas sprung up during and after the Industrial Revolution where the Bourgeois started growing rapidly and accumulating more and more power and influence. This rivalry between the two carried over well into the industrial revolution and if anything it further escalated it. Now that private corporations and businesses could produce tons of goods and commodities in a much faster way it led to the Bourgeois slowly but surely accumulating more wealth which they could use to wiggle their way into the power structure. Notable English historian Eirc Hobsbawn emphasized that they were becoming so powerful that they could have been considered their own Army : " he effect of the Industrial Revolution on the structure of Bourgeois Society was superficially less drastic but in fact far more profound. For it created new blocks of Bourgeois which coexisted with the official Society too large to be absorbed by it except by a little assimilation at the very top, and too to self-confident and dynamic to wish for absorption except on their own terms. The merchants bankers and even the industrialists of the 18th century had been few enough to be assimilated into official society. " " The new men from the provinces were a formidable army all the more so as they became increasingly conscious of themselves as a class rather than a middle rank bridging the Gap between the upper and lower orders. Moreover, they were not merely a class, but a class army of combat organized at first in conjunction with the laboring poor against the aristocratic society. " Source : " Age of Revolution, 1789 - 1848 " Page 185.
We always heard about the people versus aristocracy Monarch and clergy. If we apply it here that means this Triple Alliance never truly existed but rather they were competing against one another and this is in fact true. Historically this Alliance was extremely rare. Numerous monarchs and Kings throughout history had conflicts with both the aristocracy and clergy. French historian Marc Bloch in his work " Feudal society " or " Société féodale " made it clear : " The Monarch's Authority was constantly checked by the Ambitions of the nobility and the church each seeking to assert its own autonomy and influence. The notion of a harmonious alliance between these powers is more of a reflection of idealized medieval theory than of historical reality. The actual relationships were marked by tension and conflict as each sought to expand its own power at the expense of the others. " Source : Feudal Society. Page 48. Erik Von Leddihn also odescribed in his book " Menace of the herd " : We must not forget in that connection that the intimate alliance between monarchy aristocracy and clergy was unknown prior to the French Revolution. Only second rate historians would consider the Coalition between Throne alter and nobility a standard phenomenon these elements formed usually a triangle of opposing forces. Kings and Emperors usually received support from the urban elements in their struggle against the powerful aristocratic oligarchs and in some religious Rebellion we see similarly a coalition between the first and Third Estate against the Second. " Source :" Menace of the Herd " Page 71. When talking about King Louis the 16th and the French Revolution the common story is that Louie disregarded the Third Estate and let the first and second do with them as they pleased in the Estates General.
However the historian John Hardman in his book " The life of Louis XVI " challenges this narrative making the point that it was not uncommon for him to actually side with a Third Estate against the first two Estates. One notable instance is that during a session there was a debate over whether the Estates should verify their credentials separately or together. The first and second were against verifying it together because it would favor the third state by giving them a stronger position against them. Louis actually sided with the Third Estate on this one. One frustrated Aristocrat would write in his Memoirs : " We never ceased repeating to the king that the Third Estate would wreck everything and we were right. We begged him to restrain them to impose his Sovereign Authority on party Intrigue. The king replied : " But it is not clear that the theor are wrong different forms have been followed each time the Estates have been held so why reject verification in common? I am for it. " The king has to be admitted was then numbered among revolutionaries : a strange fatality which can only be explained by detecting the hand of Providence. " Source :" The Life of Louis XVI " Page 383.
Now sure these three sides definitely competed with one another for power but they were all still in favor of a monarchy and they all generally had some benefit of their class by upkeeping the system. so if the Italian elite theory is followed What kind of elite would benefit from breaking this statu quo? Who would benefit from the the monarchy being overthrown? It was in fact a certain class that was rapidly on the rise during this time. I am talking about none other than the Bourgeoisie. Before the French Revolution there were numerous republics across Europe. Most notably you had those centered in Italy prominent republics like Venice Florence Genoa. The interesting thing about them was that their ruling class was not made up of aristocrats or clergymen but rather merchants and bankers and from them many banking families and political dynasties emerged. But what made them different from Aristocrats and Kings is that they governed not in accordance with a noble and divine duty but rather financially and what was good for business. In his book " A history of Florence "
John M. Najemy would describe how the government of Florence operated. " Florence was in many respects the quintessential Mercantile Republic it was a city whose political life was dominated by merchants and bankers who used their economic resources to secure and maintain political power. The ruling Elite compromising a handful of powerful families like the Medici, Albizzi, and Strozzi did not merely participate in political life; they controlled it. These families turned political office into to an instrument of their private economic interests, using their control over the Republic's institutions to manipulate laws taxes and public resources to favor their businesses. " " The great families were thus at the center of a political system that revolved around the preservation and augmentation of wealth which meant that the political structure of the Republic was inherently oligarchic, despite its nominal Republican form political competition was less about ideology or public good and more about controlling the economic resources of the state. " Source : " A History of Florence " Page 22. That all sounds oddly identical to what we have today no in our modern world. It's not that easy to know how exactly corrupt and Shady of businesses you are buying from or an organization that you are working withWhat if we came up with a way of measuring how corrupt an organization is using data and people using the results when making decisions. Here we can with Mystick.dk. Historically merchants and Aristocrats really did not get along well with each other.
They practically lived and experienced two different worlds and French historian Fernand Braudel would also take a note of this in one of his works on the early developments of capitalism : " Merchants and Aristocrats lived in different worlds shaped by opposing values and interests. The aristocracy was entrenched in a social order that was static dependent on land honor and inherited privilege. They viewed merchants with suspicion as disruptive forces driven by profit and change who undermine traditional hierarchies and values. Merchants in turn, saw the aristocracy as barriers to economic freedom and growth, wielding power to protect their privileges and impose their will over commerce. " " This mutual distrust and hostility defined their relations for Centuries with Merchants often finding themselves on the defensive against aristocratic power struggling for autonomy within a system that was fundamentally geared to sustain aristocratic rule. " Source : " Civilization and capitalism. Page 371. It inherently within their class interest to gear more towards a republican form of governance than a monarchical one. Keep in mind the way merchants and bankers exercised their power was through finance and money but the Monarch did not run a business that could go bankrupt. His as well as the rule of his offsprings was codified in the law and he could not be bribed because he was already at the top of the hierarchy. As it turns out your usual strategy of throwing money at the problem and coercing doesn't exactly work with a monarch. No matter how you see it from their point of view the mere presence of a figure at the top that is outside of their sphere of influence is a big liability to their plans of gaining power.
They have to either restrict his powers to such an extent that he could never pose a threat or abolish the system as a whole and it just so happens that coincidentally revolutionary Republican movements and ideas sprung up during and after the Industrial Revolution where the Bourgeois started growing rapidly and accumulating more and more power and influence. This rivalry between the two carried over well into the industrial revolution and if anything it further escalated it. Now that private corporations and businesses could produce tons of goods and commodities in a much faster way it led to the Bourgeois slowly but surely accumulating more wealth which they could use to wiggle their way into the power structure. Notable English historian Eirc Hobsbawn emphasized that they were becoming so powerful that they could have been considered their own Army : " he effect of the Industrial Revolution on the structure of Bourgeois Society was superficially less drastic but in fact far more profound. For it created new blocks of Bourgeois which coexisted with the official Society too large to be absorbed by it except by a little assimilation at the very top, and too to self-confident and dynamic to wish for absorption except on their own terms. The merchants bankers and even the industrialists of the 18th century had been few enough to be assimilated into official society. " " The new men from the provinces were a formidable army all the more so as they became increasingly conscious of themselves as a class rather than a middle rank bridging the Gap between the upper and lower orders. Moreover, they were not merely a class, but a class army of combat organized at first in conjunction with the laboring poor against the aristocratic society. " Source : " Age of Revolution, 1789 - 1848 " Page 185.
Post.
When the aristocracy Monarch and clergy fought over power, it was more like a gentleman's chess game knowing to influence and secure the right people and cleverly outmaneuver their opponents with rhetoric connections and traps. These were battles fought with an elite; Because they were small in numbers they had to be much more careful and strategic if they wanted to win this Grand chess game. But the Bourgeois on the other hand were not interested in engaging in these petty little games. Instead they came up with a new strategy, one that would grant them victory against their opponents but at the same time, change the entire landscape of political power which would make sure their opponents could never properly challenge them. It's mass politics. There is a good reason reason why throughout the 19th century the ideal of democratic equality and capitalism worked so well with one another. The aim was to crush the aristocracy and clergy with sheer numbers and ensure in a new playing field where now your legitimacy depends on the people and how much you appeal to them. For the Bourgeois this was an ideal system because now now they could use their Mass wealth to organize campaigns channel the masses and unleash them on their enemies. And the aristocracy and clergy would have an extremely difficult time adapting to this new playing field because they are more used to influencing and persuading individual people in certain positions, not a massive wave of tens of thousands.
Eriv von Leddihn would write about this : " Money was certainly a means of the ocratic or mob rule middle classes to fight their Victorious battles against the first and second Estates and this is one of the reasons why democratism and capitalism had such a fine tradition of intimate cooperation in the past. On account of the intellectual model caused by the forerunners of the epigones of the French Revolution we see capitalism infecting even ochlocracy with its liberalistic conceptions. " Source : " Menace of the Herd " Page 83. " Mob rule in the 19th century was indeed sweet and persuasive and capitalism helped it to spread its ideology by advertising and propaganda. The masses in their naive enthusiasm and optimism were still far from seeing the demoniacal qualities inherent in their majoritarianism or in the rule of the machines. Capitalism and democracy share the techniques of the art of persuasion; they are both essentially anthropocentric in their pretentious going to the public as well as in their undignified megaphonic appeal to the heard. " Page 84 As Leddihn said, the Bourgeois mastered the art of persuation and gathering large groups with the assistance of capitalism. As their power grew the influence of the other Estates started declining until they successfully pulled the rug under them and established themselves as the new ruling class. Aristocrats lost their privileges as they depended on their inherited land and the clergy was decapitated with a separation of church and state and the Monarch either overthrown or his powers were limited to such an extent where he could no longer pose a threat to them.
Hobsbawn admitted it in the introduction of his book : " This revolution has transformed and continues to transform the entire world. The great revolution of 1789 to 1848 was the Triumph not of Industry as such but of capitalist industry; not of Liberty and equality in general but of middle class or Bourgeois liberal Society not of the modern economy or the modern state but of the economies and states in a particular geographical region of the world whose Center was the neighboring and rival states of Great Britain and France. " " Age of Revolution, 1789 - 1848 " Page 1The French Revolution is a major piece of evidence for this. The Revolution was largely driven by the ambitions and frustrations of the Bourgeois. The urban middle class class which included Merchants lawyers and other professionals were dissatisfied with their lack of political power and the restrictions on their activities under the old regime. They saw the revolution as an opportunity to overthrow the Privileges of the nobility and to establish a society where their economic and social status would be more accurately reflected in political power. It has almost nothing to do with the common people. They were just their pawns. French historian George Lefebvre, who was a Marxist by the way would write extensively on the role of the Bourgeois in his book " The Coming of the French Revolution " : " The old regime threw indiscriminately into the Third Estate all commoners from the wealthiest bourgeois to the poorest beggar or some 96% of the nation according to Sieyes. The Third Estate was a purely legal entity in which the only real elements were the social ones and of these the most important the one which led and mainly benefited from The Revolution was the Bourgeois. The Bourgeois was intermixed with the rest of the population. That is why it was able to assume the leadership of the Revolution. " Source :" The coming of the french revolution " Page 41.
These revolutions and movements weren't spearheaded by the people seeking to end their oppression but a new emerging Elite Class seeking to entrench themselves and defeat their rivals, all while utilizing public sentiments to legitimize their rule. The true enemy of the monarchy has never been the people but other Elite groups seeking to strengthen their own power and influence over the country. Some might say that sure, democratic republicanism may have been coming from the Bourgeois and was spearheaded by them but they still brought us democracy the form of governance where we get to choose our own leaders and not having to fear about tyrants. A system where the people are the judge jury and executioner. If the whole point of introducing the system was for it to benefit them and entrench their rule why would they do something so stupid as to actually give people an actual say over their country. Why would they sabotage their power? If voting truly changed anything they would make it illegal. How exactly and specifically does a Democratic Republic benefit the ruling Elite? When talking about republics you need to split the government into two parts the visible one which is the parliament prime minister or president and other public offices and then the invisible one which is made up of corporate lobbyists rich and influential families and other groups. The invisible one is the true ruling class that influences. The visible one and makes sure every everything goes smoothly. When we say that we elect our Representatives I would say that instead they have themselves elected by their friends. These friends tend to be rich individuals who can afford to fund politicians and to advance their specific agendas often at the expense of the broader Public's interests.
These figures often own newspapers and other media outlets granting them the power to control the narrative and shape public opinion to their advantage. The campaigns are typically orchestrated by tight-knit groups that work to ensure that the election results align with their own goals. As a result even though elections might appear democratic, the outcomes frequently reflect the wishes of these powerful minorities and since you are in the shadows out of the public eye and safe from scrutiny, there is no incentive for you to act morally and righteously, you can be as corrupt as you want but as long as their eyes are on the president and everyone in Parliament who cares what they truly think. Monarchies by contrast never had this distinction. The government so to say was always visible, there is the king and his castle and there are all the Nobles and the exact Estates. They own and here are all the priests running churches You know exactly where to find them and how sensitive their next to Sharp blades are because as it turns out the people being able to confidently and correctly identify who rules over them kind of gives you more of an incentive to watch out and do some good lest your head be separated from the rest of your body. In democratic republic, who needs that when you can puppet the guy? You have people think that the president or prime minister is actually in charge and when things start going bad they just have to throw him out of the mob as a sacrifice. The people calm down new guy comes in and they start influencing him. Now you start to understand why they would rather have republics than monarchies?
When the aristocracy Monarch and clergy fought over power, it was more like a gentleman's chess game knowing to influence and secure the right people and cleverly outmaneuver their opponents with rhetoric connections and traps. These were battles fought with an elite; Because they were small in numbers they had to be much more careful and strategic if they wanted to win this Grand chess game. But the Bourgeois on the other hand were not interested in engaging in these petty little games. Instead they came up with a new strategy, one that would grant them victory against their opponents but at the same time, change the entire landscape of political power which would make sure their opponents could never properly challenge them. It's mass politics. There is a good reason reason why throughout the 19th century the ideal of democratic equality and capitalism worked so well with one another. The aim was to crush the aristocracy and clergy with sheer numbers and ensure in a new playing field where now your legitimacy depends on the people and how much you appeal to them. For the Bourgeois this was an ideal system because now now they could use their Mass wealth to organize campaigns channel the masses and unleash them on their enemies. And the aristocracy and clergy would have an extremely difficult time adapting to this new playing field because they are more used to influencing and persuading individual people in certain positions, not a massive wave of tens of thousands.
Eriv von Leddihn would write about this : " Money was certainly a means of the ocratic or mob rule middle classes to fight their Victorious battles against the first and second Estates and this is one of the reasons why democratism and capitalism had such a fine tradition of intimate cooperation in the past. On account of the intellectual model caused by the forerunners of the epigones of the French Revolution we see capitalism infecting even ochlocracy with its liberalistic conceptions. " Source : " Menace of the Herd " Page 83. " Mob rule in the 19th century was indeed sweet and persuasive and capitalism helped it to spread its ideology by advertising and propaganda. The masses in their naive enthusiasm and optimism were still far from seeing the demoniacal qualities inherent in their majoritarianism or in the rule of the machines. Capitalism and democracy share the techniques of the art of persuasion; they are both essentially anthropocentric in their pretentious going to the public as well as in their undignified megaphonic appeal to the heard. " Page 84 As Leddihn said, the Bourgeois mastered the art of persuation and gathering large groups with the assistance of capitalism. As their power grew the influence of the other Estates started declining until they successfully pulled the rug under them and established themselves as the new ruling class. Aristocrats lost their privileges as they depended on their inherited land and the clergy was decapitated with a separation of church and state and the Monarch either overthrown or his powers were limited to such an extent where he could no longer pose a threat to them.
Hobsbawn admitted it in the introduction of his book : " This revolution has transformed and continues to transform the entire world. The great revolution of 1789 to 1848 was the Triumph not of Industry as such but of capitalist industry; not of Liberty and equality in general but of middle class or Bourgeois liberal Society not of the modern economy or the modern state but of the economies and states in a particular geographical region of the world whose Center was the neighboring and rival states of Great Britain and France. " " Age of Revolution, 1789 - 1848 " Page 1The French Revolution is a major piece of evidence for this. The Revolution was largely driven by the ambitions and frustrations of the Bourgeois. The urban middle class class which included Merchants lawyers and other professionals were dissatisfied with their lack of political power and the restrictions on their activities under the old regime. They saw the revolution as an opportunity to overthrow the Privileges of the nobility and to establish a society where their economic and social status would be more accurately reflected in political power. It has almost nothing to do with the common people. They were just their pawns. French historian George Lefebvre, who was a Marxist by the way would write extensively on the role of the Bourgeois in his book " The Coming of the French Revolution " : " The old regime threw indiscriminately into the Third Estate all commoners from the wealthiest bourgeois to the poorest beggar or some 96% of the nation according to Sieyes. The Third Estate was a purely legal entity in which the only real elements were the social ones and of these the most important the one which led and mainly benefited from The Revolution was the Bourgeois. The Bourgeois was intermixed with the rest of the population. That is why it was able to assume the leadership of the Revolution. " Source :" The coming of the french revolution " Page 41.
These revolutions and movements weren't spearheaded by the people seeking to end their oppression but a new emerging Elite Class seeking to entrench themselves and defeat their rivals, all while utilizing public sentiments to legitimize their rule. The true enemy of the monarchy has never been the people but other Elite groups seeking to strengthen their own power and influence over the country. Some might say that sure, democratic republicanism may have been coming from the Bourgeois and was spearheaded by them but they still brought us democracy the form of governance where we get to choose our own leaders and not having to fear about tyrants. A system where the people are the judge jury and executioner. If the whole point of introducing the system was for it to benefit them and entrench their rule why would they do something so stupid as to actually give people an actual say over their country. Why would they sabotage their power? If voting truly changed anything they would make it illegal. How exactly and specifically does a Democratic Republic benefit the ruling Elite? When talking about republics you need to split the government into two parts the visible one which is the parliament prime minister or president and other public offices and then the invisible one which is made up of corporate lobbyists rich and influential families and other groups. The invisible one is the true ruling class that influences. The visible one and makes sure every everything goes smoothly. When we say that we elect our Representatives I would say that instead they have themselves elected by their friends. These friends tend to be rich individuals who can afford to fund politicians and to advance their specific agendas often at the expense of the broader Public's interests.
These figures often own newspapers and other media outlets granting them the power to control the narrative and shape public opinion to their advantage. The campaigns are typically orchestrated by tight-knit groups that work to ensure that the election results align with their own goals. As a result even though elections might appear democratic, the outcomes frequently reflect the wishes of these powerful minorities and since you are in the shadows out of the public eye and safe from scrutiny, there is no incentive for you to act morally and righteously, you can be as corrupt as you want but as long as their eyes are on the president and everyone in Parliament who cares what they truly think. Monarchies by contrast never had this distinction. The government so to say was always visible, there is the king and his castle and there are all the Nobles and the exact Estates. They own and here are all the priests running churches You know exactly where to find them and how sensitive their next to Sharp blades are because as it turns out the people being able to confidently and correctly identify who rules over them kind of gives you more of an incentive to watch out and do some good lest your head be separated from the rest of your body. In democratic republic, who needs that when you can puppet the guy? You have people think that the president or prime minister is actually in charge and when things start going bad they just have to throw him out of the mob as a sacrifice. The people calm down new guy comes in and they start influencing him. Now you start to understand why they would rather have republics than monarchies?
Post.
Eric von Leddihn wrote : " A republic is an ideal form of government for an aristocracy and aristocracy that wants to rule directly instead of serving a ruler has to choose between a temporary monarchy like England or a republic like Venice Genoa or early Florence. Historically, monarchy protected against oligarchical rule and monarchs often sided with the lower classes against the nobility. Every strong and independent aristocracy tends to be "Republican" . Only a weakened degenerate or very wise aristocracy supports monarchy. " Source :" Menace of the Herd " Pages 73 - 74. Patrick J. Deneen wrote : " Why liberalism failed " He makes this exact observation as well. Instead of abolishing the old aristocracy in favor of a system managed by the people liberalism instead just created a new one that is less transparent and even more powerful. : " Liberalism was justified and gained popular support as the opponent of an alternative to the old aristocracy. It attacked inherited privilege overturned prescribed economic roles and abolished fixed social positions arguing instead for openness based upon choice, talent, opportunity and Industry the irony is the creation of a new aristocracy that has enjoyed inherited privileges prescribed economic roles and fixed social positions. Even as liberalism's architects were forthright about their ambition to displace the old aristocracy, they were not silent about their hopes of creating a new aristocracy. " " Liberalism success thus Fosters the conditions of its failure having claimed to bring about a downfall of aristocratic rule of the strong over the week, it culminates in a new more powerful even more permanent aristocracy that fights ceaselessly to maintain the structures of liberal Injustice. " Source :" Why liberalism failed " Pages 134 - 135.
This obviously does not mean that everyone who runs for office is a puppet. In fact I do believe that there are some good people who base their campaigns on good goals and genuinely want to act on them and bring about change. The issue here is that even when you win an election and come into office you are then going to be placed in this Grand chess game against the elites who obviously do not want to see you acting completely on your own people. Some people think that when you become a president or prime minister you can just start doing stuff right away. Especially in a republic, power is more complicated than that. You need to know how to navigate that field and play your cards right to gain the upper hand against many interest groups who stand in opposition to you.When you vote for someone in an election all you do is throw them in the ring against the leads and hope they will win and if they don't, they will not be able to achieve much. Now it just comes down to how well the candidat is going to play their cards. True change can only come when you have firm hands on both governments. So Ironically in the end it is a game of chance, something many Republicans criticize monarchy for.
How is a republic inherently better than a monarch monarchy? The one major principle that in a republic the officials chosen by the people wield the power instead of a hereditary family with no public say. The sad part is people still believe this they are still fooled by the fact that they actually wield powers through The ballot box fighting over which one of the two corporate puppet candidates is better and never thinking about questioning democracy and republicanism. To them, anyone who questions these systems is a person who wants to establish brutal tyrannies with no freedom. Monarchies weren't overthrown by the people seeking Liberation and realizing that the system is bad and tyrannical but rather they were headed by the merchant and later Bourgeois classes seeking to dominate the power structure. And the way they maintain their influence and power is by giving the illusion of choice voice so that the people may never dare question it. On a surface level who would trade a system where they have a say in how their country should be run for a system where power is in the hands of a family and people who get it just by the privilege of being born in that position. In reality monarchs often stood as Defenders of the common people against the ambitions of powerful oligarchies. They held a sense of responsibility guided by a belief in in Divine Duty that guided them to protect the broader interests of their subjects. What we have today is exactly that which dominated Florence and other republics only difference is that now we just have the illusion that we are the ones in charge. It is absolute childish nonsense to say that we have a government of the People by the people for the people. It has nothing to do with the people.
We went from a ruling class that saw itself as having a Divine duty to care for their subjects and having more of an incentive for doing so to one that is hiding in the shadows seeing humans as walking dollar signs, customers who exist only to consume a financial government ruling by the decree of money and money alone.
https://ytscribe.com/fr/v/DN4JVG8Ubfw
Eric von Leddihn wrote : " A republic is an ideal form of government for an aristocracy and aristocracy that wants to rule directly instead of serving a ruler has to choose between a temporary monarchy like England or a republic like Venice Genoa or early Florence. Historically, monarchy protected against oligarchical rule and monarchs often sided with the lower classes against the nobility. Every strong and independent aristocracy tends to be "Republican" . Only a weakened degenerate or very wise aristocracy supports monarchy. " Source :" Menace of the Herd " Pages 73 - 74. Patrick J. Deneen wrote : " Why liberalism failed " He makes this exact observation as well. Instead of abolishing the old aristocracy in favor of a system managed by the people liberalism instead just created a new one that is less transparent and even more powerful. : " Liberalism was justified and gained popular support as the opponent of an alternative to the old aristocracy. It attacked inherited privilege overturned prescribed economic roles and abolished fixed social positions arguing instead for openness based upon choice, talent, opportunity and Industry the irony is the creation of a new aristocracy that has enjoyed inherited privileges prescribed economic roles and fixed social positions. Even as liberalism's architects were forthright about their ambition to displace the old aristocracy, they were not silent about their hopes of creating a new aristocracy. " " Liberalism success thus Fosters the conditions of its failure having claimed to bring about a downfall of aristocratic rule of the strong over the week, it culminates in a new more powerful even more permanent aristocracy that fights ceaselessly to maintain the structures of liberal Injustice. " Source :" Why liberalism failed " Pages 134 - 135.
This obviously does not mean that everyone who runs for office is a puppet. In fact I do believe that there are some good people who base their campaigns on good goals and genuinely want to act on them and bring about change. The issue here is that even when you win an election and come into office you are then going to be placed in this Grand chess game against the elites who obviously do not want to see you acting completely on your own people. Some people think that when you become a president or prime minister you can just start doing stuff right away. Especially in a republic, power is more complicated than that. You need to know how to navigate that field and play your cards right to gain the upper hand against many interest groups who stand in opposition to you.When you vote for someone in an election all you do is throw them in the ring against the leads and hope they will win and if they don't, they will not be able to achieve much. Now it just comes down to how well the candidat is going to play their cards. True change can only come when you have firm hands on both governments. So Ironically in the end it is a game of chance, something many Republicans criticize monarchy for.
How is a republic inherently better than a monarch monarchy? The one major principle that in a republic the officials chosen by the people wield the power instead of a hereditary family with no public say. The sad part is people still believe this they are still fooled by the fact that they actually wield powers through The ballot box fighting over which one of the two corporate puppet candidates is better and never thinking about questioning democracy and republicanism. To them, anyone who questions these systems is a person who wants to establish brutal tyrannies with no freedom. Monarchies weren't overthrown by the people seeking Liberation and realizing that the system is bad and tyrannical but rather they were headed by the merchant and later Bourgeois classes seeking to dominate the power structure. And the way they maintain their influence and power is by giving the illusion of choice voice so that the people may never dare question it. On a surface level who would trade a system where they have a say in how their country should be run for a system where power is in the hands of a family and people who get it just by the privilege of being born in that position. In reality monarchs often stood as Defenders of the common people against the ambitions of powerful oligarchies. They held a sense of responsibility guided by a belief in in Divine Duty that guided them to protect the broader interests of their subjects. What we have today is exactly that which dominated Florence and other republics only difference is that now we just have the illusion that we are the ones in charge. It is absolute childish nonsense to say that we have a government of the People by the people for the people. It has nothing to do with the people.
We went from a ruling class that saw itself as having a Divine duty to care for their subjects and having more of an incentive for doing so to one that is hiding in the shadows seeing humans as walking dollar signs, customers who exist only to consume a financial government ruling by the decree of money and money alone.
Post.
The Royal Edge: Why Monarchs Are More Responsible With Power
I don't think power by itself is something evil itself. The question only is who is the person who wields this power and how responsible is he. There is this phenomenon that I have commonly seen people absolutely terrified of the idea of a monarch wielding significant power over the nation and how it will inevitably lead to tyranny and the suppression of people people's rights. This line of thinking is due to the famous liberal theory of power. As the saying goes power corrupts so someone who already wields significant power over time will start to abuse it more and more to benefit themselves and their Inner circle, thus over time becoming even more, corrupt. A nd the liberal solution to this issue is putting " handicaps " on those in power either through a constitution or Parliament to make sure that no one will be able to abuse power for their own advantage. And then the images of dictators that pop into our heads like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zhedong. They just further cement this idea that so much power in the hands of a single person can cause so much harm, which is why no man should be allowed to wield so much of it as to prevent tyranny and potentially save the lives of millions. Monarchs are so much more responsible with wielding power than any other kind of leader. My personal opinion is that power does not necessarily corrupt nor is it necessarily a magnet to those corruptible but rather power reveals and amplifies traits that already exist within a person. There is an article about psycholy, that say :" The psychology of political power : does power corrupt or is it magnetic to the most corruptible? From Parul Velma in March 2022. Source :
https://blog.apaonline.or[...]-to-the-most-corruptible/
Evidence that power inevitably leads to corruption we have is the famous Stanford Prison Experiment. The experiment went something like this it involved volunteer college students who were randomly assigned to be either prisoners or guards. A mock prison was set up in the basement of the Stanford psychology building and the participants were asked to act out their roles as prisoners and guards. The aim of the experiment was to see how people would act when given a position of power. Would they be generous kind or cruel ? The experiment was supposed to last 2 weeks but it was terminated after only 6 days. The study quickly spiraled out of control with the guards becoming abusive and prisoners showing signs of extreme stress and emotional distress. So what was the concl illusion power corrupts. The experiment was taken as a success and showed how power corrupts people or does it? In 2007 around 40 years after the Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by Thomas Carnahan and Sam McFarland. :
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17440210/
Could participant self- selection have led to the cruelty? They were interested in researching the types of individuals who are attracted to and take part in experiments like the Stanford Prison Experiment. Students were recruited in the exact same way as the students 40 years ago with a virtually identical newspaper ad and this is what they covered. Volunteers for the prison study scored significantly higher on measures of the abuse related dispositions of aggressiveness authoritarianism, melanism, narcissism and social dominance and were on empathy and altruism two qualities inversely related to aggressive abuse. " Their experiment revealed something that was not thought about for 40 years after first experiment : that gaining and wielding power did not suddenly make those students cruel but these students already possess these traits and by giving them a position of power it amplified them.
Power itself does not corrupt it is very much possible that it attracts those who are easily corruptible but most importantly it just strengthens and exposes the inherent trait you already possess. Many people like to take the Roman Emperor Caligula as an example of tyranny and how it completely ruins a country. But shortly after Caligula came to power, Rome started developing and he lived up to the expectations of his people. He eliminated many taxes and created massive employment opportunities for Roman citizens. Overall in the beginning Caligula was well liked and he was a breath of fresh air after the tyranny of Tiberius. But then Caligula started suffering from a disease that had a massive impact on his brain and mentality leading the emperor down towards a path of corruption and abusing his power. But again power itself did not corrupt him. If it did then Rome would have never experienced the benefit at the beginning of his reign. When you think of a dictatorship autocracy or really any system in which a person has a significant amount of power, you would think of things like a massive police state, no freedom of speech and overall mass persecutions and terrors against those who do not align with the views of the state. When we bring up people like Joseph Stalin Adolf Hitler and so forth these are all things that were present during their rules. Alongside what I would call populist, or authoritarian regimes in the 19th and 20th Century there were also other kinds of authoritarian regimes those being monarchies and Royal dictatorships. If one studies both centuries, one would notice a very big difference between the 2. While both kinds are authoritarian, sometimes autocratic, there is a significant difference in how those at the top wielded and used the power. Kaiser Wilhelm II is probably the best example.
While the German Empire had elections, it was far more authoritarian than other monarchies like the United Kingdom. Under the German Constitution, the Kaiser had the full power to dissolve the parliament at any given moment ( article 12 ), was the only one who could appoint the chancellor and fire him at will. And the Kaiser commanded the entire land Force being able to appoint Naval and army officers and ordering reforms, overall much more authoritarian. If we consider the liberal theory that power corrupts the German Empire would have become much more authoritarian over time with wilham II abusing his immense privilege to assert his power and dominance over the country. Yet none of that happened. Despite his immense political, privilege he never really abused them. In fact the vast majority of the time he played along with Parliament giving hourlong lectures trying to convince the parliament to pass his bills when he could have dissolved them and proclaimed a royal dictatorship. He had the full right to do so. Another example is the SPD party, the social Democrats. It's no secret that Wilhelm absolutely despised the social Democrats and everything they stood for and he was not afraid to hide it either. In a speech in 1889 he would say : " I regard every Social Democrat as an enemy of the Empire and the Fatherland. " Despite his immense disdain for the SPD, he never resolved to drastic measures to weaken their political power. In fact since 1890 in every single election the social Democrats became stronger and stronger. After the 1920 election concluded the SPD became the strongest party in the entire country holding the most seats in Parliament Wilhelm was obviously not happy with these results, and he reacted with considerable frustration. Yet he accepted it and resolved to at least try working with them.
Even after they gained power a party he openly labeled as the enemies of the Empire, Wilhelm never took to drastic measures to abuses Royal powers to curb their influence. The Russian Empire is probably one of the most most famous examples of absolute monarchism with the tsars holding absolute and autocratic power over Russia for hundreds of years. In the late 19th century Russia established a secret police called Okhrana to deal with political opponents. When you think of a secret police you may think of organizations like the Gestapo or the NKVD, both ruthless organizations that brutally suppressed and rooted out any kind of opposition. And you may think it was the same way here, with a brutal torist branch that suppressed anyone who was against the monarchy. If you actually look into the Okana you will realize just how lenient they were. By 1900, the Okhrana only employed around 8,500 agents in an Empire with over 150 million people. If we calculate that, it's is around 17 000 people per one agent. By comparision, the NKVD at his absolute heigh in 1930 had hundreds of thousands of agents. Even the claims of Russian police and agent brutality are exaggerated. Despite having this reputation of a brutal autocracy, only the absolute worst offenders such as convicted or confessed political assassins were given the death penalty. A more common punishment for political offenders was penal labor and yet even this was rarely handed down unless the crime was serious.
The Royal Edge: Why Monarchs Are More Responsible With Power
I don't think power by itself is something evil itself. The question only is who is the person who wields this power and how responsible is he. There is this phenomenon that I have commonly seen people absolutely terrified of the idea of a monarch wielding significant power over the nation and how it will inevitably lead to tyranny and the suppression of people people's rights. This line of thinking is due to the famous liberal theory of power. As the saying goes power corrupts so someone who already wields significant power over time will start to abuse it more and more to benefit themselves and their Inner circle, thus over time becoming even more, corrupt. A nd the liberal solution to this issue is putting " handicaps " on those in power either through a constitution or Parliament to make sure that no one will be able to abuse power for their own advantage. And then the images of dictators that pop into our heads like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zhedong. They just further cement this idea that so much power in the hands of a single person can cause so much harm, which is why no man should be allowed to wield so much of it as to prevent tyranny and potentially save the lives of millions. Monarchs are so much more responsible with wielding power than any other kind of leader. My personal opinion is that power does not necessarily corrupt nor is it necessarily a magnet to those corruptible but rather power reveals and amplifies traits that already exist within a person. There is an article about psycholy, that say :" The psychology of political power : does power corrupt or is it magnetic to the most corruptible? From Parul Velma in March 2022. Source :
Evidence that power inevitably leads to corruption we have is the famous Stanford Prison Experiment. The experiment went something like this it involved volunteer college students who were randomly assigned to be either prisoners or guards. A mock prison was set up in the basement of the Stanford psychology building and the participants were asked to act out their roles as prisoners and guards. The aim of the experiment was to see how people would act when given a position of power. Would they be generous kind or cruel ? The experiment was supposed to last 2 weeks but it was terminated after only 6 days. The study quickly spiraled out of control with the guards becoming abusive and prisoners showing signs of extreme stress and emotional distress. So what was the concl illusion power corrupts. The experiment was taken as a success and showed how power corrupts people or does it? In 2007 around 40 years after the Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by Thomas Carnahan and Sam McFarland. :
Could participant self- selection have led to the cruelty? They were interested in researching the types of individuals who are attracted to and take part in experiments like the Stanford Prison Experiment. Students were recruited in the exact same way as the students 40 years ago with a virtually identical newspaper ad and this is what they covered. Volunteers for the prison study scored significantly higher on measures of the abuse related dispositions of aggressiveness authoritarianism, melanism, narcissism and social dominance and were on empathy and altruism two qualities inversely related to aggressive abuse. " Their experiment revealed something that was not thought about for 40 years after first experiment : that gaining and wielding power did not suddenly make those students cruel but these students already possess these traits and by giving them a position of power it amplified them.
Power itself does not corrupt it is very much possible that it attracts those who are easily corruptible but most importantly it just strengthens and exposes the inherent trait you already possess. Many people like to take the Roman Emperor Caligula as an example of tyranny and how it completely ruins a country. But shortly after Caligula came to power, Rome started developing and he lived up to the expectations of his people. He eliminated many taxes and created massive employment opportunities for Roman citizens. Overall in the beginning Caligula was well liked and he was a breath of fresh air after the tyranny of Tiberius. But then Caligula started suffering from a disease that had a massive impact on his brain and mentality leading the emperor down towards a path of corruption and abusing his power. But again power itself did not corrupt him. If it did then Rome would have never experienced the benefit at the beginning of his reign. When you think of a dictatorship autocracy or really any system in which a person has a significant amount of power, you would think of things like a massive police state, no freedom of speech and overall mass persecutions and terrors against those who do not align with the views of the state. When we bring up people like Joseph Stalin Adolf Hitler and so forth these are all things that were present during their rules. Alongside what I would call populist, or authoritarian regimes in the 19th and 20th Century there were also other kinds of authoritarian regimes those being monarchies and Royal dictatorships. If one studies both centuries, one would notice a very big difference between the 2. While both kinds are authoritarian, sometimes autocratic, there is a significant difference in how those at the top wielded and used the power. Kaiser Wilhelm II is probably the best example.
While the German Empire had elections, it was far more authoritarian than other monarchies like the United Kingdom. Under the German Constitution, the Kaiser had the full power to dissolve the parliament at any given moment ( article 12 ), was the only one who could appoint the chancellor and fire him at will. And the Kaiser commanded the entire land Force being able to appoint Naval and army officers and ordering reforms, overall much more authoritarian. If we consider the liberal theory that power corrupts the German Empire would have become much more authoritarian over time with wilham II abusing his immense privilege to assert his power and dominance over the country. Yet none of that happened. Despite his immense political, privilege he never really abused them. In fact the vast majority of the time he played along with Parliament giving hourlong lectures trying to convince the parliament to pass his bills when he could have dissolved them and proclaimed a royal dictatorship. He had the full right to do so. Another example is the SPD party, the social Democrats. It's no secret that Wilhelm absolutely despised the social Democrats and everything they stood for and he was not afraid to hide it either. In a speech in 1889 he would say : " I regard every Social Democrat as an enemy of the Empire and the Fatherland. " Despite his immense disdain for the SPD, he never resolved to drastic measures to weaken their political power. In fact since 1890 in every single election the social Democrats became stronger and stronger. After the 1920 election concluded the SPD became the strongest party in the entire country holding the most seats in Parliament Wilhelm was obviously not happy with these results, and he reacted with considerable frustration. Yet he accepted it and resolved to at least try working with them.
Even after they gained power a party he openly labeled as the enemies of the Empire, Wilhelm never took to drastic measures to abuses Royal powers to curb their influence. The Russian Empire is probably one of the most most famous examples of absolute monarchism with the tsars holding absolute and autocratic power over Russia for hundreds of years. In the late 19th century Russia established a secret police called Okhrana to deal with political opponents. When you think of a secret police you may think of organizations like the Gestapo or the NKVD, both ruthless organizations that brutally suppressed and rooted out any kind of opposition. And you may think it was the same way here, with a brutal torist branch that suppressed anyone who was against the monarchy. If you actually look into the Okana you will realize just how lenient they were. By 1900, the Okhrana only employed around 8,500 agents in an Empire with over 150 million people. If we calculate that, it's is around 17 000 people per one agent. By comparision, the NKVD at his absolute heigh in 1930 had hundreds of thousands of agents. Even the claims of Russian police and agent brutality are exaggerated. Despite having this reputation of a brutal autocracy, only the absolute worst offenders such as convicted or confessed political assassins were given the death penalty. A more common punishment for political offenders was penal labor and yet even this was rarely handed down unless the crime was serious.
Post.
In the period between 1825 until 1917, the supposedly fearsome and tyranical tsarist regime executed only 6,321 people for all crimes combined. Source : "The Kaiser and his Times" by Michael Balfour. These numbers are insanely low considering that since the assassination of Alexander II, Russia was anything but a politically stable state. Then we have a few other smaller examples like Romania under Carol II, and Yougoslavia under Alexander I. Both of these European countries became Royal dictatorships in the inter War period but they didn't become dictatorships because the Monarch suddenly woke up one day and decided to take absolute power. But rather they all came after a significant political crisis and the Royals used their Royal prerogatives in order to stabilize and bring order to their states and solve the crisis. Even after the Royal dictatorships were established, Romania and Yougoslavia were both still pretty normal countries with several civil liberties still guaranteed. To be fair, political opposition was suppressed. But instead of resorting to mass terror campaigns and programs against the general populist like in usual dictatorships, they mainly targeted high ranking individuals with significant influence that could be a threat or going after very specific political groups like fascists and communists. If we compare populist regimes with royal ones on issues like civil liberties, secret police, political opposition and so on, we will see that Royal ones are much more milder and lenient on these issues compared to the populist ones with the latter being much more ruthless and uncompromising on these issues, there is a very clear divide on how power is used and executed in these regimes. Wy do monarchs despite having and holding so much power act so much more responsibly with their Royal prerogatives?
It all starts making sense once we consider the previous conclusion we got on power and corruption power reveals and amplifies traits that already exist within a person.
https://ytscribe.com/fr/v/_joDpaOjLx8
Monarchs are born into a position of power that they are not that likely to turn to corruption. They already have a vast fortune and their position of power is already secure from the moment they are born. So, if they are are already secured with money and power then what kind of reason would they have to turn to corruption in the first place? The main reason why people turn to corruption in the first place is due to those two reasons. For that reason, the overwhelming majority of scandals Royals find themselves in are love or Affair scandals, not necessarily corruption scandals. With this I would also like to use the book on power the natural history of its growth by the author Bertrand Jouvenel : " On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth" by Bertrand de Jouvenel ". This is an excellent book that I recommend all of you to check out if you want to learn more about power and how it manifests in regards to monarchs. Jouvenel would write "The Monarch is not in the least a creature of his people set up to satisfy their wants. He is rather a parasitic and dominating growth which has detached itself from the dominating group of parasitic conquerors. But the need to establish his authority to maintain it and keep it supplied binds him to a course of conduct which profits the vast majority of his subjects. To suppose that majority rule functions only in democracy is a fantastic illusion. The king who is but one solitary individual stands far more in need of the general support of society than any other form of government. And since it is human nature for Habit to and gender affection, the king though acting at first only from concern for authority, comes to act with affection as well and in the end to be motivated by affection. " On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth" by Bertrand de Jouvenel Page 106.
He describes the Monarch not as a leader created to satisfy the people's needs but as an initially dominating figure possibly detached from the common interests of the populace. However, he notes that the monarchs need to maintain authority and ensure its continual support " binds him " to a course of conduct which profits the vast majority of his subjects. This suggests that even if initially self-serving or detached from the populace the Monarch is compelled to act in ways that are beneficial to the majority. This shift in conduct is not necessarily altruistic but is driven by practicality and the need for stability. He would conclude by saying that this necessity for support and authority leads to a change in behavior and ultimately a change in motivation from self-interest to affectionate concern for their well-being of the subjects. This naturally makes a lot of sense ;*: monarchs are driven to think in the long term. One day they're going to pass their country down to their air and since the Monarch is the state and the state is their property then the question arises what kind of incentive would a monarch have to basically destroy their own property. Populist leaders on the other hand are going to have an entirely different upbringing and experience with life which will shape their views on power. Populist leaders often emerge from outside traditional Elites. Their rise is frequently tied to charisma and the ability to resonate with public sentiment particularly dissatisfaction. They often see power as a means to implement significant changes rapidly driven by a mandate from their supporters.
This can result in a more aggressive and transformative approach to power. A populist approach to power can be more direct forceful and transformative because of the fact that their mandate comes from a mobilized public rather than a traditional or institutional legitimacy. This is why these kinds of dictators are a lot more trigger happy to abuse their power in order to achieve a certain goal no matter the means. These kinds of leaders almost certainly went through the ranks to get to the position they are in now, meaning they had to compete against other opponents and enemies in order to wiggle their way to power. The path towards obtaining power will always be riddled with blood betrayals and corruption and this process is inevitably going to change and shift a person's view on power and how to use it a process. Monarchs don't really have to go through because they are already born into that position but it is also tied to the perspective. Both kinds of leaders hold when exercising power a populist dictator will always look through the lens of their political ideology or party. If you are a communist you believe that the state is communist and cannot be anything else, and for that reason, you will try to rapidly transform your country into a communist state alongside brutally suppressing and wiping out any kind of opposition from other political parties and ideas. Anything that does not belong to my political ideology is bad and should be driven out. Monarchs on the other hand are not raised to pledge their allegiance to a party or political ideology but rather just the country. They don't act and rule based on a specific ific ideology but rather what they think is the best for the nation as a whole and their subjects. This is why monarchs are typically not as aggressive and violent towards different ideas and they may even work alongside different parties depending on what the Monarch thinks is the best for the nation.
And sometimes even act as a third party trying to mediate in a constitutional crisis if a conflict between two or several parties grows out of hand. Jouvenel stated that even if a monarch is initially self-serving, he's going to have to conform to the public majority for the sake of keeping his authority and maintaining stability. Populist dictators do not fall under this. If the entire party is loyal towards you and you, established a cult of personality where everyone knows you cannot do anything wrong, there is no real need to conform and be less self-serving. Anything you do, even if it is completely selfish and corrupt will be seen as all right depending on how strong your grip over the party. The conclusion is that if power amplifies traits already present instead of being inherently corruptible, that means 2 people raised in entirely different ways and environments are going to develop different traits and perspectives when it comes to power and responsibility. A monarch raised with a strong sense of Duty and responsibility strict discipline and care for their country and subjects is going to be much more responsible with wielding that power, compared to a populist dictator who would develop all kinds of traits while growing up outside of traditional aristocratic circles and especially while climbing into the top of the power. Two entirely different people raised in two different circles and two different methods are going to differ when their chance to shine eventually comes.That doesn't mean that a monarch is going to act responsibly and is every populist dictator going to be a bloodthirsty or tyrant. A populist dictator can sometimes even be better than a monarch. But still if one looks at history, it is a lot more likely and common for a monarch to be responsible with their power and not resort to drastic measures like populist dictators to cement their power and legacy.
https://ytscribe.com/fr/v/_joDpaOjLx8
In the period between 1825 until 1917, the supposedly fearsome and tyranical tsarist regime executed only 6,321 people for all crimes combined. Source : "The Kaiser and his Times" by Michael Balfour. These numbers are insanely low considering that since the assassination of Alexander II, Russia was anything but a politically stable state. Then we have a few other smaller examples like Romania under Carol II, and Yougoslavia under Alexander I. Both of these European countries became Royal dictatorships in the inter War period but they didn't become dictatorships because the Monarch suddenly woke up one day and decided to take absolute power. But rather they all came after a significant political crisis and the Royals used their Royal prerogatives in order to stabilize and bring order to their states and solve the crisis. Even after the Royal dictatorships were established, Romania and Yougoslavia were both still pretty normal countries with several civil liberties still guaranteed. To be fair, political opposition was suppressed. But instead of resorting to mass terror campaigns and programs against the general populist like in usual dictatorships, they mainly targeted high ranking individuals with significant influence that could be a threat or going after very specific political groups like fascists and communists. If we compare populist regimes with royal ones on issues like civil liberties, secret police, political opposition and so on, we will see that Royal ones are much more milder and lenient on these issues compared to the populist ones with the latter being much more ruthless and uncompromising on these issues, there is a very clear divide on how power is used and executed in these regimes. Wy do monarchs despite having and holding so much power act so much more responsibly with their Royal prerogatives?
It all starts making sense once we consider the previous conclusion we got on power and corruption power reveals and amplifies traits that already exist within a person.
Monarchs are born into a position of power that they are not that likely to turn to corruption. They already have a vast fortune and their position of power is already secure from the moment they are born. So, if they are are already secured with money and power then what kind of reason would they have to turn to corruption in the first place? The main reason why people turn to corruption in the first place is due to those two reasons. For that reason, the overwhelming majority of scandals Royals find themselves in are love or Affair scandals, not necessarily corruption scandals. With this I would also like to use the book on power the natural history of its growth by the author Bertrand Jouvenel : " On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth" by Bertrand de Jouvenel ". This is an excellent book that I recommend all of you to check out if you want to learn more about power and how it manifests in regards to monarchs. Jouvenel would write "The Monarch is not in the least a creature of his people set up to satisfy their wants. He is rather a parasitic and dominating growth which has detached itself from the dominating group of parasitic conquerors. But the need to establish his authority to maintain it and keep it supplied binds him to a course of conduct which profits the vast majority of his subjects. To suppose that majority rule functions only in democracy is a fantastic illusion. The king who is but one solitary individual stands far more in need of the general support of society than any other form of government. And since it is human nature for Habit to and gender affection, the king though acting at first only from concern for authority, comes to act with affection as well and in the end to be motivated by affection. " On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth" by Bertrand de Jouvenel Page 106.
He describes the Monarch not as a leader created to satisfy the people's needs but as an initially dominating figure possibly detached from the common interests of the populace. However, he notes that the monarchs need to maintain authority and ensure its continual support " binds him " to a course of conduct which profits the vast majority of his subjects. This suggests that even if initially self-serving or detached from the populace the Monarch is compelled to act in ways that are beneficial to the majority. This shift in conduct is not necessarily altruistic but is driven by practicality and the need for stability. He would conclude by saying that this necessity for support and authority leads to a change in behavior and ultimately a change in motivation from self-interest to affectionate concern for their well-being of the subjects. This naturally makes a lot of sense ;*: monarchs are driven to think in the long term. One day they're going to pass their country down to their air and since the Monarch is the state and the state is their property then the question arises what kind of incentive would a monarch have to basically destroy their own property. Populist leaders on the other hand are going to have an entirely different upbringing and experience with life which will shape their views on power. Populist leaders often emerge from outside traditional Elites. Their rise is frequently tied to charisma and the ability to resonate with public sentiment particularly dissatisfaction. They often see power as a means to implement significant changes rapidly driven by a mandate from their supporters.
This can result in a more aggressive and transformative approach to power. A populist approach to power can be more direct forceful and transformative because of the fact that their mandate comes from a mobilized public rather than a traditional or institutional legitimacy. This is why these kinds of dictators are a lot more trigger happy to abuse their power in order to achieve a certain goal no matter the means. These kinds of leaders almost certainly went through the ranks to get to the position they are in now, meaning they had to compete against other opponents and enemies in order to wiggle their way to power. The path towards obtaining power will always be riddled with blood betrayals and corruption and this process is inevitably going to change and shift a person's view on power and how to use it a process. Monarchs don't really have to go through because they are already born into that position but it is also tied to the perspective. Both kinds of leaders hold when exercising power a populist dictator will always look through the lens of their political ideology or party. If you are a communist you believe that the state is communist and cannot be anything else, and for that reason, you will try to rapidly transform your country into a communist state alongside brutally suppressing and wiping out any kind of opposition from other political parties and ideas. Anything that does not belong to my political ideology is bad and should be driven out. Monarchs on the other hand are not raised to pledge their allegiance to a party or political ideology but rather just the country. They don't act and rule based on a specific ific ideology but rather what they think is the best for the nation as a whole and their subjects. This is why monarchs are typically not as aggressive and violent towards different ideas and they may even work alongside different parties depending on what the Monarch thinks is the best for the nation.
And sometimes even act as a third party trying to mediate in a constitutional crisis if a conflict between two or several parties grows out of hand. Jouvenel stated that even if a monarch is initially self-serving, he's going to have to conform to the public majority for the sake of keeping his authority and maintaining stability. Populist dictators do not fall under this. If the entire party is loyal towards you and you, established a cult of personality where everyone knows you cannot do anything wrong, there is no real need to conform and be less self-serving. Anything you do, even if it is completely selfish and corrupt will be seen as all right depending on how strong your grip over the party. The conclusion is that if power amplifies traits already present instead of being inherently corruptible, that means 2 people raised in entirely different ways and environments are going to develop different traits and perspectives when it comes to power and responsibility. A monarch raised with a strong sense of Duty and responsibility strict discipline and care for their country and subjects is going to be much more responsible with wielding that power, compared to a populist dictator who would develop all kinds of traits while growing up outside of traditional aristocratic circles and especially while climbing into the top of the power. Two entirely different people raised in two different circles and two different methods are going to differ when their chance to shine eventually comes.That doesn't mean that a monarch is going to act responsibly and is every populist dictator going to be a bloodthirsty or tyrant. A populist dictator can sometimes even be better than a monarch. But still if one looks at history, it is a lot more likely and common for a monarch to be responsible with their power and not resort to drastic measures like populist dictators to cement their power and legacy.
Post.
Everything You Were Taught About Medieval Monarchy Is Wrong
Medieval Times is often seen as as a time of brutality where people were burned at a stake for their beliefs peasants were practically slaves their Lords in the feudal system and kings sat on Golden Thrones wielding absolute power and changing laws at will, beheading anyone who dared oppose them. Naturally we find these practices appalling and believe they have no place in our modern egalitarian society. This perception of the medieval period is largely influenced by the United States particularly Thomas Jefferson, who reshaped The narrative of the American Revolutionary War to be seen as a fight against Royal and feudal tyranny. Many of the founding fathers did not share this view of the war of independence. According to Jeffersonian doctrine, the United States is a Protestant country founded on anti-catholic and anti medieval ideas. Since Catholicism was a key part of the Medieval Era and monarchies were prevalent it was very easy to label the period as a backward time with no Liberty. This perspective spread to Europe with the French Revolution and the enlightenment but from a more secular and egalitarian Viewpoint especially with the rise of the Bourgeois with the Industrial Revolution who did not look too fondly on the concept of aristocracy. Fortunately, most medieval historians today do not support this view and act actively argue against it. Despite their efforts, many people still believe a mix of half truths, myths, distortions, exaggerations and lies about the Middle Age.
Monarchy the discussion is still influenced by Enlightenment ideas of an all powerful selfish King deciding everyone's fate and peasants working tirelessly for 12 hours a day under the feudal system. It is crucial to differentiate between medieval kingship and the absolutist monarchies that emerged after the Renaissance. Many people confuse the two the stereotypical depictions of monarchy where the King has absolute power and can change the law at will. Mostly come from the age of absolutism, not the medieval period. The age of absolutism also has its fair share of misconceptions. But here I will focus more on medieval kingship. When I say King I mean a medieval King and when I refer to Monarch I mean a ruler in the age of absolutism. There is a good book : " Missing Monarchy " written by Jeb Smith. I highly recommend it.
https://ytscribe.com/fr/v/m1RdQ9t5CQM
Everything You Were Taught About Medieval Monarchy Is Wrong
Medieval Times is often seen as as a time of brutality where people were burned at a stake for their beliefs peasants were practically slaves their Lords in the feudal system and kings sat on Golden Thrones wielding absolute power and changing laws at will, beheading anyone who dared oppose them. Naturally we find these practices appalling and believe they have no place in our modern egalitarian society. This perception of the medieval period is largely influenced by the United States particularly Thomas Jefferson, who reshaped The narrative of the American Revolutionary War to be seen as a fight against Royal and feudal tyranny. Many of the founding fathers did not share this view of the war of independence. According to Jeffersonian doctrine, the United States is a Protestant country founded on anti-catholic and anti medieval ideas. Since Catholicism was a key part of the Medieval Era and monarchies were prevalent it was very easy to label the period as a backward time with no Liberty. This perspective spread to Europe with the French Revolution and the enlightenment but from a more secular and egalitarian Viewpoint especially with the rise of the Bourgeois with the Industrial Revolution who did not look too fondly on the concept of aristocracy. Fortunately, most medieval historians today do not support this view and act actively argue against it. Despite their efforts, many people still believe a mix of half truths, myths, distortions, exaggerations and lies about the Middle Age.
Monarchy the discussion is still influenced by Enlightenment ideas of an all powerful selfish King deciding everyone's fate and peasants working tirelessly for 12 hours a day under the feudal system. It is crucial to differentiate between medieval kingship and the absolutist monarchies that emerged after the Renaissance. Many people confuse the two the stereotypical depictions of monarchy where the King has absolute power and can change the law at will. Mostly come from the age of absolutism, not the medieval period. The age of absolutism also has its fair share of misconceptions. But here I will focus more on medieval kingship. When I say King I mean a medieval King and when I refer to Monarch I mean a ruler in the age of absolutism. There is a good book : " Missing Monarchy " written by Jeb Smith. I highly recommend it.
Post.
Post.
Post.
Running out of runway! | Emirates Flight 407
No matter how pard the first officer pulled on his controls, the plane wouldn't take off. Its tail scraped along the ground violently, sending sparks flying. It was during the night of Friday March 20th 2019. 257 passengers and 18 crew boarded Emirates flight 407 at Melbourne in Australia. They were bound for Dubai in a 14 hours journey. It was a perfect night to fly with light winds and no clouds. The plane was a 5 years old A340 - 500, a modern four engined aircraft with excellent safety record. And one of the few who could carry this long journey without needing to stop to refuel. There were 4 pilots on board. 2 of them would carry out the takeoff and landing while the other 2, so called augmenting crew, would take over during the cruise portion of the flight to allow the main crew to rest. As for Emirates Airlines procedures, the augmenting crew were required to be in the cockpit, not just for the crews but also for the pre flight preparations and during takeoff and landing. Emirates, as many airlines, learned that extra pair of eyes and ears could be put to use in these long flights to provide an added margin of safety. Both the captain and first officer had each over 8 000 hours of flyign experience. They had thousands of hours experience in the A340 and even more in its 2 engines cousin, the A330. Rather than being a strenght this night, their experience with a slightly more different aircraft would make the difference for the worst. In the cockpit there were 2 pilots, 2 groudn engineers and the augmenting captain. It was so crowded that the augmenting captain had to stand outside of the Ford Galley and wait for the ground engineers to leave. As the pilots and ground engineers chatted, the first officer and the captain reviewed their paperwork.
Here the first officer made a mistake that started when he entered the aircraft's total weight, its gross weight into electronic flight bag or EFB. This is basically an Ipad specifically designed to calculate the configuration the plane needs to be in for takeoff. Using the first figures the first officer provided, the EFB calculated the flap setting which would be needed for the takeoff., the thrust setting needed on the engines and the speed at which the plane would be able to lift off. When he typed in the weight of the aircraft, his finger slipped and instead of typing in 362,9, he typed in 262,9 tons. This meant the computer underestimated the amount of power the engines would need to get the plane into the air. It also underestimated the flap setting needed to produce the lift required for takeoff and it underestimated the speed required to get off the ground. However, as consequential as his mistake was, there was a high level of redundancy built in not just aircraft systems but procedures as well. The pilots would have several chances to notice this mistake. The captain took the EFB and began checking the figures entered by the first officer. Meanwhile, the first officer began writing these figures into his copy of the flight plan. But as thee pilots did this, the captain got distracted by a comment made by one of the other people in the flight deck. After responding to it, he never fully completed his checks. If he had he probably would have figured that the first officer entered the wrong figure for the aircraft's weight. Therefore, all the figures the EFB generated for the aircraft's performance at takeoff were wrong.
The captain now entered these false figures into the flight management computer, the aircraft's brain. At this point, both pilots were supposed to check verbally between each other that the takeoff weight entered into tjhe AFB, and the figure written into the flight plan by the first officer matched. Last chance to notice the mistake was when the first officer read out the figures from his copy of the flight plan. The captain checked if these figures matched those in the flight management computer. When the first officer read out the figures for the takeoff weight, he started by saying 262,9 and then, noticing that the figure he had written was 362,9 tons off, he changed the 2 to a 3 and then reads out the correct figure of 362,9 tons. On this copy of the flight plan, you can see the line he added to turn what was a 2 into a 3. The captain confirmed that the figure was the one on the flight main computer. But it didn't matter because all the takeoff performance figures had been calculated using the EFB had been done using the incorrect weight. At this point the first officer could have decided to check the figures again just in case. But the captain already checked these figures as far as he knew. Besides, he probably figured that he must have made a mistake when writing the number into the flight plan rather than when entering it into the EFB. The pilots set the the flaps to the first setting rather than to the second or third where they would have been if the correct aircraft weight had been entered into the EFB. As a result, when the aircraft began taking off, the wings would generate less lift, making it harder for the plane to get airbone. At half 10 that night, flight 407 lined up on the runway. The thrust setting used was a reduced power setting used to limit wear and tear on the engines. It was much less than what the plane needed which was Toga thrust or takeoff ground, the engine's maximum setting.
They reached the speed marked as V1, marked as the point of no return. They couldn't cancel the takeoff now. Aborting takeoff at this speed would mean risking going after the end of the runway. The speeds were based on the calculations for a much lighter aircraft. So when the first officer pulled on his stick, it didn't do anything. VR had been calculated as being 145 knots, almost 20 knots too slow for how heavy the plane was. They needed at least 163 knots to make it airbone, or 300 kilometers per hour. But with these calculations already made, the pilots would have to find out the hard way. The first officer pulled back further but nothing happened. The aircraft was less than 1 000 meters away from the end of the runway now. The first officer pulled back more and the nose finally rose up but the rest of the plane didn't follow. So he kept pulling back until the tail slammed intot he runway.. Sparks went flying as the aluminium fuselage groud against the runway. The impact was so severe that the flight data recorder, one of the plane's black boxes, fell off its rack onto the fuselage skin. Passengers could smell smoke, burning metal and insulation. The cabin was lit witha red glow. The captain shoved the engine to maximum and the plane finally took off just in time before crashing against the trees after the end of the runway. But the plane was barely climbing. Its tail stuck the localizer antenna, puncturing the skin of the aircraft. Then it crashed through one of the runway lights. The first officer limped the damage of the aircraft. A warning appeared on the central display about a tail strike. The tower controller saw the scene as well and alerted the pilots. They had to come back to the airport. With 130 tons of fuel on board, the plane was well above its maximum landing weight. They would have to dump a lot of fuel before returning to the airport.
To land safely, they would need the EFB. Pulling the EFB out of its storage compartment, the first officer realized the mistake after retrieving it and checking the screen. Then the augmenting first officer pointed out something concerning : the aircraft was not pressurizing. When the tail scraped against the runway, it had done it with such force that the skin of the aircraft itself had been worn away, creating multiple holes. The plane was no longer a sealed vessel. The captain declared a pan pan to the tower control which is one step below declaring a mayday. Air traffic control dispatched vehicles to assess the damage on the runway. As for the pilots they had an important balance to strike about the fuel they would dump. On one hand they wanted to land under the maximum landing weight of 243 tons Any heavier than that and they risked damaging the aircradt during landing, which was made riskier by the fact that they didn't know how damaged the tail already was. On the other hand, to get under the maximum landing weight, they would have to dump almost all the fuel. If they needed a second or third attempt to land, they would need plenty of fuel. But doing this would require being overweight for their first landing attempt. At the end, the pilots decided to dump 80 tons of fuel. This would get their weight down to 280 tons which was still 37 tons above their maximum landing weight but with enough to spare if they made a few attempts to land. They made 3 independant calculations for landing performance, 2 of them using the EFB and 1 of them using the aircraft's quick reference handbook. While at the ground, the sterile cockpit rule didn't apply. In a sterile cockpit, there can't be any conversation other than about the flight. This rule is reinforced during high workload stages of flight like while maneuvering on the ground and anytime below 10 000 feet.
Running out of runway! | Emirates Flight 407
No matter how pard the first officer pulled on his controls, the plane wouldn't take off. Its tail scraped along the ground violently, sending sparks flying. It was during the night of Friday March 20th 2019. 257 passengers and 18 crew boarded Emirates flight 407 at Melbourne in Australia. They were bound for Dubai in a 14 hours journey. It was a perfect night to fly with light winds and no clouds. The plane was a 5 years old A340 - 500, a modern four engined aircraft with excellent safety record. And one of the few who could carry this long journey without needing to stop to refuel. There were 4 pilots on board. 2 of them would carry out the takeoff and landing while the other 2, so called augmenting crew, would take over during the cruise portion of the flight to allow the main crew to rest. As for Emirates Airlines procedures, the augmenting crew were required to be in the cockpit, not just for the crews but also for the pre flight preparations and during takeoff and landing. Emirates, as many airlines, learned that extra pair of eyes and ears could be put to use in these long flights to provide an added margin of safety. Both the captain and first officer had each over 8 000 hours of flyign experience. They had thousands of hours experience in the A340 and even more in its 2 engines cousin, the A330. Rather than being a strenght this night, their experience with a slightly more different aircraft would make the difference for the worst. In the cockpit there were 2 pilots, 2 groudn engineers and the augmenting captain. It was so crowded that the augmenting captain had to stand outside of the Ford Galley and wait for the ground engineers to leave. As the pilots and ground engineers chatted, the first officer and the captain reviewed their paperwork.
Here the first officer made a mistake that started when he entered the aircraft's total weight, its gross weight into electronic flight bag or EFB. This is basically an Ipad specifically designed to calculate the configuration the plane needs to be in for takeoff. Using the first figures the first officer provided, the EFB calculated the flap setting which would be needed for the takeoff., the thrust setting needed on the engines and the speed at which the plane would be able to lift off. When he typed in the weight of the aircraft, his finger slipped and instead of typing in 362,9, he typed in 262,9 tons. This meant the computer underestimated the amount of power the engines would need to get the plane into the air. It also underestimated the flap setting needed to produce the lift required for takeoff and it underestimated the speed required to get off the ground. However, as consequential as his mistake was, there was a high level of redundancy built in not just aircraft systems but procedures as well. The pilots would have several chances to notice this mistake. The captain took the EFB and began checking the figures entered by the first officer. Meanwhile, the first officer began writing these figures into his copy of the flight plan. But as thee pilots did this, the captain got distracted by a comment made by one of the other people in the flight deck. After responding to it, he never fully completed his checks. If he had he probably would have figured that the first officer entered the wrong figure for the aircraft's weight. Therefore, all the figures the EFB generated for the aircraft's performance at takeoff were wrong.
The captain now entered these false figures into the flight management computer, the aircraft's brain. At this point, both pilots were supposed to check verbally between each other that the takeoff weight entered into tjhe AFB, and the figure written into the flight plan by the first officer matched. Last chance to notice the mistake was when the first officer read out the figures from his copy of the flight plan. The captain checked if these figures matched those in the flight management computer. When the first officer read out the figures for the takeoff weight, he started by saying 262,9 and then, noticing that the figure he had written was 362,9 tons off, he changed the 2 to a 3 and then reads out the correct figure of 362,9 tons. On this copy of the flight plan, you can see the line he added to turn what was a 2 into a 3. The captain confirmed that the figure was the one on the flight main computer. But it didn't matter because all the takeoff performance figures had been calculated using the EFB had been done using the incorrect weight. At this point the first officer could have decided to check the figures again just in case. But the captain already checked these figures as far as he knew. Besides, he probably figured that he must have made a mistake when writing the number into the flight plan rather than when entering it into the EFB. The pilots set the the flaps to the first setting rather than to the second or third where they would have been if the correct aircraft weight had been entered into the EFB. As a result, when the aircraft began taking off, the wings would generate less lift, making it harder for the plane to get airbone. At half 10 that night, flight 407 lined up on the runway. The thrust setting used was a reduced power setting used to limit wear and tear on the engines. It was much less than what the plane needed which was Toga thrust or takeoff ground, the engine's maximum setting.
They reached the speed marked as V1, marked as the point of no return. They couldn't cancel the takeoff now. Aborting takeoff at this speed would mean risking going after the end of the runway. The speeds were based on the calculations for a much lighter aircraft. So when the first officer pulled on his stick, it didn't do anything. VR had been calculated as being 145 knots, almost 20 knots too slow for how heavy the plane was. They needed at least 163 knots to make it airbone, or 300 kilometers per hour. But with these calculations already made, the pilots would have to find out the hard way. The first officer pulled back further but nothing happened. The aircraft was less than 1 000 meters away from the end of the runway now. The first officer pulled back more and the nose finally rose up but the rest of the plane didn't follow. So he kept pulling back until the tail slammed intot he runway.. Sparks went flying as the aluminium fuselage groud against the runway. The impact was so severe that the flight data recorder, one of the plane's black boxes, fell off its rack onto the fuselage skin. Passengers could smell smoke, burning metal and insulation. The cabin was lit witha red glow. The captain shoved the engine to maximum and the plane finally took off just in time before crashing against the trees after the end of the runway. But the plane was barely climbing. Its tail stuck the localizer antenna, puncturing the skin of the aircraft. Then it crashed through one of the runway lights. The first officer limped the damage of the aircraft. A warning appeared on the central display about a tail strike. The tower controller saw the scene as well and alerted the pilots. They had to come back to the airport. With 130 tons of fuel on board, the plane was well above its maximum landing weight. They would have to dump a lot of fuel before returning to the airport.
To land safely, they would need the EFB. Pulling the EFB out of its storage compartment, the first officer realized the mistake after retrieving it and checking the screen. Then the augmenting first officer pointed out something concerning : the aircraft was not pressurizing. When the tail scraped against the runway, it had done it with such force that the skin of the aircraft itself had been worn away, creating multiple holes. The plane was no longer a sealed vessel. The captain declared a pan pan to the tower control which is one step below declaring a mayday. Air traffic control dispatched vehicles to assess the damage on the runway. As for the pilots they had an important balance to strike about the fuel they would dump. On one hand they wanted to land under the maximum landing weight of 243 tons Any heavier than that and they risked damaging the aircradt during landing, which was made riskier by the fact that they didn't know how damaged the tail already was. On the other hand, to get under the maximum landing weight, they would have to dump almost all the fuel. If they needed a second or third attempt to land, they would need plenty of fuel. But doing this would require being overweight for their first landing attempt. At the end, the pilots decided to dump 80 tons of fuel. This would get their weight down to 280 tons which was still 37 tons above their maximum landing weight but with enough to spare if they made a few attempts to land. They made 3 independant calculations for landing performance, 2 of them using the EFB and 1 of them using the aircraft's quick reference handbook. While at the ground, the sterile cockpit rule didn't apply. In a sterile cockpit, there can't be any conversation other than about the flight. This rule is reinforced during high workload stages of flight like while maneuvering on the ground and anytime below 10 000 feet.