Mussolini and Gentile | "The Doctrine of Fascism" | Philosophers Explained | Stephen Hicks
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- Philosophers, Explained covers major philosophers and texts, especially the great classics. In each episode, Professor Hicks discusses an important work, doing a close reading that lasts 40 minutes to an hour.
In this episode, Dr. Hicks discusses the essay "The Doctrine of Fascism" (1932) jointly written by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and Professor Giovanni Gentile.
Benito Mussolini(1883-1945) was an Italian journalist and politician. He was the founder and leader of the National Fascist Party in Italy. He was the Prime Minister of Italy from 1922-1943. Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944) was an Italian neo-Hegelian philosopher.
Timestamps:
00:00 A quote and introduction
00:58 The text
01:29 Fascism defined
02:18 Not just opportunistic politics
03:10 What kind of philosophy? Hegelianism.
04:00 Fascism is a spiritual attitude
06:51 This is an ethical system
09:08 Life is not about happiness
10:35 Liberalism denied the state
11:52 Conception of the state as totalitarian
15:45 Democracy is rejected
17:29 What do we mean by the collective?
19:08 The state has a will of its own
20:27 Fascism is a lawgiver, founder of institutions and an educator
21:52 Mussolini founds fascism
27:02 Fascism is not about the easy life
27:46 Fascism rejects peace and embraces war
32:20 Fascism rejects democracy
33:38 Rejection of reason as widespread
35:37 A spiritual collective
37:32 Fascism is totalitarian but pragmatic
43:38 It does not totally deny the individual
45:45 Fascism is not opposed to imperialism
Stephen R. C. Hicks, Ph.D., is Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, USA, and has had visiting positions at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., University of Kasimir the Great in Poland, Oxford University’s Harris Manchester College in England, and Jagiellonian University in Poland.
Other links:
Explaining Postmodernism audiobook: • Explaining Postmoderni...
Nietzsche and the Nazis audiobook: • Nietzsche and the Nazi...
Playlists:
Education Theory: • Education Theory
Entrepreneurship and Values: • Entrepreneurship and V...
Nietzsche: • Nietzsche
![LISA - ROCKSTAR (Official Music Video) REACTION [SHE'S BACK!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QBxE30vavMQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Finally someone who explains fascism fairly and with no normative commentary. I found myself agreeing with some of it and disagreeing with other parts of it. Thank you sir.
👋👋👋 finally a proper video on the subject ... finally a video that actually recognizes the role of Giovanny Gentile and the initial thoughts behind ... Fantastic video !!!
So underrated. I'm enjoying this lecture!
The 30 in the first series include:
1. Immanuel Kant
2. Plato
3. Galileo Galilei
4. Ayn Rand
5. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
6. René Descartes
7. Jean-Paul Sartre
8. Socrates
9. Martin Heidegger
10. Thomas Aquinas
11. Arachne and Athena
12. Aristotle
13. Albert Camus
14. Friedrich Nietzsche
15. John Dewey
16. Sigmund Freud
17. G.W.F. Hegel
18. William James
19. Søren Kierkegaard
20. John Locke
21. Karl Marx
22. John Stuart Mill
23. Thales
24. Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile
25. William Paley
26. C.S. Lewis
27. David Hume
28. John Maynard Keynes
29. Thomas Kuhn
30. George Orwell
Full Series playlist: th-cam.com/video/z-kR5Ove3tI/w-d-xo.html
Thank You, Professor Hicks!!!
This was excellent! Thank you.
Very interesting! Interesting that they understood that capitalism and classical liberalism tended towards peaceful relations but then embraced war. In that way they were like the Nazis. Also, interesting how they were collectivists (which conforms with what I understood).
It's funny they make those claims but turnaround and blame liberalism for WW1
Thank you for you help with this difficult topic. I have been reading Payne and about ready to give up. Now I can hopefully do better with that important work.
In order to understand Payne you have to understand the French revolution. Payne is very socialist that's why it's hard to read I was expecting the liberalism of the founding fathers and he's not that. He talks about "liberty" not liberty 😊
Nicely done
Next, Stephen should do Rudolph Jung's
"National Socialism: its Foundations, Development and Goals." And then Spengler's Prussian Socialism.
What if we just look at Fascism as an ideological expression and mechanism of control and power expressed after the fact. This social control model is used and leveraged by a certain type of person on a group of subordinate " sheeple". Hence the suppression of individual life and the expected renunciation of human self, materialism and self happiness. The control mechanism is the Fascist State.
Chicken and egg philosophy I admit.
Why « sheeple »?
Because of the type of nationalism?
@3-methylindole730 most people are good. And shy away from violence and factors of fear.
Nice doc…
"Make America Great"- Benito Mussolini- 1927 Brooklyn speech at the American-Nazi Bund.
I know it will open me to criticism, however, I can’t find fault in his thinking. I would feel comfortable in a state with these characteristics, I see those around me as needing order, intrinsically too stupid to be able to manage the freedoms they have been assigned. Like farm animals whom have broken through the farmyard fence and wondering on the highway.
... in theory only ... in practice , some animals will always try to bend rules from benefiting the farm to benefiting themselves ... you know , make some animals more equal than others ...
It works for bees and ants and such ... but humans are far more greedy and obssessed with power grabbing ...
@@klausklaus9112 Yes, but they do that now anyway too. That is a fixed variable.
Take Hitler as an example, with full disclosure that I’m not a historical expert of the third Reich. However, to the best of my knowledge, he didn’t rape the German state of its treasure, his only income was from book sales. So there was nothing intrinsically more corrupt about that regime than current liberal regimes, indeed, if I am correct, they were less corrupt. All I know is that when you look at what was achieved with limited resources, if you forget the genocidal aspects, they were very impressive as a state.
And people are too stupid apparently to know exactly when they or their loved ones should live or die. The state would know far better than you or I would. But then, in a fascist state neither my opinion or yours would be of any relevance.
@@Will46666 Of course they are. The elderly and sick are an appalling burden on societies where the state provide health and social care. If the care is from private means then keep them alive as long as you want to. It’s actually selfish of them to burden society and their families. The sick, disabled and the feeble minded carry defective genes that should be eliminated from the societal gene pool. Not suggesting they be euthanised, but they most certainly must be sterilised so they can’t spread the defect.
The Japanese had the best strategy, the elderly would ask their progeny to carry them to the mountains to let them die. That’s real kin altruism, by not burdening their families when they no longer make a useful contribution they are increasing the chances of their DNA within their progeny surviving to reproduction.
Eugenics is the kindest thing a society can do for the future generations, to move away from it is the height of selfishness.
You coulnt even write wandering. You wrote wondering instead so that doesnt say much for your level of education if you cant insert the correct word into your sentance.
Very good video essay, helped me understand fascism outside its contemporary use where it is used to describe individuals like Trump.
I would argue that the "European Left-Right" spectrum of the 1920s - 30s, that Giovanni mentioned in your video at 40: mins is still far Left on the American spectrum of Left and Right, where Classical Liberalism is today a right wing, conservative, centrist, moderate or libertarian platform.
The reality is left, and right, liberal conservative, in America means something completely different than in Europe and globally. In America, the most far right the most conservative person is still from a global or European perspective extremely liberal. Globally liberalism means the individual individual rights freedom Was conservatism is the Middle East and the way Japan used to be and the way monarchies were. So people on the right in America would actually be liberal from a global perspective because in Europe they’re pretty much all on the left but the conservative groups are your least leftist, and then your socialist or kinda in the middle, and then there’s your communist to the far left. And, of course, fascism is a left audiology and always was because of collectivist because it’s our Arion.
The reason people don’t understand these things is because people are not taught how to think. People are not thought how to think critically. People are taught what to believe today. It’s better to teach someone how to think so then they can reason any given situation. But they don’t want you to be able to use reason and logic and critical thinking. They want to spoonfeed you and have you believe exactly what they tell you. So that’s why people believe the things they believe because most people cannot think and be rational and logical and think critically. So they believe everything they’re told. And the left cannot defend communism and socialism will also eventually fail so you can be as people with that short term, but not long-term, so how do you get people to buy into left-wing ideologies? It always fail? By taking a left-wing ideology that is easier to manipulate into people thinking is right wing and make it the big bad bogeyman.
I don't know , the American right-wing is based in the "new right conservatism" of Reagan and Thatcher ( economic liberalism but social authoritarianism ) , not classical liberalism💯
The American right-wing is extremely anti-individualistic socially and culturally, and they demand conformity to the norms of the collective and the traditional hierarchy on things like gender expression , sexual orientation , gender roles , etc. , we're seeing this in America with the right-wing passing rafts of laws eroding individual freedoms like abortion bans , anti-LGBT laws , speech control laws that ban books and ideas like CRT , etc.
The European right-wing was also socially authoritarian, but also hadn't adopted economic liberalism yet and preferred economic systems like corporatism ( like conservative Francisco Franco and fascist Mussolini used ) to laissez-faire economics.
Why does the original document say that the fascists are on the left, while this one says that they are on the right ? Somewhere around 40:00.
Because the ONLY authorised translation says “Left”( capitalised), while the digitised online versions say “ “ right” “( uncapitalised and within parentheses ). Or they just completely leave out the section that refers to the left.
Interestingly, if you check the Wikipedia entry it uses the doctored digitised version that refers to the right. But they also have a link for the photocopy of the hard copy with the correct wording. You can fake the digitised version, but it’s not so easy with the hard copy.
The original Italian version was in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana. The authorised translation appears as the last chapter in Mussolini’s 1933 autobiography.
The obvious conclusion as to why they do it is to convince people that Mussolini was right wing and not left wing. Personally, it wouldn’t alter my opinion either way if I believed that he said “ right” rather than “ Left”. But a simple lie can tell way more than the truth ever can.
@@Will46666i cant find the link you mentioned.
I only found this
But it says “destra” in italian, that is right in english.
www.geocities.ws/fransavari/DottrinaFasc.pdf
The ant philosophy. We are all ants that function to work for the hive.
But humans aren’t ants. Is unnatural.
😀
👍🏼
Gentile is simply a genius.
struck by the fact Hicks makes the claim there can be no individualism in fascism. Yet, Gentile says the point is that individuals are only fully actualized via their group belonging in the nation-state.
Contrast that with communism, whose goal is to destroy all mediating traditions and institutions of belonging. Family, relgion, race, the nation-state. What is left? The pure individual. Alone, directionless, without history, without purpose, without grounding.
Fascism truly is the antidote to communism.
Absolutely.
The fact that Mussolini rejected internationalism doesn't mean that he was a nationalist. In fact he spoke out against nationalism again and again. Hicks should know that if he's studied the subject. Mussolini, like Hitler, was an imperialist, he did not respect other nations' right to their own borders. Nationalism is part of conservatism, it's no part of fascism. Again, Mussolini was not a right-winger, he was a leftist.
Sure you've got enough adverts?
TH-cam controls that. Get Premium and there are no commercials.