My socialistic faith

[Sirona]

The thread is about socialism, though.
Not the EU.
Es tut mir leid, aber ich soll das unterstreichen.

The idea of European Union after World War 2 is based on Catholic social teaching, an area of Catholic teaching that deals with issues of human dignity and the common good in society. According to Wikipedia, its ideas deal with oppression, the role of the state, subsidiarity, social organization, concern for social justice, and issues of wealth distribution. Accordingly, there is, if not unity, then overlap with corresponding concerns of socialism, which is atheistic. In Germany at least, the application of the principles of Catholic social teaching as distinct from socialism is called social democracy. Accordingly, I certainly think that the EU as a representative and defender of social democratic values has something to do with what is often called "socialism" in this forum.

 

[Estro Felino]

The idea of European Union after World War 2 is based on Catholic social teaching, an area of Catholic teaching that deals with issues of human dignity and the common good in society. According to Wikipedia, its ideas deal with oppression, the role of the state, subsidiarity, social organization, concern for social justice, and issues of wealth distribution. Accordingly, there is, if not unity, then overlap with corresponding concerns of socialism, which is atheistic. In Germany at least, the application of the principles of Catholic social teaching as distinct from socialism is called social democracy. Accordingly, I certainly think that the EU as a representative and defender of social democratic values has something to do with what is often called "socialism" in this forum.

The so called Troika is nothing but a dictatorship of usurocracy.
The Troika has destroyed Greece. They have nothing socialistic...they are the panderers of bankers and speculators.

 

[metis]

The so called Troika is nothing but a dictatorship of usurocracy.
The Troika has destroyed Greece. They have nothing socialistic...they are the panderers of bankers and speculators.

Where do you get "Troika" out of what was posted by @Sirona ?

 

[Estro Felino]

Where do you get "Troika" out of what was posted by @Sirona ?

Troika is the monstrous three-headed entity made up of the European Commission, the ECB and the IMF.
Since we are talking about EU...

 

[Stevicus]

The so called Troika is nothing but a dictatorship of usurocracy.
The Troika has destroyed Greece. They have nothing socialistic...they are the panderers of bankers and speculators.

There have been other historical examples of triumvirates being used as a temporary compromise, such as in Ancient Rome, and even in the USSR, with the Troika between Stalin, Kamenev, and Zinoviev - which was a maneuver against Trotsky after Lenin's death. Then there were some military juntas in Latin America. I suppose it can work if the three can work together and aren't enemies.

 

[Estro Felino]

There have been other historical examples of triumvirates being used as a temporary compromise, such as in Ancient Rome, and even in the USSR, with the Troika between Stalin, Kamenev, and Zinoviev - which was a maneuver against Trotsky after Lenin's death. Then there were some military juntas in Latin America. I suppose it can work if the three can work together and aren't enemies.

For instance...all these people...Lenin...Trotsky were certainly not Christians.
That's why Bolshevism successfully de-christianized Russia.

 

[Stevicus]

For instance...all these people...Lenin...Trotsky were certainly not Christians.
That's why Bolshevism successfully de-christianized Russia.

I suppose on an official basis, this may have been true. But considering the centuries of tsarist repression, they may have blamed the church as well. Stalin attended a seminary for a short while, but he got kicked out.

I don't think that they ever really de-Christianized Russia, at least not successfully. Christianity has come back in Russia.

 

[Estro Felino]

I suppose on an official basis, this may have been true. But considering the centuries of tsarist repression, they may have blamed the church as well. Stalin attended a seminary for a short while, but he got kicked out.

I don't think that they ever really de-Christianized Russia, at least not successfully. Christianity has come back in Russia.

I can tell you an anecdote.
As you know, Mussolini was a staunch atheist and a staunch socialist. Like his father, who named him after Benito Juarez, the Mexican hero of populism. Benito is not an Italian name, indeed.
His first mistress was Angelica Balabanoff, an Italo-Russian woman who did believe in the Russian Revolution, because she and Benito had socialistic ideas, so they were incredibly enthusiastic about what was happening in Russia. But, after going to Russia, and seeing how nihilistic and self-destructive the regime was (it's sufficient to read Doctor Zhivago, I guess: that suffices), she returned to Italy, disappointed. And she surely denounced all that to Mussolini, who was disappointed as well.
In the meantime, Italy was on the verge of a Bolshevik Revolution, because Communists were taking over. Taking over the factories, the agrarian fields, everything.
The King used to appoint really unfit liberals as Prime Ministers. One failure after the other. The king was terrorized by a Bolshevik Revolution happening in Italy.
Mussolini and his fellow moderate socialists decided to ally themselves with the nationalists. Who called themselves fasci di combattimento. They had created an army which could outnumber the King's army.
In those years, called the Red Biennium Mussolini became their leader. That's how fascism was born.
The King appointed Mussolini as Prime Minister because he was the only one who could prevent a Bolshevik Revolution from happening.
This truth is taught in every school, in Italy. And that's what the history teachers taught me.

Unfortunately, Americans believe Mussolini was a rightist leader. Which is false.
He has never been a rightist or a elitist leader. He was a socialist born in a very humble family.


This anecdote is very useful to understand that socialists are not as nihilistic and destructive as those who took over in Russia in the twenties.
Fortunately, after Stalin, Soviet Russia became more and more modern.

 

[Stevicus]

I can tell you an anecdote.
As you know, Mussolini was a staunch atheist and a staunch socialist. Like his father, who named him after Benito Juarez, the Mexican hero of populism. Benito is not an Italian name, indeed.
His first mistress was Angelica Balabanoff, an Italo-Russian woman who did believe in the Russian Revolution, because she and Benito had socialistic ideas, so they were incredibly enthusiastic about what was happening in Russia. But, after going to Russia, and seeing how nihilistic and self-destructive the regime was (it's sufficient to read Doctor Zhivago, I guess: that suffices), she returned to Italy, disappointed. And she surely denounced all that to Mussolini, who was disappointed as well.
In the meantime, Italy was on the verge of a Bolshevik Revolution, because Communists were taking over. Taking over the factories, the agrarian fields, everything.
The King used to appoint really unfit liberals as Prime Ministers. One failure after the other. The king was terrorized by a Bolshevik Revolution happening in Italy.
Mussolini and his fellow moderate socialists decided to ally themselves with the nationalists. Who called themselves fasci di combattimento. They had created an army which could outnumber the King's army.
In those years, called the Red Biennium Mussolini became their leader. That's how fascism was born.
The King appointed Mussolini as Prime Minister because he was the only one who could prevent a Bolshevik Revolution from happening.
This truth is taught in every school, in Italy. And that's what the history teachers taught me.

Unfortunately, Americans believe Mussolini was a rightist leader. Which is false.
He has never been a rightist or a elitist leader. He was a socialist born in a very humble family.


This anecdote is very useful to understand that socialists are not as nihilistic and destructive as those who took over in Russia in the twenties.
Fortunately, after Stalin, Soviet Russia became more and more modern.

People often speak of socialism in monolithic terms, but it's never really been like that, since it can vary in its form depending on the culture and historical influences of the country it might happen to be in. That's where I find the "system builder" line of reasoning to be fundamentally flawed, as they ostensibly view the abstract "system" as the be-all and end-all - without taking into consideration...everything else that is concrete and real.

I think what happened in Russia in the 1920s and 30s was the culmination of centuries of tsarist oppression and abuse, along with the immense death and destruction of WW1 and the Russian Civil War. The Tsar may have expressed some regret just before his death: "These are our Russians. We created them. If there's hate in them now, it's because I put it there." I've heard some say that with Lenin, it was personal, since he blamed the Tsar for the death of his brother.

I suppose that would come across as more nihilistic, bitter, and self-destructive, but in some ways, I still try to empathize considering the amount of suffering and trauma the whole nation had gone through for nearly a millennium. I think that's more likely what caused and influenced a lot of the attitudes, actions, and decisions of that regime - not really because of an abstract ideology or "system." But it also explains why that particular style was not palatable or congruent with other countries which had a different background and history.

One thing to keep in mind about the Russians is that, while they learned about writing and Christianity from the Greeks, they learned about politics and war from the Mongols - which is something that most of the rest of Europe never really experienced.

In the rest of Europe, nationalism took a stronger hold, as that was clearly an effective means of firing up and unifying the populace of a given national group. This would also entail some economic reforms which would be beneficial to the working classes, while not imposing too heavily on the wealth and status of the upper class. The bourgeois class was satisfied that Mussolini could keep order, and they could still maintain their upper class status - and it seemed to generate a good amount of zeal and loyalty among the working classes. There was also genuine fear of Russia, as there had been for centuries, mainly due to their size and power.

 

[Estro Felino]

People often speak of socialism in monolithic terms, but it's never really been like that, since it can vary in its form depending on the culture and historical influences of the country it might happen to be in. That's where I find the "system builder" line of reasoning to be fundamentally flawed, as they ostensibly view the abstract "system" as the be-all and end-all - without taking into consideration...everything else that is concrete and real.

I think what happened in Russia in the 1920s and 30s was the culmination of centuries of tsarist oppression and abuse, along with the immense death and destruction of WW1 and the Russian Civil War. The Tsar may have expressed some regret just before his death: "These are our Russians. We created them. If there's hate in them now, it's because I put it there." I've heard some say that with Lenin, it was personal, since he blamed the Tsar for the death of his brother.

I suppose that would come across as more nihilistic, bitter, and self-destructive, but in some ways, I still try to empathize considering the amount of suffering and trauma the whole nation had gone through for nearly a millennium. I think that's more likely what caused and influenced a lot of the attitudes, actions, and decisions of that regime - not really because of an abstract ideology or "system." But it also explains why that particular style was not palatable or congruent with other countries which had a different background and history.

One thing to keep in mind about the Russians is that, while they learned about writing and Christianity from the Greeks, they learned about politics and war from the Mongols - which is something that most of the rest of Europe never really experienced.

In the rest of Europe, nationalism took a stronger hold, as that was clearly an effective means of firing up and unifying the populace of a given national group. This would also entail some economic reforms which would be beneficial to the working classes, while not imposing too heavily on the wealth and status of the upper class. The bourgeois class was satisfied that Mussolini could keep order, and they could still maintain their upper class status - and it seemed to generate a good amount of zeal and loyalty among the working classes. There was also genuine fear of Russia, as there had been for centuries, mainly due to their size and power.

That's very insightful. Russians have lots of European spirit within them, but there is an Asiatic component, as you said. Which is hardly understandable in the eyes of an European.

Mussolini was never liked by the élites.
He was a proud intellectual who loved to hang out with farmers and factory workers. His wife was a proud farmer who knew how to run a farm, how to sew, cook, iron.
He loved the populace. He expropriated the lands from the aristocrats and gave them to the people.

Unfortunately the narrative of a Mussolini loving the people is very bothersome to the Anglo-Saxon powers who won the war. And they needed to demonize him, by presenting him as a snobbish aristocrat hanging out with other aristocrats...or something like that.

Fascists were wicked. That's true. They were murderous delinquents.
And Mussolini himself defined them as a delinquents' association.
But Mussolini was not a fascist. He was a socialist.

 

[metis]

As you know, Mussolini was a staunch atheist and a staunch socialist

The key word above is "was".

Unfortunately, Americans believe Mussolini was a rightist leader. Which is false

Mussolini founds the Fascist party - HISTORY

Benito Mussolini - Wikipedia [As dictator of Italy and principal founder of fascism, Mussolini inspired and supported the international spread of fascist movements during the inter-war period.[2][3][4][5][6]]

 

[Estro Felino]

The key word above is "was".



Mussolini founds the Fascist party - HISTORY

Benito Mussolini - Wikipedia [As dictator of Italy and principal founder of fascism, Mussolini inspired and supported the international spread of fascist movements during the inter-war period.[2][3][4][5][6]]

So?
He remained a socialist.

 

[Valjean]

So?
He remained a socialist.

How are you defining socialism, then?
Mussolini began as a socialist, but later created an autocratic, anti-democratic, nationalistic government.
Power and authority were centralized, rather than distributed, industry was controlled, and the interests of the state took precedence over the interests of individual people. "Everything in the state, Nothing Outside the state. Nothing against the state."

That doesn't seem very socialist. What similarities or overlaps between Fascism and Socialism am I missing?

 

[Estro Felino]

How are you defining socialism, then?
Mussolini began as a socialist, but later created an autocratic, anti-democratic, nationalistic government.
Power and authority were centralized, rather than distributed, industry was controlled, and the interests of the state took precedence over the interests of individual people. "Everything in the state, Nothing Outside the state. Nothing against the state."

That doesn't seem very socialist. What similarities or overlaps between Fascism and Socialism am I missing?

He nationalized Bankitalia.
The Bank of Italy which used to be privately owned.
He outlawed Freemasonry, which is the epitome of the anti-socialism. Since Freemasons is a Us vs Them confraternity.

 

[Valjean]

He nationalized Bankitalia.
The Bank of Italy which used to be privately owned.
He outlawed Freemasonry, which is the epitome of the anti-socialism. Since Freemasons is a Us vs Them confraternity.

Yes, he said Fascism was a merger of state and corporate power, too, but his concept of state was totalitarian, not social, and by "merger" he meant control.

Privatization isn't socialism. Socialism would be a bank as a depositor managed co-op.

Fascism tends to outlaw anything that is not part of The State, including dissenting opinions and free speech. Not so socialism.
Mussolini said:

* "Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy."
* "Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail."
* "The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative."

This does not sound socialist.

 

[metis]

So?
He remained a socialist.

"You can have your own opinions but not your own facts" as socialism simply is not fascism.

 

[Revoltingest]

"You can have your own opinions but not your own facts" as socialism simply is not fascism.

But @Estro Felino is correct that they can co-exist.
(I'll skip my proof that they always co-exist.)

 

[Estro Felino]

"You can have your own opinions but not your own facts" as socialism simply is not fascism.

With all due respect...
But an American person cannot dictate what a historical character is...if it belongs to the history of another country, other than the USA.
I don't rewrite American history...so I expect foreigners to do the same.

 

[metis]

With all due respect...
But an American person cannot dictate what a historical character is...if it belongs to the history of another country, other than the USA.
I don't rewrite American history...so I expect foreigners to do the same.

The truth is not relative to which country we may live in, plus I studied the Holocaust and fascism here in the States, Poland and Israel in 1991, and the Netherlands and Israel in 1998.

Let me highly recommend the book "Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present" by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who's a well-known expert on the subject.

Take care, my friend.

 

[Estro Felino]

The truth is not relative to which country we may live in, plus I studied the Holocaust and fascism here in the States, Poland and Israel in 1991, and the Netherlands and Israel in 1998.

Let me highly recommend the book "Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present" by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who's a well-known expert on the subject.

Take care, my friend.

With all due respect, you studied in countries that are not Italy.
Italy has a very peculiar history and culture, that is light years away from Northern Europe.
You surely are very informed about the Holocaust, Nazism, and all that happened in Poland.

I studied Fascism, the laws of Fascism from a juridical and an economic point of view. In Italian.
I ascertained that Fascism had a socialistic leader and his name was Benito Mussolini. I have countless documents that prove that.