Individualism and Fascism
Modern political thought has given a considerable amount of attention to the conception of the individual's function in modern society. In this paper, I will discuss the fascist philosophy on individualism. Using the Italian philosopher Alfredo Rocco's arguments on this topic, I will consider how Liberalism, Democracy and Socialism are closely related, while Fascism can be seen as the true antithesis to Liberalism. In this process I will review Fascism and its principles. I will also elaborate upon the similarity of Ernst Huber's personal liberty and Karl Marx's ideas of personal property and the need to eliminate these freedoms for the benefit of the State.
Alfredo Rocco, in his Political Doctrine of Fascism, discusses the common basis of all political doctrines of his time in Europe. He illustrates the similarities of individual's roles in Liberalism, Democracy and Socialism by stating that Liberalism, Democracy and Socialism "consider the welfare and happiness of individuals to be the goal of society" (280).
In Rocco's opinion, these political theories use the society as a means to protect the individual's liberties. He declares that these social theories hold this end, but differ only in their methods for attaining this end (i.e. individual liberty).
In Rocco's explanation of the Liberal theory, he explains that Liberal societies contend that the manner to secure the welfare of its citizens is to interfere as little as possible in the affairs of its citizens. He further defines this theory by stating that Liberalism sets up boundaries for its government in order that it does not sacrifice the freedom of its individuals. By a system of limitations, Liberalism disallows the State ...
... middle of paper ...
...dual. Thus, he states, "there can no longer be any question of a private sphere" (326).
Much to the similarity of Huber, Karl Marx believes that in the Socialist society compliance by all is necessary for the advancement of Socialist movement. Marx believes that in Socialism, the concept of a classless state is the goal. To achieve this Marx believed that it is necessary to place all of its citizens on a par of economic equality by eliminating free selling and buying. He held that if selling and buying were vanquished, free selling and buying would vanquish also. Thus its citizens would share equal economic rights.
Both philosophers could be distinguished as using a Machiavellian approach to their political theories. This concept of the ends justifying the means is clearly demonstrated by the stripping of individual liberties for the benefit of the masses.
Liberalism is an ideology which advocates equality of opportunity for all within the framework of a system of laws. It includes a belief in government as an institution whose primary function is to define and enforce the laws. Furthermore, a Constitution, must be developed not solely by one ruler but by representatives of the elite groups. Therefore, liberalism invariably involves a belief in the need for legislative bodies which represent the influential groups. The Constitution then defines ...
Multiple historians have touched on the change in government during Fascist Italy’s reign in World War II. In Italian Fascism: Its Origins and Development, Alexander De Grand clarifies the many promises Benito Mussolini fabricated for the Italian people in order to get them to join his cause such as the improvement on poverty with the rise of a new Roman Empire. De Grand also gives an opposite view, with some citizens seeing Fascism as a “model of efficiency.” In Melton S. Davis’ Who Defends Rome?, t...
-Edwards A., Towshend J., Interpreting modern political philosophy- From Macchiavelli to Marx, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
In the 1800’s, the social structure of Europe was changing. The industrial revolution brought new technologies and techniques that lead to more production, and a more prosperous European society. With these great changes to society and the way things were produced, changes in the government and how the society was run was imminent. Both The Law by Frederic Bastiat and Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx present new and fresh ideas on how society should be governed, Bastiat going into the concepts of liberalism and Marx the concepts of communism, both of which are oriented to the individual rights of people in these European societies.
Communism and fascism are two influential ideologies associated with European totalitarianism in the 20th century. Though communism contributed to the rise of fascism and Soviet Union’s expansion during Cold War, I believe that fascism had more influence at the time: its favor of authoritarianism gave rise to violent dictatorship in fascist nations, its hatred for other races led to the notorious Holocaust, and its ultranationalism stimulated German expansionism which catalyzed the outbreak of WWII; those catastrophes controlled the way people lived, caused great damage to the involved nations and races, and ultimately led to new world order with United States and Soviet Union as sole superpowers.
Karl Marx was a nineteenth century, German philosopher, economist, a revolutionary socialist whose philosophy known as Marxism became the foundation of communism. ”Despite Karl Marx stating social classes are the
Each and every individual country has its own ideologies, economies, and ways of governing. In the early 1900’s Italy had developed its own ideology that had a huge impact on the lives of the Italian people. This ideology was known as Fascism. Fascism was not only a way of governing, but it was also known as a social organization. Fascism became what it was in response to the movement of social theories. There is much more behind the idea of fascism such as where it came from, who the creator of Fascism was, and why it was popular among many civilians.
Mussolini’s population policy was a clear effort to exercise his authoritarian control over the people of Italy, regulating the most personal and private details of their lives. In his bid for complete control, he used new laws, propaganda, and sometimes brutal tactics in order for his wishes to be recognized. It is during the 1920’s to the 1940’s that totalitarian control over the state escalated into full dictatorships, with the wills of the people being manipulated into a set of beliefs that would promote the fascist state and “doctrines.”
Rousseau’s political theory revolves around a central idea that in order to deal with moral or political inequality (“social” inequality), man must move out of the state of nature and establish a social contract, “a form of association which defends and protects… the person and goods of each associate, and by the means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 432). Although Rousseau’s plan pledges to protect individual liberty, the plan rests on the legislation of the “general will” and the successful unity of a “body politic,” both of which are vaguely defined and become too concerned with state interest.
The pieces on liberalism and conservatism has shown how different the two ideologies mean compared to the labels we see in American politics. The media has made it seems as though conservatives (which in the U.S. is becoming synonymous with Republican) is all against change, while liberals (Democrats) lie in the exact opposite of the spectrum: promoting changes. However, the essays by Locke, Berlin, and Oakeshott showed us how the two ideologies are much deeper than that. It is not just a manual of how to govern a nation, but rather ideals and philosophies. Furthermore, while contemporary politics have created an illusion that there is a clear and definite distinction between liberalism and conservatism, these essays show that they actually do overlap in many ways. In "Two Concepts of Liberty", Berlin categorizes liberty as "positive" and "negative". Positive liberty defines freedom as an individual being able to control his life and decisions in his own interests. On the other hand, in negative liberty, freedom exist when an individual is free from external interference. The major difference between the two concepts of liberty is that positive liberty focuses on the capability of an...
...posit is made with the whole, with no individual. The contract is equal, for each gives all. No one reserves any rights by which he can claim to judge of his own conduct” (Strauss and Cropsey 1987, 568).
Born from the revolutions of 1848 throughout Europe, Marxism sought to end the class struggles that were destroying the continent. The solution to the problems of all nations occurred to Marx to be Socialism, a branch that is presently known as Marxism. Under this seemingly “utopian” socioeconomic system, equality was granted to all citizens who were in essence a community of one. “. . . universal free education; arming of the people; a progressive income tax; limitations upon inheritance; state ownership of banks. . .”(Palmer 506). These rights of which constituted Marxism eventually went on to be incorporated in Leninism and modern-day socialism. At least in its beginning, the intent of Marxism and the Communist League were noble towards the goal o...
Karl Marx noted that society was highly stratified in that most of the individuals in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto where he described a new society, a more perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all property is held in common, that is a society in which one individual did not receive more than another, but in which all individuals shared in the benefits of collective labor (Marx #11, p. 262). In order to accomplish such a task Marx needed to find a relationship between the individual and society that accounted for social change. For Marx such relationship was from the historical mode of production, through the exploits of wage labor, and thus the individual’s relationship to the mode of production (Marx #11, p. 256).
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have
However, social anarchists exemplify that humans are first and foremost sociable beings and so these anarchists are against the individual presiding over society. Individualist anarchists take a stronger stance on the “sovereignty of the individual” with Stirner heavily emphasising that humans are naturally egoistic, should be completely unsuppressed to pursue their own will and would co-operate only on self-interest1. Likewise, classical liberals also outline the worth of the individual with Mill opposing “the tyranny of the majority”, what he believed was the marginalisation of those who did not agree with the popular opinion of society whilst the majority views were endorsed by “public authorities”2. Stirner and Mill represent the views of many individualist anarchists and classical liberals by suggesting contempt for the notion of community and society which they believe suppressed the individual 's egotistical nature, instead desiring that each individual be separately recognised rather than being merged into a group. Both anarchism and liberalism suggest that individuals are rational and are capable of forming personal opinions but collective activity, particularly societal and governmental ensures that individual voices are ignored as they focus on collective interests rather than individual