Fascism, capitalism, modernity

In this article I respond to the important questions raised by Roger Griffin and David D. Roberts by asserting the following points. First, that there is no justification to the position that the historical function of fascism was to establish the political hegemony of finance capital, as Marxist-Leninist scholars have maintained without providing a shred of evidence in support of their position. On the contrary, fascism was an epochal phenomenon which occured on several continents and had features which point to a declaration of war against bourgeois society, its power structures, its values and its way of life. It was a revolt generated by disgust for a world dominated by those whom Hitler called ‘the worshippers of Mammon’. Second, that fascism was not at all an alternative modernity, but a violent and radical reaction which rejected all the values and institutions of the modern world, from individual freedom to the rights of man and citizen, from pluralist democracy to secularization. Third, that the history of fascism, like the history of communism, has shown that ideas are no mere fantasmagorical reflexes of the socioeconomic structure, as Marxist sociology claims. This was demonstrated by its political ideology, which was intent on revolutionizing the foundations of society and producing a new man, diametrically opposed to the ‘bourgeois’

Bourgeoisie · Capitalism · Communism · Democracy · Hegemony · Ideology · Marxist philosophy · Modernity · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Italian Fascism and Post-war Society · Law · Philosophy · Political Economy and Marxism · Religious studies · Religious Studies

• Left, right or something else? José Ortega y Gasset’s intellectual influence in the ideological realm

  Open Access•Björn Boman•SN Social Sciences•2024

  Add to list

• Fascism, Marxism, and the Question of Modern Revolution

  Open Access•David D Roberts•European Journal of Political…•2010

  Add to list