3 ms·

In the article, it is written: "many fascist-leaning Futurist manifestos published in the early 20th century that called for the destruction of the old in favor

In the article, it is written: "many fascist-leaning Futurist manifestos published in the early 20th century that called for the destruction of the old in favor of the new in fields such as poetry, painting, and cinema" These Manifesti were not, and could not be, fascist or fascist-leaning because they were all written before the Fascist party was founded by Mussolini in 1919. Mussolini was a socialist until 1914; fascism did not exist as either a movement or a party when most of the Manifesti were published, which makes it impossible for them to be either fascist or fascist-leaning. The Manifesto della Pittura Futurista [Manifesto of Futurist Painting] was published in 1910. The Manifesto Tecnico della Letteratura Futurista [Technical Manifesto of Futurist Literature] was published in 1912. Etc., etc. You can find all the manifestos here https://futurismo.accademiadellacrusca.org/manifesti.asp https://futurismo.accademiadellacrusca.org/manifesti.asp Some of the Manifesti, a bit more than one year ago, were shown at the Center Pompidou in Paris.

panick21_ 4y ago
So is Facism futurist?
ethbr0 4y ago
The trapdoor from socialism to fascism is fascinating. From one ideological perspective: it's an impossible conversion. But from a practical perspective: once you've pledged allegiance to greater good absolutely, and set up coercive power structures to enforce same... it's not even a jump to go ahead and centralize management.
- comte7092 4y ago
  > But from a practical perspective: once you've pledged allegiance to greater good absolutely, and set up coercive power structures to enforce same You’re making the same mistake that is being called out here in the thread. Mussolini left socialism before the Bolsheviks took power in Russia. There was no precedent for socialist governance at the time. To say that being a socialist in 1914 meant “pledging yourself to a greater power absolutely” greatly misses the actual historical context in which those parties developed.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    My comment was ambivalent as to ultimate socialist governance, and was only opining on the surprisingly frequent path from socialist adherence (in ideals) to fascist government (in actuality). If you're taking issue with socialism being "pledged allegiance to greater good absolutely" (my words), then how would you characterize its primary beliefs?
    - comte7092 4y ago
      Is it that frequent though? Outside of a few famous examples, eg mussolini, I am not aware of there being significant number of fascist movements/leaders that started out as socialists, outside of the interwar period. > If you're taking issue with socialism being "pledged allegiance to greater good absolutely" (my words), then how would you characterize its primary beliefs? Wikipedia has a fair standard definition: > Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic and social systems, which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production, with an emphasis on democratic control, such as workers' self-management, as opposed to private ownership. “Pledged allegiance to the greater good” really only applies to socialist parties that seized power through violent revolution, which is self selecting in a sense. Most of Western Europe has long traditions of socialist parties that entered electoral politics and didn’t advocate Stalinist dictatorship. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        The "greater good" in my point would be "social ownership of the means of production, with an emphasis on democratic control, such as workers' self-management" in the case of socialism. With adherent's agreement that that should be realized at any cost. It'd be a nuanced discussion to see how the trajectories of Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Burma, etc. didn't start with some variety of socialism, trend through communism, end up in de facto fascism, and then (mostly) relax back into state-directed capitalism.
        4y ago
burkaman 4y ago
But Manifesto della cucina futurista was published in 1931 as you said, so well after the Fascist party was founded. The majority (~65%) of the manifestos in the list you linked were published in 1919 or later. I guess maybe your point is that since this manifesto movement began before fascism, it's unfair or misleading to call them fascist, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time a political party has co-opted an existing movement and steered it towards a particular ideology. Also, if the party was founded in 1919, surely there must have been fascist-leaning writing in the years leading up to that. Political parties don't just spontaneously appear.
- borroka 4y ago
  That's what I wrote in my first comment: "The Manifesto della cucina Futurista was written in 1931, but it was, overall, forgettable: much more relevant for art and politics were the pre-WWI manifestos." So, yes, Manifesti were produced after 1919, but overall there were of low impact, the driving force of the futurist movement had been exhausted with the end of WWI. Similarly, D'Annunzio political and artistic contribution ended with the occupation of Fiume (I greatly recommend reading "La quinta Stagione" by Léon Kochnitzky or "Le mie stagioni" by Giovanni Comisso for entertaining accounts of the occupation of Fiume). After all, Marinetti had to do something with his life, and what he chose to do was writing increasingly irrelevant stuff. Fascism just used certain aspects of the message of the Futurists, and the most violent in particular. Mussolini was a pragmatic man, and he used what he needed when he needed it, without particular ideological concerns. For example, he first supported with money and press D'Annunzio and the Occupation of Fiume, but he quickly backpedaled when he understood that the wind was changing direction (many Futurists participated in the Occupation of Fiume). Futurism had as one the main aspect of their message the destruction of museums, all that was ancient and dusty had to be abandoned; Fascism, on the other hand, was looking at the Roman Empire and the classical world as inspiration and motivation for a great, new Italian empire of sort. I could not find more opposite messages. As for the comment, "Also, if the party was founded in 1919, surely there must have been fascist-leaning writing in the years leading up to that. Political parties don't just spontaneously appear." I disagree. Sure, there are not infinite political orientations that can be proposed, but fascism did not exist either as a word or a movement or a structure idea or message before 1915-1919, and if we group all right-wing, or authoritarian, or "violent" groups as fascists, we are not having an insightful conversation. There are many right-wing movements that are not fascist. Unfortunately, fascist and fascism have become terms of reference for authoritarian or right-wing or nationalist movements.

panick21_ 4y ago

So is Facism futurist?

ethbr0 4y ago

The trapdoor from socialism to fascism is fascinating. From one ideological perspective: it's an impossible conversion. But from a practical perspective: once you've pledged allegiance to greater good absolutely, and set up coercive power structures to enforce same... it's not even a jump to go ahead and centralize management.

comte7092 4y ago
> But from a practical perspective: once you've pledged allegiance to greater good absolutely, and set up coercive power structures to enforce same You’re making the same mistake that is being called out here in the thread. Mussolini left socialism before the Bolsheviks took power in Russia. There was no precedent for socialist governance at the time. To say that being a socialist in 1914 meant “pledging yourself to a greater power absolutely” greatly misses the actual historical context in which those parties developed.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  My comment was ambivalent as to ultimate socialist governance, and was only opining on the surprisingly frequent path from socialist adherence (in ideals) to fascist government (in actuality). If you're taking issue with socialism being "pledged allegiance to greater good absolutely" (my words), then how would you characterize its primary beliefs?
  - comte7092 4y ago
    Is it that frequent though? Outside of a few famous examples, eg mussolini, I am not aware of there being significant number of fascist movements/leaders that started out as socialists, outside of the interwar period. > If you're taking issue with socialism being "pledged allegiance to greater good absolutely" (my words), then how would you characterize its primary beliefs? Wikipedia has a fair standard definition: > Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic and social systems, which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production, with an emphasis on democratic control, such as workers' self-management, as opposed to private ownership. “Pledged allegiance to the greater good” really only applies to socialist parties that seized power through violent revolution, which is self selecting in a sense. Most of Western Europe has long traditions of socialist parties that entered electoral politics and didn’t advocate Stalinist dictatorship. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      The "greater good" in my point would be "social ownership of the means of production, with an emphasis on democratic control, such as workers' self-management" in the case of socialism. With adherent's agreement that that should be realized at any cost. It'd be a nuanced discussion to see how the trajectories of Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Burma, etc. didn't start with some variety of socialism, trend through communism, end up in de facto fascism, and then (mostly) relax back into state-directed capitalism.
      - 4y ago

burkaman 4y ago

But Manifesto della cucina futurista was published in 1931 as you said, so well after the Fascist party was founded. The majority (~65%) of the manifestos in the list you linked were published in 1919 or later. I guess maybe your point is that since this manifesto movement began before fascism, it's unfair or misleading to call them fascist, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time a political party has co-opted an existing movement and steered it towards a particular ideology. Also, if the party was founded in 1919, surely there must have been fascist-leaning writing in the years leading up to that. Political parties don't just spontaneously appear.

borroka 4y ago
That's what I wrote in my first comment: "The Manifesto della cucina Futurista was written in 1931, but it was, overall, forgettable: much more relevant for art and politics were the pre-WWI manifestos." So, yes, Manifesti were produced after 1919, but overall there were of low impact, the driving force of the futurist movement had been exhausted with the end of WWI. Similarly, D'Annunzio political and artistic contribution ended with the occupation of Fiume (I greatly recommend reading "La quinta Stagione" by Léon Kochnitzky or "Le mie stagioni" by Giovanni Comisso for entertaining accounts of the occupation of Fiume). After all, Marinetti had to do something with his life, and what he chose to do was writing increasingly irrelevant stuff. Fascism just used certain aspects of the message of the Futurists, and the most violent in particular. Mussolini was a pragmatic man, and he used what he needed when he needed it, without particular ideological concerns. For example, he first supported with money and press D'Annunzio and the Occupation of Fiume, but he quickly backpedaled when he understood that the wind was changing direction (many Futurists participated in the Occupation of Fiume). Futurism had as one the main aspect of their message the destruction of museums, all that was ancient and dusty had to be abandoned; Fascism, on the other hand, was looking at the Roman Empire and the classical world as inspiration and motivation for a great, new Italian empire of sort. I could not find more opposite messages. As for the comment, "Also, if the party was founded in 1919, surely there must have been fascist-leaning writing in the years leading up to that. Political parties don't just spontaneously appear." I disagree. Sure, there are not infinite political orientations that can be proposed, but fascism did not exist either as a word or a movement or a structure idea or message before 1915-1919, and if we group all right-wing, or authoritarian, or "violent" groups as fascists, we are not having an insightful conversation. There are many right-wing movements that are not fascist. Unfortunately, fascist and fascism have become terms of reference for authoritarian or right-wing or nationalist movements.