2 ms·

> The Italian Futurists were also not "proto-fascists", they were an art movement of which a small proportion of which later became involved with fascism. The

> The Italian Futurists were also not "proto-fascists", they were an art movement of which a small proportion of which later became involved with fascism. The founder of (Italian) Futurism, Marinetti, who is also the specific person that Andreesen quotes and includes as a saint of Techno-Optimism, was a supporter of Mussolini, directly. As in, he founded a political party and later merged it with Mussolini's fascist party, of which he became one of the first members. Also, both Ayn Rand and fascism - particularly the Futurist fascists - are very much on the same side of the political compass on most issues. Ayn Rand sees her philosophy as "anarchist", but she very much believes that lesser people should follow the Great Men who are the only ones who actually know what is good for everyone. As to how much Andreesen's published opinions are sincerely held or incoherent and just for show, I don't know. But fascism is on the rise again and it is still important to criticize those who espouse its virtues, even if only for show.

keiferski 3y ago
Futurism was quite different from fascism ideologically, at least in the beginning (i.e. when it was more of an art movement.) Futurism was forward-looking, Fascism was backward-looking. The fact that some of the people ended up being involved with each other throughout the political chaos of the 20s and 30s isn't as insightful as you think it is, as plenty of futurists also were more left-leaning. It's a chaotic period and the best way to think of it, I think, is that futurism was radical and that radicalism manifested into a wide variety of forms throughout Europe (including Russia.) https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/10to92r/how_did_futurism_evolve_into_fascism/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/10to92r/how_did... > Also, both Ayn Rand and fascism - particularly the Futurist fascists - are very much on the same side of the political compass on most issues. No, not really, and other than being labeled "right wing," which is itself a useless designation, they really have nothing in common at all on any significant level. A world run by Randians is very different from one run by fascists. This is...a basic fact. In any case, my overall point was merely that Andreesen et al are mostly just marketers who almost certainly don't understand/know the complex history of the people they're quoting – nor do the people using these quotes to tar them with an oversimplified label.
- simiones 3y ago
  You keep bringing up the broader Futurist movement, but I am discussing mostly one specific Futurist founder who was also an early member of the Italian Fascist party and lifelong supporter of Mussolini, and whom Andreesen quotes and considers a "saint" in his newest manifesto. Even though the broader movement was more complex and politically diverse, Andreesen is specifically praising the fascist, not the movement (without even something like "even though he later became a fascist, in the beginning [...]"). Also, while I don't think Ayn Rand saw it that way, I think it's pretty clear that her objectivism has the same Great Men ideology as much of fascist thought, and the same disdain for democracy, religion, and the needs of the people. It's true that objectivism is more individualistic while fascism is more collectivist, but they amount to the same observation in the end: the Great Men naturally rule over the unwashed masses.

keiferski 3y ago

Futurism was quite different from fascism ideologically, at least in the beginning (i.e. when it was more of an art movement.) Futurism was forward-looking, Fascism was backward-looking. The fact that some of the people ended up being involved with each other throughout the political chaos of the 20s and 30s isn't as insightful as you think it is, as plenty of futurists also were more left-leaning. It's a chaotic period and the best way to think of it, I think, is that futurism was radical and that radicalism manifested into a wide variety of forms throughout Europe (including Russia.) https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/10to92r/how_did_futurism_evolve_into_fascism/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/10to92r/how_did... > Also, both Ayn Rand and fascism - particularly the Futurist fascists - are very much on the same side of the political compass on most issues. No, not really, and other than being labeled "right wing," which is itself a useless designation, they really have nothing in common at all on any significant level. A world run by Randians is very different from one run by fascists. This is...a basic fact. In any case, my overall point was merely that Andreesen et al are mostly just marketers who almost certainly don't understand/know the complex history of the people they're quoting – nor do the people using these quotes to tar them with an oversimplified label.

simiones 3y ago
You keep bringing up the broader Futurist movement, but I am discussing mostly one specific Futurist founder who was also an early member of the Italian Fascist party and lifelong supporter of Mussolini, and whom Andreesen quotes and considers a "saint" in his newest manifesto. Even though the broader movement was more complex and politically diverse, Andreesen is specifically praising the fascist, not the movement (without even something like "even though he later became a fascist, in the beginning [...]"). Also, while I don't think Ayn Rand saw it that way, I think it's pretty clear that her objectivism has the same Great Men ideology as much of fascist thought, and the same disdain for democracy, religion, and the needs of the people. It's true that objectivism is more individualistic while fascism is more collectivist, but they amount to the same observation in the end: the Great Men naturally rule over the unwashed masses.