Revolutionary Apathy by 5cythe aka Robert Beister

Apathy and Optimism

Apathy is the lack of feeling towards the things around you, the general act of indifference to the things that you have no control over, this feeling has become the norm among workers as capitalism continues to deprives humanity of its natural state, as the alienation of Humanity from its labor and the very surroundings that the worker is indifferent to become more and more a separate entity that the worker cant get away from, trapped in a perpetual cycle that generates a  sense of numbness.

This apathy creates problems that can hurt the worker in the long run, not only physically but also psychologically as the individual tries desperately to shed himself of the lack of feeling that he has, this can take the common form of chemical dependency which is for a lack of a better word, cope for the lack of emotions that the person cannot control in the matter of whether they have it or not, since it is linked to the alienation stemming from capitalism which is unavoidable.

The other form this apathy can takes comes in the form of Racism and Generalized hatred for the “other”, this form of apathy is more common with Petty bourgeois teenagers and young adults, and it is easy to see why as these people grew up with promises that they were above the curb, their upbringing being in predominantly white suburbs where the alienation the proletariat feel early on is not known, but it should be noted that the feeling is not exclusive to the petty bourgeoisie, many lumpenproletariat and proletariat also turn towards racism to explain the apathy they feel and try to destroy it with the idea that the other races are to blame and must be destroyed or seperated.

The folly of this is that the alienation of society is not that simple, it is not based off one race, but the class that race belongs to as the bourgeoisie are a colorless amorphous blob that extracts value from everything and everyone no matter their race, the apathetic racist having tried to supplement his lack of being with the being of race, has created a paradigm where he must admit that the black proletariat is either in on the exploitation of Man or is a victim of it as well, but if the black proletariat is involved alongside the black bourgeoisie and must be eliminated for that then what is to be said about the relation between the white proletariat and the white bourgeoise?

And what if the black proletariat is like the white proletariat and is a victim of the same apathy that the white proletariat feels, then wouldnt the simple solution of this be closing rank and basing yourself off class rather than race?

The crux of this paradigm is that the apathetic racist must either shed his racism and embrace communism as the only solution to the apathy he feels, or must admit that race based capitalism is the answer that he is looking for, but this “solution” will not destroy apathy but rather deepen it as the apathetic racist has betted his entire hand on the wrong side and must now go into coping harder then when they lived prior to race-based capitalism.

The negativity generated by apathy has many forms not just as Racism but also in form of phobias ranging from those against members of other religions or those who don’t meet the status quo of mainstream capitalist norms. However to the opposite of this pole apathy can create the feeling of euphoric positivity, and this is where the ideology of Optimism can take form

Optimism is often seen as the opposite of apathy, the feeling of positivity towards your surroundings and the future, this is something of a misdirection as optimism is not the opposite of apathy, it is the opposite of pessimism, which is holding a more realistic view on the current state of things rather than looking to the future for the answers to all things, Optimism does not negate apathy as quite to the contrary it is itself a outgrowth of apathy.

Optimists must view the future as positive because of a lack of emotion they feel to the present, they have themselves chosen what can make them happy without really figuring out how to achieve it, pessimists are more vulgar in their apathy as they see the current state of things and criticise it and the view that it can be changed in the future off the merit that its the future.

As Trotsky put the optimist delusion of the future in 1901 

“The nineteenth century has in many ways satisfied and has in even more ways deceived the hopes of the optimist … It has compelled him to transfer most of his hopes to the twentieth century. Whenever the optimist was confronted by an atrocious fact, he exclaimed: What, and this can happen on the threshold of the twentieth century! When he drew wonderful pictured of the harmonious future, he placed them in the twentieth century.”

Optimism is one of the coping philosophies that came from the arising apathy within capitalism, its philosophy is rendered useless if you were to destroy the base contradictions within capitalism and so itself is also destroyed. What is the point of looking to the future when you are already happy in the current?

Not to say that optimism is itself bad, what is being said is that the idea that optimism and apathy as being opposites is untrue and even disregards the social origin of the two, one is alienation that came out of Capitalism and the other came from those who felt that alienation, Optimism is not a solution to the problems of the present because it is trying to reconcile the individual to the fact that they cannot solve the problems of today on an individual level and must be done socially in the form of one class destroying the other, and in essence destroying itself.

Revolutionary Apathy and Revolutionary Optimism

“How can Apathy be revolutionary?” You may be asking yourself,  it is not apathy that i believe is revolutionary or to even turn the emotionlessness of alienation into some kind of revolutionary thing that communists should embrace, but rather the act of feeling it towards the things that distract you can be revolutionary, the feeling of apathy towards the outside world is toxic if you do not understand the reasons behind it, but it can be revolutionary if you understand why and use that feeling to motivate yourself towards everything that is used to distract from revolution.

Apathy as a form of perspective makes the traps that the bourgeoisie have set up around the workers to make it harder to organize as a coherent class, as a coherent party or even as a coherent ideology, Sectarianism being the tool of the rulers to keep the workers in a state of perpetual civil war, fighting amongst each other over who deserves the handout that the owners give out from their halls of gold and amber, Revolutionary apathy means seeing these handouts and feeling nothing towards them, the only thing that matters is the Proletariat and the Proletarian revolution, to say that something must happen before the proletariat seizes power is nothing more than the echoes of Bourgeois idealism.

Revolutionary apathy does not mean to feel nothing, to not love or feel sympathy, on the contrary it means to only love the Proletariat, to feel sympathy for the workers of other nations oppressed by Imperialism and the heel of capitalist domination by those who would like to see the workers of the world under the umbrella of Capital, this goes double for the Proletariat in the US and in China, the only feeling that the proletariat should feel towards their respective State is to see its defeat underneath the wave of Revolution.

It would be easier to describe Revolutionary apathy in more detail when compared to  Revolutionary optimism, an idea created by Peruvian Stalinist Abimael Guzman who used it to explain why his Shining path guerrillas shouldn’t fear death, and to a lesser extent to justify his opportunistic terrorism, but what is its definition rather then the purpose of its creation?. The definition being that the revolutionary party must look at all revolutionary causes as good, or rather that there is no such thing as a bad deed done by the revolutionary party, we must look to the proletariat as the real future for humanity and they will inevitably come to the side of the communists when reached out.

As Comrade Chairman Mao put it:

“Marxist-Leninists have always had an attitude of revolutionary optimism towards the future of the cause of the proletarian revolution. We are profoundly convinced that the brilliant light of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of socialism and of Marxism-Leninism will shine forth over the Soviet land. The proletariat is sure to achieve complete and final victory on earth.”

This is opposite to Revolutionary apathy, the proletariat will not just become communists out of a predestined path like the revolutionary optimist suggests, but rather it is up to the workers party and the revolutionary workers to do this,, to bring other workers into the struggle for revolution and make our hope for the future a reality, to make the case that the only way forward is communism or destruction under the heel of capitalist exploitation, this is not a set in stone thing but rather a struggle that deserves the complete attention from Communists, who is it the communist should stand with? The proletariat or the party, to the revolutionary optimist it is the party because it will always draw the proletariat no matter their position in times of crisis, for the revolutionary apathetic it is the proletariat that we stand with, if the workers party cannot draw their own namesake then it is not a workers party, it is a party substituting itself for the workers.

But to the “revolutionary Maoists” at Struggle session they have this to say about those who criticize their infallible parties:

“Those who lack faith in the masses, who lack a proletarian worldview, are easily susceptible to hearsay and even the lies generated by class enemies. Inactive individuals who treat revolution as a sporting match actually take up such abhorrent activity as rumor-spreading and gossiping. A simple Twitter search about Maoism will find no shortage of accounts belonging to disorganized individuals with a fetish for the historic failed revisionist projects, and generally they are found spreading around what they consider to be the best gossip. They have fully given in to pessimism regarding any and all practical organizing carried out by Communists. Instead of going among the masses, they have cocooned themselves in the false reality of their internet echo chambers. Their “self-care” includes more pessimism, more self-deprecation, and more gossip. It is obvious that immersion in this environment has a powerful corrosive effect on these individuals.”

It is not a crime to say that we should be critical of the actions done by the party if it has done something warranted of criticism, and to say that the people critiquing them are being petty bourgeois moralists who are judging a revolutionary movement is quite hypocritical, Doubly so from people who claim to uphold a theory called “self-criticism”.

Revolutionary apathy is the attitude of decades with no revolution, even though there was struggle there has been no revolutionary party, And why is this? Because the revolutionary has become blinded by the lures and traps of the capitalists, the goal of socialism have become a phantom as the revolutionary party is turned into the electoralist lobbying group fighting for a more equitable capitalism (the comedy of this is lost on them because they would have to be marxist to understand it). The glitz and glamor of the future that is right around the corner has taken them for a fool.

As with all things the bourgeoisie have found a way to exploit the finer sentiments of Humanity, turning the double oppression of minority groups and imperialized people into the sandpits of struggle, all the bourgeoisie have to do is point and say “ah your complaints are warranted, but how about the oppression of black people. how can you organize yourselves if nobody is organizing for them” and they do it shamelessly as they continue to exploit both the white worker and black worker knowing well that the struggle for the vague mass of black people they are referring to is not the black worker themselves, but the black people as a race, and the class within that race that benefits most from the reforms of the capitalist state will be the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, why else is it the black petty bourgeoisie who call for reform and organize their protests while the black proletariat continue to be subject to bourgeois domination? 

It is not because the black petty bourgeoisie care about the black proletariat, just like the white petty bourgeoisie who will protest against government oversight and taxes until it is they who get the tax cut and will summarily leave the white proletariat down in the dirt. The skin may be different but the class remains the same and for the proletariat the road always leads back to wage labor, revolutionary apathy means seeing this for what it is, a trap that can only be destroyed by the united working class.

And what about the imperialized people of the world? The answer does not change with the introduction of an imperialized nation’s proletariat. The national bourgeoisie there have no sympathy for them and if anything they are worse then the international bourgeoisie because they will attach themselves to the proletariat like a parasite the very instant that the imperialist power is waning in the nation, so while they had used their proletariat as sheep to the slaughter for profit and the profit of the monopoly capitalist, but when the proletariat’s power is beginning to outweigh that of the imperialist the national bourgeoisie come and say “oh magnificent worker, don’t you see that we owners of the factories and farms were the victims of imperialism too.” they remark with one hand on heart and the other with its figures crossed on the back “Sure we took the international bourgeoisie’s money and protection from your assaults, but in our hearts we are still the members of your nation and so you must side with us over the imperialists”.

Revolutionary apathy means that the proletariat shouldn’t care if their bourgeoisie is

 a part of their nation or not. The only thing the proletariat should care about is the proletariat itself and not the identity that the bourgeoisie uphold in order to keep them on a leash that they must side with their nation rather than side with their class and overthrow those who exploit them for their labor power.

Class over Identity?

“Class reductionism” has become something of a dirty word in the vocabulary of modern “leftism” with it meaning someone who reduces everything to class, this line of reasoning comes into the direct path of what the bourgeoisie want, oh how convenient that the system that creates racism and the divides among the working class to prevent it from toppling the exploitation of the proletariat must first be reformed before we can unite as a class, how can the black proletariat be united with the white proletariat if the oppressive state is oppressing black people? 

“We must first side with black people as a whole, even the black petty bourgeois because they are oppressed too” shouts the black petty bourgeoisie who has substituted itself as the proletariat and has pretended to have attached itself to the struggle against capitalism. having organized another rally for themselves to be given the same benefits the white petty bourgeoisie have. Oh how they hue and cry over the ills of capitalism “capitalism is the problem and root of racism” they say “but before we destroy capitalism we first must reform the racist institutions that hold the black people under its thumb and that the white proletariat benefit from”, Admitting that capitalism is the problem does little when the proletariat is still disunited, when there is no workers party and the communists and socialists are too busy fighting themselves to even begin the process of building one.

Fighting to reform capitalism to the point of equitability has become one of the main forms of organizing that Comrades in the US have devoted themselves to and it has lead to nothing of substance, and has just led to greater oppression by the state with the protesting movement becoming demotivated and demoralized because they wasted month of energy and enthusiasm because reformism leads to greater suffering from the prolongation of capitalist atrophy. such is the case with what with the push to defund the police, after months of intense protests and rioting a handful of cities decided to defund their police by only about 5% and even then this meager offering did not last as only a few months later they have all but increased the polices budget after the contradictions of capitalism came to a head as unemployment increased and the increase of labor strikes occurring.

And why is this? Because the bourgeoisie have made it so by playing on the finer sentiments of mankind, all they have to do is dangle a little bit of capital in the face of the petty bourgeoisie and they are against any action of the revolutionary variety, and with members of the group that they doubly oppress in their pocket calling for reforms over revolution, the revolutionary must listen to them otherwise they are “apart of the problem”, the fault lies on both the identities movement and the leadership of said movement because if the movement is the movement that chose these leaders, is it not them who made the decision to put these rats on display? if you were to scream in shock that your movement is being co-opted by the bourgeoisie and their petty bourgeois pawns who lead the marches and give their speeches, then it is your own fault for putting your trust into the hand of vague identity politics using the phrases of Revolutionaries.

In the past the White proletariat took the bait of the Bourgeoisie, in the late 1880’s the owners hired black laborers to act as scabs during strikes and in response the all white workers took up clubs and rocks as they had done for years against the reactions of the bosses, the problem that arises from this is that they were unable to see that this was another form of Bourgeois tricksterism. The black strikebreakers were paid far less then they would if they were white but desperation created the feeling of having to take the scab work because it was the only one that was hiring, and in turn desperation in the white worker turned into hatred as they took this as being proof that the black worker was a pawn/collaborator. They were unable to see how the bourgeoisie had turned the working class against itself; it wasn’t until the IWW that the proletariat was able to see itself as stronger together rather than apart.

And this has continued somewhat today among the proletariat, especially aimed at immigrants who are believed to be an danger to the job market with their “overabundance of cheap labor” ironically though one of the largest anti immigrant unions is also the largest hispanic union, the united farm workers have spent the last couple decades funding anti immigrant politicians and even funded some of the fences that go along the southwest border with mexico. Not out of racial hatred but out of existential fear that the bourgeoisie will use scabs to take away jobs from union members and destroy the bargaining power that they currently have.

This is precisely where revolutionary apathy comes in, as with apathy the feeling of numbness to the things around you applied to the class outside of the proletariat regardless of identity should become the perspective of Revolutionaries, and it stands true in the US as the bourgeoisie tries everything in its power to divide the working class by concocting conspiracy within its ranks, and it is the “revolutionary optimists” who uphold these conspiracies.

The white petty bourgeois also take advantage of these conspiracies to continue its dominance within the economics of middlemen within the US, the overwhelming majority of reactionaries and white supremacists are either small business owners or the management for the many corporations that uphold a rigid hierarchy that can be comprised if reforms and concessions were given to POC, that would of course endanger the amount of privilege that they take for granted within class society. They then take the dispossessed and indoctrinate them into believing that the entirety of the black population is out to get them and it is quite easy to do this in the era of mass apathy as stated above, of course this does not mean that the white proletariat is susceptible frequently to racism or will naturally turn to racism instead it means that the white petty bourgeoisie take advantage of the situation more often then the Communists and Socialists.

Revolutionary apathy does not mean Class over Identity but rather that the class of an individual has more meaning than the identity of them, why should the proletariat care for the wellbeing of the bourgeoisie or the petty bourgeoisie just off the merit they are Hispanic/Black/Indigenious, why should the proletariat care whether their boss is a POC or LGBTQ+?  And that is the brunt of what it means to be revolutionary apathetic, why should the revolutionary care about anyone other then the proletariat, why should they care about the feelings of the petty bourgeoisie who cut costs at every level and do everything they can to swindle the money earned by the proletariat away from them? At the end of the day the Proletariat will hang the bourgeoisie regardless of their race or other identity.

Apathetic to all things non-Worker

In the era of atrophied capitalism that has humanity on the brink of extinction it is of the most importance that the traps of the bourgeoisie are seen for what they are as nothing more then distractions, if that means to ignore the “specifics of oppression” in favor of the focus being towards the oppression of the proletariat then so be it. The neo-Economism that has taken hold of Socialism by trying to relegate it to reformism for one section of society which can be quickly taken away from said section, oh how the bourgeoisie love reformism over struggle because it means the true backers of it get the true gains of said reforms, THE PETTY BOURGEOISIE.

This does not mean however that it is solely the petty bourgeoisie who push for these reforms, on the class level it is, but on the individual level there are those who opportunistically use identity as a way to advance themselves up the Capitalist social ladder to become influencers and grifters who leach themselves to the suffering of those under capitalism. Much like how the labor aristocracy leeches itself onto unions and uses it as a way to make money from donations made to them by either viewers or people who follow their content, this has created a group of pseudo-intellectuals who will use the clout that they gain over time from either their opinions or from video/written essays they have put out on the internet.

Throughout the Trump presidency there were always grifters popping up to take advantage of the growing white nationalist community who felt empowered by their rhetoric becoming mainstream and while most of them were either from petty bourgeois backgrounds, there was one who became a incredible success who continues to be a political power today(albeit in a much smaller capacity than during the Trump presidency) despite her background being much more proletariat of course. I am talking about Candice Owens who quickly became the “black republican” and head of the “urban outreach” section of turning point USA. Candice soon called for a mass exodus of black voters from the Democratic party to the Republican party which was a thinly veiled attempt by the Conservatives to get more votes, of course this didn’t really work but it still drew in a sizeable following among blacks who felt like the democratic party had betrayed them in some capacity or that it didn’t love america enough.

“Uncle tom” is often thrown at these conservatives over a perceived belief that they are betraying their blackness because they don’t conform to the stereotype that all black people must be a democrat, however Candice does not care either way as she has become both an advocate against identity politics while also being one of the forerunners of conservative identity politics and this showcases the grift of Candice, because the black community isn’t as homogeneous as a lot of people think it is easy to divide it among superficial political lines much like with how the white community also does not exist, each “community” is made up of individuals who are just lumped into it because they were born with a certain melanin level and this itself is a trap of the bourgeoisie. By homogenizing entire communities they make it a point to say how you must side with your identity or that you are a spokesperson for your identity, by doing this they have made it so that rather than thinking about your class you are instead thinking about your races place within society, and this again is where radicalization through apathy comes into play.

The owners do not care about the identity of those they exploit, they care about the amount of money it costs them to purchase their labor power and the amount of capital they will be able to extract from that labor power. There is also somewhat the boogeyman that out of mainstream identities become, the LGBTQ+ community was one of the and still is one of the largest boogeyman for the bourgeoisie to point to and say “look at the moral degenerates over there, can’t you see that the real problems with society and your lack of feeling is them, not the fact that we work you to the bone and discard you when you are too old”. 

Revolutionary apathies purpose is to see this and call it out, and callout the identity politics that are meant to keep the proletariat in a subordinated role among movements, the proletarian struggle should be the only struggle and it should be the proletariat and its revolutionary party that gives the workers spontaneity form and purpose rather then letting it sizzle in the waves of capitalist reaction and propaganda, this cannot be done if we continue to focus on minor reforms and identity politics, revolutionary apathy means apathetic to all things non-worker.

Apathetic to all things non-worker means that the revolutionary should only care about the Proletariat and the proletarian struggle and not relegate itself to the creations of the capitalist state, to say otherwise admits several contradictions in the head of those who believe that we must first reform capitalism to the point of equitability for all races before we close rank within the working class, it implies that the Black proletariat and White proletariat don’t share the same exploitation by the bourgeoisie. The blindness inhabited by those who continue to believe that the struggle for emancipation of humanity is through the colorless proletariat.

Apathy is a curse put on humanity by the emergence of Commodity production and the alienation of man by its own creations, Revolutionary Apathy means the reversal of this, the apathetic worker must look at the coping mechanisms created for them by the owners and say no and take power into their own hands. Revolutionary Apathies purpose is to look at the identity politics of the petty bourgeoisie who try and corral them into struggles with the intended goal of making their own lives better while leaving the Proletariat masses in a state of exhaustion and the same spot they were in, and say that the only class that will give them the freedom they want is the party they belong to and the only party that will support them in this goal of freedom is the workers party.

Revolutionary apathy when summed up is quite simple:

Why should I care about anything other than the proletariat of the world?

Fascism and Futurism Forever by Gio

My political journey has been abnormal compared to most people I’ve met in the online “Third Position” community. So I’ll start by divulging a bit about my background.

When I was 15 or 16 I heard The Feeding of the 5000 by Crass for the first time. I had been into punk music for a few years at this point starting with bands like Rancid, NOFX and Blink 182, and eventually moving on to Black Flag, Bad Brains and the Exploited, but nothing had prepared me up to that point for Crass. The rough, primitive and noisy sounds were certainly like nothing I had ever heard before, but what really stood out was the lyrics. Delivered in a thick British accent by Steve Ignorant, his lyrics were outraged and full of disgust but with a passionate belief that a better world was possible despite the seeming hopelessness of the situations we might find ourselves in. Something about it just really resonated with me on a visceral level. I soon learned that Crass were Anarchists.

The context of this is it is 2002. 9/11 has just happened, the War on Terror is in full swing, I’m starting to become politicized but haven’t really figured what to think about what I saw going on around me. This was my political awakening. Discovering Anarchism through Crass begins to give me some direction and understanding of the world I found myself in. I began reading the well known Anarchist figures like Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman and sorting out what I agreed with and what I didn’t.

I eventually settled myself on individualist Anarchism with Post-Left characteristics (or something like that). I agreed with the anti-war and anti-Capitalist sentiments of Anarchism, and hatred of cops, bosses and politicians came very naturally to me. But, I never really went along with the identity politics, inherent in leftism in general these days, and I found the collectivism and authoritarianism of Communism to be distasteful.

This is where I stayed ideologically for a good long while. I never really questioned this worldview at all. My affinity for Anarchism came very naturally to me, and was largely instinctual and feeling based. Not very intellectual. It just felt right.

In my first year at university I took a course on 20th Century Europe in Art, Literature and Film. There was one class in the course that covered “The Avant-Garde”. While I liked Surrealism or Expressionism to varying degress, I found myself drawn to Futurism in much the same way as I had been drawn to Anarchism through punk music as a teenager. Stylistically a lot of it reminded me of graffiti which I was heavily involved in at the time, but ideologically it really threw a curveball at me.

The Funeral of the Anarchist Galli
The Funeral of the Anarchist Galli, Carlo Carra

It had the energy and ferocity of anarcho-punk , and in a lot of ways was anarchistic, but at the same time there was ultranationalism, glorification of war and scorn for women. Futurism challenged a lot of positions that I held as an anarchist, and I began to reconsider many of the ideals I had once held. It also presented Fascism in a new light to me. I had always perceived Fascism as an extremely uptight, reactionary, conservative movement, but if Futurists were Fascist, maybe it had been misrepresented to me.

I slowly began the process of researching, reading and reassessing Fascism. It would be a few years still, but I eventually I felt comfortable referring to myself as a Fascist and I would go on to cut ties with my Anarchist past and embrace the Fascist worldview.

This brings us to the present. The characteristics of Fascism that always resonated with me was it’s revolutionary character. The desire to build a new kind of nation, in opposition to both left and right. To destroy the old world, and the present order and build something beautiful and vital on top of the ruins. The characteristics most visible in the early years of the movement, before compromises with the bourgeoisie and later the Germans had been made. The Futurists, Fiume and the Trenchocracy! That’s what sold me on Fascism.

These characteristics are seemingly nowhere to be found in the 21st century conception of Fascism. What I see instead is a movement defined by ultraconservatism, traditionalism and reaction. Of white identity politics, jewish conspiracy theories and tedious nostalgia for 1950’s suburbia. I just don’t relate to the movement at all, and have increasingly been distancing myself from it. At this point I pay very little attention to it at all.

Furthermore, since starting Futurism Forever in March 2021 “the movement” has attempted to doxx me, make hit pieces full of lies about FF, slander and spread malicious rumors about me and my group, impersonate me and so on. It’s a drag. These people suck and there is no benefit to associating with them. Their movement is toxic, regressive and moribund which is anathema to the spirit of Futurism and Fascism proper. In short, it is a bad joke. While there are specific figures and friends I have made in the movement who I respect and will continue to support, I wash my hands of the rest of it.

In many way’s I have been reverting back to my individualist anarchist roots in the absence of viable collectives who share ideas and hold values that are important to me. But with a new perspective. Trying to recreate or rebuild movements from 100 years ago is contradictory to the Futurist worldview anyways. We should be fresh, forward thinking, audacious and innovative. We should strive to create something new, like our heroes did.

I’m writing this as there is a lot of confusion surrounding what Futurism Forever is. So to make it crystal clear:

  1. We are NOT a political organization. The emphasis has always been on art, culture and lifestyle.
  2. While we are not a political organization, this is not to say that we are apolitical, just that none of us have deluded ourselves into thinking that what we’re doing here is activism. All of us have been involved in radical politics throughout our lives and will continue to be so in the future. But FF itself does not pretend to be more than it is. An art podcast and blog. Our main motivation to do this is because it’s fun.
  3. We are not a Fascist organization. While most of us have a background in Fascism and have spent time in those circles, FF itself is not a Fascist group. Futurism is the common denominator. Our contributors are very diverse, come from various backgrounds and not all of them identify with Fascism.

Anyways I hope this article cleared up some confusion, and offered some insight into where I’m coming from and what I want FF to be. We had a great foundational year in 2021 and I look forward to building on that in 2022. We learned a lot of valuable lessons last year, both good and bad, and we strive to improve because of it. Until my next article, salut.

Painting by Faust

Arabia, a poem by Melontyp

3 men walking night alley
1 man comes near
dead man grabs by leg
why whyyyy

STAB (man runs off)

next day on news unknown man stabs 3 men
in alley last night man is 180 tall wide The News of Today
tanned police is searching all day
suspected of terrorist organization
I forgot the name
2 men walking down the street day (calm talking)
They pass on a shop
different man walks in
more people gather police try calm down the situation…. they fail
Uuuh what happening? (gibberish) they fighting or what? (gibberish)
man punches other man FIGHTING BEGINS

police arrest everyone. ambulance appears
shop destroyed, cars burn, everything broken

Fascism and Egoism by Caliph

The idea of the State in Italian Fascism comes from a sense of perception, the state is how you perceive it existing, ultimately to your benefit at the end of the day. Even if you are in a sort of collective, it is a mutually reassuring collective for your own self-benefit at the end of the day. This collective is your own of Egoists, created from mutual interest for benefit of the group. The Fascist Party, for an example the PNF, was a great Union of Egoists looking to benefit their property of Italy, their ego only suppressed by the King and the Conservatives. The state is your property as much as any other, as much as you can build that is yours.

The Egoist, might on first glance to the uneducated viewer that merely knows of the jokes of spooks and the like, might seem ultimately opposed to the state. But drawing on close comparisons with Stirner’s own philosophy with Giovanni Gentile’s concept of the state shows their true similarities. They both work off their perception of the state, the Egoist wishes to use the state to his own benefit, the Fascist Party and Society is his Union of Egoists in which to benefit himself through the enriching of himself and his property (the state). So as long as this state does not rebel against his Sophistic desires he does not have to look up to abolish it, and if it does, he is free to rebel against it and renew once more.

The key praxis of this sort of implication would be the Regency of Carnaro, in which Gabriele D’Annunzio and his band of Bohemians, Veterans of WW1, Homosexuals, Artists, and Creatives the world over would gather. The state was whatever he desired, a personal endeavor driven by his own vision for what the state should be for however long as he could get away with it.

The party never stopped. Every morning D’Annunzio read poetry and manifestos from his balcony; every evening a concert, then fireworks. This made up the entire activity of the government. It was his state, a state of celebration and joyous wonder, something which he desired to display himself as free as Caesar and show the world his new way of being, dedicated to the Overman as a concept. And even while put down, the legacy of Fiume, the manifestation of D’Annunzio’s vision, his geist, lived in both leftist circles in Italy such as the Arditi Del Populo and the emerging third position such as the PNF, which took much of their attitude from D’Annunzio’s supremacy of the ego and his revolutionary unionism

Quite simply, Geist = State = Your Eizgine = The State

The Anarchist and Fascist Overlap by Zoltanous, Lizardi, CSD and Judas


[ Intro song ]

The idea of Fascism being anarchism is normally something you hear Marxist-Leninists say to discredit Fascism as liberal psychosis. It’s an easy way to discredit it, as anarchism is normally considered an incoherent joke ideology. Most may even laugh because of things like Anti-fa who’re mostly anarchists. The book Anarcho-Fascism by Jonas Nilsson is one example of such a joke with no seriousness to it. As it turns out, leaving ideological schizophrenia aside, the relationship between Fascism and Anarchism is much more complicated. Both Fascism and Anarchism technically fall into the same line of thinking. Both aim for a third position between leftism and rightism. 

Moreover, Anarchism shares the same way Fascism splits itself into Nationally Organic movements that try to consolidate its own goals to arrive at a Fascist Future. Anarchism is a set of ideas that differ from each other not because their goal is different, but because of their methods and values. Just like how the Italian Fascists were different compared to the Brazilian Integralists in terms of methods and overall goals, so does Anarcho-Syndicalism differ from the ideas of Mutualist-Anarchism. They have their minds on the same end goal with a twist to their situation and views.

We must not forget that the roots of Fascism come from anarcho-syndicalist thought, and Proudhonian influence and national revolutionary organic movements and many of the ideologues and people close to Mussolini such as Nicola Bombacci or Ugo Spirito promoted policies based on anarchist ideas. The biggest misunderstanding of modern anarchist thought is to think that a Nation is the same as the rotten political State that destroys Nations themselves. The duty of every Fascist is to fight against the modern state of things, to destroy the State as a whole, and from the ashes that will remain, construct its own Fascist State where real anarchy shall arrive, not because men will be without rulers, but because men shall be the rulers and with the accumulation of power for every individual organically composing a nation, will men truly experience anarchy. 

You even have some modern misconceptions such as the association with James Mason and his book Siege with the pure anarchist mentality in it. For the reason that the book cultivates violent and chaotic survivalism in an anarchist setting of accelerationism. However I have to stress that this has no relation to the broader topic of Fascist anarchism because of its strict adherence to a warped version of National Socialism. The only time Siege becomes relevant is in terms of tactical means through chaos. Moreover you have the group National Tempestist Coordination who put out its own Anarcho-Fascist Manifesto, which was actually dissected on the Futurism Forever YouTube channel. Showing more parallels with radical revolutionary syndicalism and anarchism. Koichi Toyama a Japanese Fascist activist who’s famous for his 2007 Tokyo gubernatorial election speech said this in an interview;

“It is said that anarchists have no vision and do nothing but destroy. The only way for them to find any vision is to find the possibility of Fascism.”

By taking up this topic I will be dissecting the interactions, influence, and overlap between anarchism and historical Fascism. We will see if the claim that Fascism has much in common with anarchism is valid or not. With this we will see what the actual narrative of Fascism is here regarding anarchism. Laying to rest if Fascisn was truly Anarchism or not. 

French Fascism and Anarchism

[Transition song ]

Georges Sorel was a French Syndicalist theorist in the early 20th century. Syndicalism is a revolutionary ideology who believed that trade unions or worker unions would lead the workers into revolution via general strikes, then afterwards those unions would run the economy and society. While Syndicalism is not inherently anarchist but in its early years it was very much in line with Libertarian Socialism and Syndicalism origins begin with Anarchist thinkers like Pierre Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin.

Sorel was originally a liberal conservative but by the 1880s he would go on to embrace Marxism and Social Democracy then finally in the 20th century settling upon Syndicalism which Sorel would remain for the rest of his life. What made Sorel move to Syndicalism was social democracy’s lack of action and its failure in worker control of the means of production. What attracted Sorel to Syndicalism was its action orientation, the general strike, and its rejection of parliamentary politics.

These concepts would be major points of Sorel’s writings like Reflections on Violence and The Decomposition of Marxism. What Sorel would also stress in his writings was the ideas of Heroism, Martyrdom, and Myth. Sorel believed that these ideas would motivate the working class into committing and supporting revolution. What Sorel meant by Myth is not something that wasn’t real but a narrative or idea that would inspire the working class into revolution. While it had been a few decades since Sorel had abandoned Liberal Conservatism, he would always have social conservative tendencies and influences. 

Throughout his writings Sorel would always give examples of the early Christians to get his points across on the importance of Myth and Heroism. Along with how their strong belief and martyrdom always helped to bring the church back. Sorel’s other major work was The Illusion of Progress where Sorel would state that “The Theory of Progress” is a “bourgeois doctrine” that is used to justify bourgeois rule and the suppression of the old system. Sorel is also very critical of the centralization of capitalist society, its destruction of family ties, and traditional values.

According to the historian and social critic Christopher Lasch, Sorel believed the superiority of syndicalism to socialism lay in its appreciation of proprietorship, dismissed by socialists as the source of “petit-bourgeois” provincialism and cultural backwardness. Unimpressed by Marxian diatribes against the idiocy of rural life, syndicalists, Sorel thought, valued the feelings of attachment inspired in every truly qualified worker by the productive forces entrusted to him. They respected the peasant’s love of his field, his vineyard, his barn, his cattle, and his bees.

Lasch would also go on to write that Sorel, Syndicalists and the Guild Socialists critique of capitalism carried real weight because it rested on the insight that capitalism could not deliver on the promise that made it morally attractive in the first place—the promise of universal proprietorship. Syndicalists and Guild Socialists saw that slavery, not poverty, was the real issue, as G. D. H. Cole put it. They saw that the reduction of labor to a commodity, the essence of capitalism, required the elimination of all the social bonds that prevented the free circulation of labor. The destruction of the medieval guilds, the replacement of local government by a centralized bureaucracy, the weakening of family ties, and the emancipation of women amounted to“successive steps in the cheapening of the raw material of labor, all achieved under the “watchword” of progress. Whereas Marxists accepted the collectivizing logic of capitalism and proposed simply to collectivize production more thoroughly, syndicalists, populists, and guild socialists condemned modern capitalism for profoundly conservative reasons because it required in the words of A. R. Orage, editor of New Age; “The “progressive shattering to atoms of our social system.”

These more conservative tendencies in Sorel ideas would lead him to eventually collaborate with French Nationalist and Monarchist Charles Maurras who was the leader of French Action. This interaction between the two and their followers would lead to a synthesis between Nationalism, Monarchism, and Syndicalism. Along with the creation of Cercle Proudhon which supported and expanded upon this synthesis. According to late historian James Gregor this would also go on to influence many of the early Italian Fascist intellectuals like Giovanni Gentile, Ugo Sprito, Enrico Corradini, and even Benito Mussolini himself who would state this on Sorel.

“I owe most to Georges Sorel. This master of syndicalism by his rough theories of revolutionary tactics has contributed most to form the discipline, energy, and power of the fascist cohorts.” – Benito Mussolini

When World War 1 broke out he would abandon his nationalist sympathies however would go on to support both Vladimir Lenin and Benito Mussolini stating;

“Mussolini is a man no less extraordinary than Lenin.” 

It is a fact that the emergence of socialist, nationalist, anarchist and syndicalist ideas in France and their concentration is in the organization Cercle Proudhon, a political group founded by the anarchist theorist Édouard Berth and by the Maurists and former anarcho-syndicalist George Valois, both disciples of Sorel who would establish the basis of what some authors consider the first proto-fascist organization. Cercle Proudhon inspired a generation of revolutionary and nationalist trade unionists in Italy such as Michele Bianchi, Oliviero Olivetti, Filippo Corridoni or Alceste de Ambris who later helped animate Fascism.

 According to the Jewish historian Zeev Sternhell, Cercle Proudhon proposed a new ethic appropriate to the alliance of nationalism and trade unionism, those two synthesizing and convergent movements, one from the extreme right and the other from the extreme left, which initiated the siege and assault against democracy. Therefore, the solution was conceived as a complete replacement for the liberal order. They wanted to create a society dominated by a powerful vanguard, a proletarian elite, an aristocracy of producers, united in alliance against the decadent bourgeoisie with an intellectual youth hungry for action. In time, it would not be difficult for such a synthesis to take the form of Fascism.

It would be worth mentioning that utopian socialism, especially the economic theories of the French anarchist philosopher, politician and revolutionary Pierre-Joseph Proudhon significantly influenced the economic postulates of different national-socialist theorists such as Rudolf Jung, Gottfried Feder and Marc Augier, being a socialist “Third Way” that coincides with the interests of Fascism, so mutualism would be another pipeline towards Fascism. Even to this day, National Socialist organizations such as the Spanish Devenir Europeo make mention of Proudhon in their theoretical training booklets as one of their referents.

George Valois and his approach, of particular interest, made the move towards defining the feature era as modernist and a tendency towards a fully planned, all encompassing, urbanism. In the tradition of utopias and phalansteries, we see with him how the Citée Française becomes a cornerstone of the fully re-imagined society, reflecting the classless and syndicalist ideals of anarchism. With Valois in Cercle Proudhon we see the link between Sorel and later Fascism with the blossoming movement in Italy.

Georges Valois also claimed the roots of French Fascism stemmed from the Jacobin movement. Mass populism and the complete structural destruction of the old order leading to an increasingly revolutionary spirit that would contribute to new political foundations. Communism and Fascism both have beginnings in the storming of the Bastille. The French Revolution was the taproot of modernism, No French Revolution, no Marx, no Sorel. The Jacobins, led by Robespierre, tried to turn France into a Rousseauian dream, where the people were possessions of the community and self-interest was suborned to the state “The General Will”, by destroying the Bourgeois class. The nation was romanticized as the one true myth, led by a militant vanguard elite.

The Jewish professor George L. Mosse argued in his book The Fascist Revolution that Fascism with the ideal of popular sovereignty as expressed by the philosopher Rousseau whereby the leader expressed the “General Will” of the people and manifested a new secular religion, that is, social control over the masses through official ceremonies. festivals, and imagery i.e. myth. Totalitarianism began in the modern era with the French Revolution. Rousseau’s “General Will” was an exaltation of the people bent by the Jacobins into a dictatorship in which the people worshiped themselves through public festivals and symbols, “the goddess of reason.” What Sorel called collective virtues, the consequence of the spontaneous acceptance of a set of principles by the members of a community, living in peril, led by heroes in epic battle against decadence and moral cowardice.

You even have the antisemitism of the revolutionary syndicalist anarchists who would help create the organization of Circle Proudhon. They pulled from Proudhon, Bakunin, and even Sorel. Justifying it on the grounds of anti-capitalism, anti-materialism, and argued that Jews were inherently an anti-national force of cosmopolitanism. Inside Anti-Jewish Trends In French Revolutionary Syndicalism by Edmund Silberner. Edmund argues that the criticism of capitalism was largely based on antisemitism. Édouard Berth besides being an anarchist, Berth is still considered an early instrumental theorist of National Socialism by Zeev Sternhell due to his connections to Rudolf Jung. Berth would say this in his essay Plutocratic Satellites

“Positivism which created the regime of money, essentially a leveling materialistic and Cosmopolitan regime. Delivered up to France the essence of bourgeois materialism, the Jewish speculator and financier.”

Georges Valois, Philippe Lamour, and Thierry Maulnier all appropriated avant-garde aesthetics of Cubism, Futurism, Surrealism, and the Return to Order. They defined the “dynamism” of Circle Proudhon’s  ideology in terms of Soviet filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein’s “Theory of Montage”. For them modern art was the mythic harbinger of a regenerative revolution that would overthrow existing governmental institutions, inaugurate an anti-capitalist new order, and awaken the creative and artistic potential of the Nietzschean “New Man.” Drawing primarily on the writings of Sorel, whose concept of Revolutionary Myth proved central to the Fascist theories of cultural and national regeneration.

Some authors and prominent figures of French Fascism such as Louis-Ferdinand Céline or Lucien Rebatet are considered as “anarchists” by scholars of the subject such as François Richard, in the line of aristocratic, elitist and anti-mass thinking close to anarcho-individualism. Céline, who was a staunch anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer, would state in a letter dated March 18, 1934 that;

“I am an anarchist to the tip of my feet. I was always one and I will never be anything else.”

Also the French collaborationist author and European Fascist enthusiast Robert Brasillach, defined Fascism as an “anti-conformist spirit par excellence, always anti-bourgeois, irreverent by vocation”, and mentions how his nationalist comrades, many of whom would go on to join the efforts of Fascism and National Socialism during the Nazi occupation of France, who were “anarchic by temperament” in addition to having an “innate penchant for anarchy.” In his 1971 book Fascist Romanticism, Paul Serant recounts an episode in which a young member of the Milice Française, disillusioned by the failure of the Révolution Nationale of the Vichy government, talks to Brasillach and he jokes that “in the bottom line we are Anarcho-Fascists”.

Together with his brother-in-law Maurice Bardéche, Brasillach published in June 1939 Histoire de la guerre d’Espagne, an account in favor of the nationalist uprising in which Brasillach would make explicit tribute to the anarchist insurrection in Barcelona of 1936 carried out by the CNT, referring to this event as the “representation of one of the most beautiful pages of heroism in revolutionary history of all time.”

Italian Fascism and Anarchism

[ Transition song ]

The German historian and scholar of anarchist movements Justus Franz Wittkop points out that anarchism is sometimes close to Fascism, and on more than one occasion it was transformed into it, as the vicissitudes of Italian avant-garde groups showed. It is worth mentioning that squadrist or Sansepolcrist Fascism was strongly influenced by the utopian socialism of the time, coming to be called a cousin-sister ideology of anarcho-syndicalism. It was during these first years that Fascism maintained certain ideological approaches to anarchism insofar as this was an alternative form of socialism to Marxism, solidifying the economic postulates of Bakunin and Proudhon in a National-Syndicalism that would later develop under the name of corporatism.

This can be reflected in what was the taking of the coastal city of Fiume (Rijeka) at the hands of the warrior-poet and for some proto-fascist Gabriele D’Annunzio, who after taking the city of Fiume with an army of patriotic legionaries and Veterans of the Great War would establish a transitional city-state under the name Carnaro Regency, whose constitution, written in collaboration with the revolutionary syndicalist and later Fascist Alceste De Ambris, combined ideas of anarcho-communism, corporatism and democratic republicanism. D’Annunzio would be interviewed by the anarcho-syndicalist journalist Randolfo Vella for the anarchist daily Umanità Nova during the events in Fiume, an interview during which D’Annunzio said he was in favor of a “communism without dictatorship”, in addition to declaring that “all of my culture is anarchic.”

In short, Fiume under D’Annunzio was a libertarian space for those who, intolerant of what exists, wanted to experience something daring and heretical for the bourgeois conventions of life, art and action. We are talking about a de facto anarchism, we would say existential, but not without specific references, for example, when from Fiume vehement proclamations and denunciations were written against Giovanni Giolitti, the architect of the arrest of the old Errico Malatesta, a historical figure of the anarchist movement.

It is well known that Benito Mussolini the founding figure of Fascism was the son of an anarcho-syndicalist blacksmith and worked as a journalist in his early career as one of Italy’s most notable anarcho-syndicalists. Mussolini himself, a member of the Italian Socialist Party, a party made up of different sectors of the revolutionary left of the time, would declare that;

“My socialism was born Bakuninist, in my father’s school of socialism.” 

Mussolini’s father, Alessandro Mussolini, had been a member of Bakunin’s Anarchist International in Italy during the 1870s. The anti-fascist historian Gaetano Salvemini would mention that Mussolini’s socialist ideas had more to do with anarchism than with Marxism, since his ideological postulates, which also were close to revolutionary syndicalism, focused on Sorel’s revolutionary violence, and not on historical determinism.

Mussolini went as far to say this about Georges Sorel, whose ideas and criticism of Marxism influenced Fascism and anarchism alike;

“I owe most to Georges Sorel. This master of syndicalism by his rough theories of revolutionary tactics has contributed most to form the discipline, energy, and power of the Fascist cohorts.”

Mussolini, who had gone through an individualistic philosophical stage, even mentioned the Egoist and proto-anarchist German philosopher Max Stirner among his references, making mention of him in a 1908 article for a Romagna newspaper and then later in 1909 in Il Popolo d’Italia:

“Enough, ridiculous saviors of the human race, we laugh at your infallible finds of happiness! Free the way for the elemental forces of individuals, because there is no human reality outside the individual! Why not make Stirner fashionable again?”

The Polish historian Leszek Kołakowski has also argued it is a logical explanation for the interest of Fascism to follow the egoist ideas of Stirner in Main Currents of Marxism;

“Fascism was above all an attempt to dissolve the anti-social ties created by history and replace them by artificial bonds among individuals who were expected to render explicit obedience to the state on grounds of absolute egoism. Fascist education combined the tenets of social egoism and unquestioning conformism, the latter being the means by which the individual secured his own niche in the system. Stirner’s philosophy has nothing to say against conformism, it only objects to the Ego being subordinated to any higher principle: the egoist is free to adjust to the world if it is clear he will better himself by doing so. His ‘rebellion’ may take the form of utter servility if it will further his interest; what he must not do is to be bound by ‘general’ values or myths of humanity. The totalitarian ideal of a barrack-like society from which all real, historical ties have been eliminated is perfectly consistent with Stirner’s principles: the egoist, by his very nature, must be prepared to fight under any flag that suits his convenience.”

This tendency towards anarchism of his was something that the reformist socialist Filippo Turati would reproach Mussolini for. On the other hand, Torquato Nanni, who was his first biographer and close friend, recalled how, as he was the then editor of the socialist newspaper Avanti, Mussolini had on his desk a copy of Stirner’s The Ego and Its Own. In addition to this, Stirner’s work would not be banned after Fascism came to power, as many might believe.

On May 12, 1918, Mussolini declared his distancing from any political or trade union movement: 

“It is my individualistic, rather anarchist, temperament that prevents me from doing so.”

He maintained that attitude even after the founding of the Fasci di combattimento, a movement he understood as an ‘anti-party’. The Fasci Anarchici Individualista are even established, to which the leftist Fascist Stanis Ruinas would belong. Still on April 6, 1920, the future Duce would write;

“Down with the State in all its manifestations and incarnations. Down with the State of yesterday, today, tomorrow. The bourgeois and socialist state. For us who are morituri of individualism, we have no more, due to the darkness of the present and the gloomy tomorrow, the absurd but always consoling religion of Anarchy!”

In addition, Mussolini would be a friend in arms of the aforementioned prominent Italian anarcho-communist leader Errico Malatesta, whom he would once refer to as “the Duce of anarchism”, during the events of Settimana rossa (Red week) in 1914, whom he had known personally for a year earlier during his exile in London. Years later, in March 1920, Mussolini interceded for Malatesta, denouncing the government for keeping him imprisoned and without trial for more than five months. In this regard, Mussolini would say:

 “We are always ready to admire men who are willing to die for a faith they believe in selflessly.”

That same year, when the Liberal government tried to seize the materials for the printing of Malatesta’s anarchist newspaper Umanità Nova, Mussolini offered him stock of his Il Popolo d’Italia, but that offer was rejected. Despite his anti-fascism and his disdain for Benito, Malatesta was a figure deeply admired by Mussolini during the early days of Fascism, to the point that Mussolini would not mind “protecting” him as long as possible after he took power.

In this sense, Mussolini was preceded by other figures of Sansepolcrist Fascism from anarchism such as Maria Rygier, Leandro Arpinati, Filippo Turati, Fulvio Balisti, Guido Calogero, Mario Carli, Antonio Capizzi, Ferruccio Vecchi, Giovanni Papini, Massimo Rocca, Berto Ricci and a long etcetera. The last two had even suggested to “anarchize” the early Fascist movement:

Massimo Rocca who was an ultra-individualist anarchist author calling himself “anarchist among anarchists” advocated the formation of a natural elite of warrior-criminals in addition to defending the primacy of instinct over intellect that would end up joining Fascism in 1919. He became one of the PNF leaders and was a member of the General Council of Fascism, siding with the excess of squadristi violence but also attacking Fascist legalist conservatism as well as positioning himself in favor of what he called “Anarchic Statism.” Despite being expelled from the movement and forced into exile in 1922, Rocca would return to Italy in 1943 with the founding of the Italian Social Republic which he would serve.

On the other hand, Berto Ricci, a member of the intransigent fascist faction of Niccolò Giani’s School of Fascist Mysticism, had been a Florentine anarchist militant and writer who would go on to join the efforts of fascism in 1927. Ricci challenged broad sectors of the world. The culture of the time linked to a boring, limited and bourgeois vision of the homeland in favor of a revolutionary, authentic, youthful and Spartan nationalism, a vision that would later be praised by Mussolini himself. Ricci invoked a “perpetual revolution” that would fight those who had found a place in the regime despite having a substantially a-fascist or even anti-fascist mentality, bringing there, according to him, a bourgeois mentality extraneous to the spirit of the Fascist revolution. Ricci, from his ontological anarchism and his political Fascism, would affirm that;

 “We do not love Hitler because he represents an element of order in Germany. We love him because he represents an element of disorder in Europe”. 

It’s also easy to see why Mussolini loved Sorel who was the most prominent French syndicalist and supported militant trade unionism to combat the corrupting influences of parliamentary parties and politics, even if the legislators were distinctly socialist. Mussolini claimed that he had succumbed to revolutionary syndicalism by 1904 and would dedicate his time to carrying out Sorel’s mythical socialist revolution. This trend continued and by 1911, syndicalists in Italy had acknowledged that two important political currents had come together, forging a new proletarian nationalism and revolutionary socialism. 

Others who took up this revolution were Edmondo Rossoni, Sergio Panunzio, A. O. Olivetti, Michele Bianchi, Alceste De Ambris, Paolo Orano and Guido Pighetti under the influence of Sorel inside the Fascist party. Sorel himself back in France also collaborated with similar Nationalist and Syndicalist organizations like Action Française and Circle Proudhon. Sorel’s syndicalism carries over to not just the French but even the Italian syndicalist movement. Thus animating the early Fascism of Mussolini who confessed “What I am, I owe to Sorel.”

The Jewish historian Zeev Sternhell, considered a leading expert on Fascism, asserted that this integration of syndicalism with nationalism was a factor in why; “Italian revolutionary syndicalism became the backbone of Fascist ideology.”

Source: The Birth of Fascist Ideology

Mussolini was one of the first to comingle the phrase Fascism with syndicalism, remarking that;

“Fascist syndicalism is national and productivistic in a national society in which labor becomes a joy, an object of pride and a title to nobility.”

Italian syndicalists viewed social revolution as a means for rapid transformation to provide “superior productivity,” and if this economic abundance failed to occur, there could be no meaningful social change. One of the means to bring about the social revolution was Imperialism to spur economic development. Which would attract many nationalists inspired by fellow revolutionaries like Gabriel D’Annunzio to the Fascist cause. The emphasis by syndicalists towards the importance of “producerism” was originally argued by Sorel in 1907, who argued that Marx considers that a revolution by a proletariat of producers who have acquired economic capacity. They were referring to when Marx reminded his colleague that; “material conditions necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat” therefore must be spontaneously generated by the development of capitalism. This is actually something A James Gregor talks about in his book Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship and it’s what motivated the original Manifesto of The Italian Fasces of Combat

The Fascists believed with Sorel they found in Marxism a plan of developmental historic ends to bring about worker control of the means of production by direct action. Meaning the intellectuals of syndicalism came to the realization that Italy’s primitive economy could facilitate neither socialism nor abundance for society. Without a mature industry developed by the bourgeois class, they came to understand that a successful social revolution required the support of “classless” revolutionaries, collaboration, and war. Mussolini, along with Italian syndicalists, nationalists and futurists, contended that those revolutionaries would be Fascists. According to Mussolini and other syndicalist theoreticians, Fascism would be “the socialism of proletarian nations.” The Futurists, some of them close to fascism, were also talked favorably of by Renzo Novatore, a prominent Anarcho-Individualist writer and gunman who said this;

“Marinetti, censurable for his nationalism and combatantism, converges on anarcho-individualist positions on the terrain of state subversion and criticism of morals; the statism of the Marxist-inspired Socialists is more irreconcilable with the anarchy of Libertarian Futurism and Fiumanism”

Fascist syndicalists also became preoccupied with the idea of increasing production for abundance. Sergio Panunzio, a major theoretician of Italian Fascism and syndicalism, believed that Syndicalists were producerists, rather than distributionists. In his criticism of the Bolsheviks’ handling of their economy, Panunzio also asserted that the Russian Soviet state had become a dictatorship over the proletariat, and not of the proletariat. Panunzio argued that the Russian Bolsheviks had failed to adhere to Engels 1850 admonition about the dangers of trying to establish a social revolution within an economically backwards environment. Leading to a further split between Italian Syndicalism and International Socialism.

With the founding of the Italian Social Republic in September 1943, the Fascist leader and former Bolshevik Nicola Bombacci would name the Ukrainian anarcho-communist leader Néstor Makhno as one of his influences along with the Fabian Society and distributism for the creation of the Verona Manifesto, the political statement of the RSI on the socialization of the national economy.

There is also the figure of Mario Merlino, an author of Roman origin who on his youth in the postwar period during “The Years of Lead” was an enthusiastic member of the neo-fascist movement Avanguardia Nazionale, making friends with important figures on the scene such as Pino Rauti and Stefano Delle Chiaie, who in the late 1960s joined the Italian anarchist movement without denying his Fascist past, praising Mussolini’s black shirts as well as the anarchist revolutionaries in his texts.

This revolutionary nature of Fascism from its anarchist and syndicalist origins, was always inherently following the goal of its development for socialization. The economic policy of Corporatism for Fascism was in fact just Nationalized Syndicalism an inversion of Anarcho-Syndicalism. Leading people like Douglas Pearce to say this;

“The way I understand it is that, to paraphrase Mussolini, the Fascists are the real anarchists for they truly did do exactly what they wanted. Libertarianism and Fascism are bedfellows no matter how some people might find that repugnant.” 

Spanish Fascism and Anarchism

 [ Transition song ]

As with Italian Fascism, in Spain, National-Syndicalism or Falangism emerged as a reverse of anarcho-syndicalism, as a form of “nationalization” of the anarchist union, municipalism, and the agrarian community. The Falangist author Manuel Souto Vilas had the idea of ​​adapting foreign Fascism according to the Spanish anarchist scene, giving Spanish Fascism the name of “National-Syndicalism” instead of “National-Socialism” (as Ledesma Ramos originally wanted it) after Spanish anarcho-syndicalism. 

For the Falangist intellectual and introducer of Fascism in Spain Ernesto Giménez Caballero, National-Syndicalism had been the product of an anarcho-syndicalist formula from which his name and symbols were collected through this “nationalization” of the libertarian ideal, hence the presence of the red and black colors in the flag of the Spanish Falange imitating those of the National Confederation of Labor (CNT by its acronym in Spanish), the most important anarchist organization in the Iberian Peninsula.

Later, in his eagerness to get involved in revolutionary syndicalism, Ledesma Ramos, key figure in the founding of Spanish Fascism, described the CNT as;

 “The only dissatisfied force that is ready to embody Hispanic courage.” 

Ramos believed that an understanding would be brought about between the CNT and the JONS, the first National-Syndicalist movement which later merged with the Falange of José Antonio Primo de Rivera. Organically this did not take place, but under the protection of the internal tensions that unleashed in the Congress of the CNT in June 1931, and later with the thirties of Pestaña, some confederal members such as Sinforiano Moldes, Guillén Salaya and Llorente joined the JONS. Ledesma Ramos closely followed the development of the CNT efforts until the merger between Falang and JONS took place. Until then, copies of the Fascist weekly La Conquista del Estado were sold at rallies and meetings of the CNT.

Therefore, a clearly revolutionary, disruptive and close to anarcho-syndicalist program is clearly seen throughout 1931 and until the merger with the Spanish Falange in 1934 with the doctrinal proposals of Ramos. As an example lies his so-called article Extraordinary Congress of the CNT in which he states:

“Right now we’re running into almost one million members of the CNT. We are bound to seek it out and understand it and interpret it with friendly eyes. We must be together with the CNT, in these moments of immediate union battle, in these moments of weighing up social forces. This is how we believe that we are fulfilling our duty as architects of the conscience and of the next and genuine culture of Spain.”

Soon Ledesma Ramos would abandon his concern for the anarchist movement while José Antonio is passionate about its discovery and meditates in those decisive years of 1935 an alliance until he reached the emblematic Speech of “The Revolution ” before thousands of cenetists. It was at this time when in Malaga, Seville, the dialogue between FE de las JONS and the CNT was attempted. Diego Abad de Santillán, one of the most important figures on the prewar anarcho-syndicalist scene, writes this in his memoirs:

“How much the fate of Spain would have changed if an agreement between us had been tactically possible, according to the wishes of Primo de Rivera!, Explaining the cause of the anarchist defeat during the conflict. Wherever it was possible, the Falange tried to consolidate pacts and agreements with the CNT. The Falangist militant Patricio González de Canales celebrated at the time of concluding a non-aggression pact with the CNT in Seville.”

These attempts at rapprochement resulted in encounters with supporters of anarcho-syndicalism, some public and almost massive meetings such as the dinner between José Antonio himself in Plaça Reial, Barcelona, ​​with several dozen members of the CNT. These events were almost always prepared by the Spanish Falangist poet Luys Santa Marina, one of the most exciting and enigmatic characters in Catalan culture of the 1930s.

The journalist Felio A. Villarubias explains it in the newspaper El Ejército on July 19: 

“The Falange of Barcelona, ​​in compliance with orders issued by José Antonio Primo de Rivera, had contacted through Luys Santa Marina and José María Poblador, with authentic CNT trade unionists, who are concerned about the politicization of their movement as an exclusive then union base. The contacts failed in the end because the FAI exerted a very intense ‘tagging’.”

José María Fontana himself seems to insist on this point: 

“José Antonio was very interested in our contacts with the CNT. On one of his trips we had a talk and had dinner with a group of managers. However, the outbreak of the revolution cut off contacts. The conviction of the Falangists had by then been that it was possible to attract a good number of anarcho-syndicalists to their ranks that only the “national factor” would presumably separate them.”

These efforts continued even during the war, and an example of this was Marciano Durruti the brother of Buenaventura Durruti, the most important military figure in anarchist Barcelona before and during the war who, initiated a meeting with the Falangist in early 1936 and tried to mediate an alliance between the Falange and the CNT on his own initiative. Manuel Hedilla Larrey, the second national head of FE de las JONS, narrates in his memoirs as follows: 

“I was in charge of creating national-union opposition cells within the CNT, the ones that proliferated during the war and of incorporating the Falange to the anarcho-syndicalists enraged against the Republic.”

After the Civil War ended, there were a few “authentic” Falangists who, frustrated by the poor management of the unification government, approached the ranks of the then clandestine CNT. Added to this, leaders of the Spanish Trade Union Organization (the only authorized trade union center of the regime) sought to integrate former members of the CNT into their ranks with the intention of tempering the Spanish political landscape. This was the case of the prestigious Catalan anarcho-syndicalist pedagogue, journalist and politician Ricard Fornells y Francesc who, after returning from exile to Spain in 1941, collaborated with the Trade Union to incorporate a good number of CNT exiles in France into the Fascist union.

Juan M. Molina, general secretary of the CNT, speaks in his memoirs of up to three hundred anarchists who accepted such a proposal. It means that they were considered susceptible to joining the National-Syndicalist, as Herrín says, “because of their affinities’ ‘. In 1945 a group made up of authentic Falangists aka anti-Francoists and fugitive anarcho-syndicalists from the CNT was formed and called the Syndicalist Alliance with the intention of formalizing relations that went back intermittently to the early 1930s.

Attempts like this also took place in the Revolutionary Syndicalist Front at the hands of the dissident Falangist politician Narciso Perales, himself who proposed to “reconcile” the anarchist ideas of Ángel Pestaña’s libertarian communism with the Joseantonian doctrine. It is during the transition that these efforts were revived after the Third Congress of the Authentic Falange in Zaragoza in 1979, with a good number of Falangists joining the ranks of the CNT. There is even the fact that a good part of the Catalan cadres of the CNT in those early years of Spanish democracy came directly from the FET de las JONS, gradually exchanging a considerable number of militants.


[ Use as transition song ]

With this long overview of the historical overlap. This move from anarchy to Fascism is a dialectical proposition, it is the final understanding that us Fascists can do what anarchists want to do but far better. Like Bombacci once said, Fascism is the true realization of Communism. In the same way the claim that us Fascists are the Perfect Anarchists is not really a stretch, and if anything just showcases what many Fascists believe but are unable to simplify in a statement. 

Fascists can do what liberal and Communist ideologies want, not only better but in their truest form. Fascism is Liberty, Democracy, Equality, Individuality, Collectivism, and a true State of Law, all at the same time. Fascism has fragments of every ideology for this reason, making it as Mussolini called it absolutely original. It is time to understand the origins of Fascism and to realize that us Fascists must be Anarchists if we want the current order to go away. In the same way Anarchists seek the abolition of the state for a new Anarchist state, the goal of Fascism is the same thing. 

If anything I’d argue that Anarchism also seeks a new state, if we understand it as an entity i.e. people for Fascism with control of institutions and the monopoly of violence, both anarchism and Fascism will actually enforce a new state. It shall differ from the current one, but both will seek to be collectively organic and therefore revolutionary. We see it as well with Mikhail Bakunin and his involvement with various nationalist movements. Even his connections to the man who heavily influenced German National Socialism, Richard Wagner. Bakunin was even extremely antisemitic going as far to call Karl Marx a Jewish banker puppet. These connections become more profound even with how Proudhon influenced Otto Strasser and his Black Front.

Furthermore you even have National Anarchism. It adopts the elements of Fascism though it claims to reject it, it applies Fascism to anarchy I would argue. Some even being close to ideological National Socialism creating a localist based Folk socialism. With small local communities and racial tribes that have separated themselves from the modern state into a small homogenous society. They have a vision of replacing centralized nation-states with a diverse array of small-scale political entities.

Ernst Jünger’s concept of the “Anarch” is central to National Anarchism. The Anarch, is an ideal figure of a sovereign individual which evolved from the influence of Max Stirner’s conception of the Unique. This provides unrestrained syncretism for National Anarchism, allowing its adherents to assert they have transcended the dichotomy of conventional politics to embrace higher political forms that are “beyond left and right”. 

Showing similarities to Else Christensen, an Anarcho-Syndicalist Third Positionist ideologue who wanted a society composed of racially homogenous Aryan communities. Describing her ideal social situation as “tribal socialism”, she envisioned a world in which white people lived in small, self-sufficient “tribal” rural communes. Christensen rejected capitalism, communism, and materialism, believing in the need for ecological awareness, a back-to-the-earth ethos, and sustainable production.

 Showing parallels to modern National Anarchists like Troy Southgate and Keith Preston. Often National Anarchists adopt either syndicalism or mutualism as their preferred economic model. Many even argue in academic circles like Roger Griffin that National Anarchism is a radically anti-humanistic philosophy of elitism, ruthless struggle, and has contempt for those outside of the tribe but this just brings it to my final points.

Groups like the anarchists in National Tempestist Coordination seem to understand it like all Fascists. The goal of Fascism will always be Fascism, no matter the methods, be it a totalitarianism or anarchism, the goal is always the same. Power for the sake of power and collectivity for collectivity, a machiavellian strategy. This fixation of any means for power brings to mind relativism. The Geist of Hegel becomes in Fascism the state which intern was Stirner’s Eizgine and is therefore all of ours, a General Will. This is talked about in the book The Anarchist Individualist Origins of Italian Fascism by Stephen B. Whitaker. Essentially Fascism and it’s philosophy of Actual Idealism is a radical subjectivist form of idealism following the sophist tradition. Meaning Fascism will do whatever it must to exist and attain power pragmatically. Mussolini’s old Socialist mentor Angelica Balbanoff argued he wasn’t a true Socialist but a power hungry activist with a penchant for violence. This Machiavellian tendency mixed with an artistic use of violence like direct action, shows the true anarchist aspect in Fascism. Simply adding more weight to what Mussolini wrote in Il Popolo d’Italia, Relativism and Fascism:

“In truth, we are relativists par excellence, and the moment relativism linked up with Nietzsche, and with his “Will to Power”, was when Italian Fascism became, as it still is, the most magnificent creation of an individual and a national will to power. Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.” 
[ Credits to co-writers Lizardi, Judas, and CSD. Writer Zoltanous HN for the script. Momo for audio. Ending song Use this clip with this clip ]