Why did so many European self-described syndicalists (Sorel, Valois, Lagardelle, De Man, De Ambris, Rossoni, etc) become fascists?
Looking for an answer to that question, I ended up reading Jacques Camatte's 1988 Dialogue with Bordiga. Here is what he had to say:
> Bordiga rejected the anarchosyndicalist current because it broke with proletarian internationalism by engaging in the glorification of the proletariat as producer, by obscuring the profound reality of capital (the production of surplus value) and by proclaiming the absolute primacy of action over theory. > Many fundamental elements of the anarchosyndicalist tradition would therefore play a role in the construction of the fascist program. This is why Bordiga had no illusions about anarchosyndicalism and correctly perceived the continuity between revisionism and anarchosyndicalism on the one hand, and fascism on the other. This explains why he would declare that fascism contributed nothing new with regard to theory, but that it was innovative on the practical level, on the level of organization. > Thus, fascism was at first constituted with the help of a distortion of Marxism, restricting the mission of the proletariat to the national framework: the proletariat must save the nation; in order to do so, it must no longer be the nullifier of capital and therefore of wage labor, but must instead be the true producer. In other words, the fascist program consisted in the attempt to obscure a reality, which implied the partial resolution of the problems posed by that reality. Source: libcom.org/library/dialogue-bordiga-jacques-camatte
What do you guys think? It's a pretty damning indictment from what I'm reading. I used to be an anarchist but this article really had my noggin joggin'.
Probably because rise of capitalism brought about a reaction among monarchists and traditionalists. And since right-wingers are fucking brainlets, they always break and enter into a left-wing library and start pillaging theory. But they are smart enough to realize that nationalism and tradition won't survive capitalism. So, to them, syndicalism is the most natural response to international investors. Revisionism goes from there.
Only a few sentences in a Wikipedia article tells me all I need to know. This isn't complicated.
Caleb Lee
the link between socialism and fascism is evident and obvious. but the link between anarchism and fascism is less so but still there. marinetti, the great graphic designer and one of the original fascists, was an extreme radical who advocated the destroying of the entire old order without restraint, something anarchists looked to.i would have to say that fascism and anarchism are more alike in "aesthetics" and action than they are in theory, of which it holds some similarities to socialism
Ryan Morgan
Care to elaborate?
Brandon Wilson
Because trad socialism was hyperclasscucked while bolshevism was too far and exotic
Michael Jenkins
This. You can rightly critique (anarcho-)syndicalism for glorifying the proletariat as producers, but accusing it of laying down the groundwork for fascism goes too far.
Facism is a weird thing to read about. Like have you actually read this shit.jpg. I mean from an objective view point, like read the history and books of fascism. The early fascists were not fans of global fiance capitalism. They thought it destroyed tradition, made people fat, lazy, hedonistic. The goal of fascist states has always been to achieve autarky so they can be strong independent black women that need no globalism. Of course this usually fails hard and they go crawling back to capitalist economic advisers.
Italian fascism was different from German fascism. Mussolini didnt give a shit about art, and even in the early days didnt care about jews. The anti jew shit came from Germany
Mussolini himself started out as a communist but got kicked out of the Italian communist party.
