Week 6 & 7 Fascist Revolution?

Although described as "revolution against revolution," Fascism certainly did not pose itself in purely negative terms - i.e. as an abnegation of Bolshevism. Right from the outset of his political career, Benito Mussolini proclaimed Fascism to be the doctrine of the forthcoming age, just as liberalism, democracy, faith in progress, etc. had been the guiding ideas of the preceding century. Having come to power in 1933 (we are going to take a closer look at this during our next lecture), Hitler announced the beginning of the "National-Socialist Revolution" with its own program and a streamline plan to redemption.

Now, could one describe fascism in revolutionary terms? If not fully, what was so radically novel about it? In what manner was fascism distinct from the traditional Right? Are there any aspects which bring fascism in affinity with its alleged mortal opponent - Marxism? In other words, what was 'modern' about the movement?

(To give a good answer to this question, I suggest you to take a look at the 25 Points of the NSDAP (1920) and an essay "Doctrine of Fascism" of Benito Mussolini. Both files are attached to this post and are uploaded on the intranet)

"Doctrine of Fascism" Benito Mussolini

25 Point Program

Week 5 - Eurasian Revolutions

Lenin, having arrived from Switzerland in a sealed wagon to engineer revolution in Russia, acted upon a presumption that the European war would soon be transformed into a world-wide revolution and a civil war. Time would soon prove him partially right, for the official cessation of hostilities on November 11, 1918, meant, more often than not, a kind of quaint projection of the external fronts into the sphere of domestic struggle. As it unilaterally withdrew from the conflict, Russia led the way, with war petering out and then flaring up again in the form of an all-out battle for the future of the fallen empire. Germany then, the provisional victor, soon followed the suit, becoming a scene of its own civil war. Out of the ashes of the Austro-Hungarian Empire emerged new states, among which Hungary stood somewhat apart with its pro-Bolshevik, Soviet government. At one time or another, as Paxton writes, "the red flag flew from the Clydeside of western Scotland to Siberia" - a nigh-universal phenomenon giving rise to a plethora of dramatic epithets, all pertaining to capture the essence of those years: "European Civil War," "Eurasian Times of Trouble", etc.

Yet, contrary to Lenin's forecast, forces claiming to embody the most radical aspect of the Revolution, succeeded only in Russia. What Bolsheviks achieved remained an unfulfilled dream for their Hungarian counterparts (Bela Kun and Company), the Spartacists, workers in Milan and Turin, various forms of red regimes in Hamburg, Munich or Vienna. The question then is simply why the Bolsheviks succeeded where others had failed? Were Russian conditions in 1917 so distinct from the European situation one year later that the Revolution had to halt within the bounds where it began?

Week 4 - On the Eve

My apologies, first of all, for posting this week's assignment so late.

Given how little we have covered this week, I do not believe we are fully equipped to tackle the Revolution itself.

Hence, I propose that you image yourself to be a very well informed resident of the Russian empire in the year of 1900. You are wary, of course, of all the internal rumbling and discontent in the country, of the revolutionary underground organizations both within and without, of the accompanying and seemingly chronic incompetence of the government and of all the problems unleashed by the recent state-buttressed industrialization drive. At the same time you recognize readily all the advantages associated with the relative youth of the Russian society; you discern rapid changes within the social structure and are mildly hopeful that the economic transformations may ultimately enable the country to discard the burden of its own - real and perceived - backwardness.

Experiencing this mixture of hope and chagrin, you are asked to outline for a less informed observer than yourself two or three alternative paths that Russia may possible traverse in the near future. What lies in store for the country? your interlocutor asks you. Give him your prognosis for the next twenty years (forgetting, of course, the fact that you - real you in 2014 - have all seen it and knows everything in advance). Substantiate your forecast with arguments and examples.

Week 3 - Meaning of the World War

The war which broke out in August 1914 was not the first global conflict that mankind had ever waged. Suffice it to recall the Seven-year War in the XVIII century or the Napoleonic Wars in the XIX, raging in different continents and implicating hundreds of thousands of human beings, to make the above point clear.
Yet, there was something quite distinct in the nature of First World War, something going beyond the mere scale (staggering as it was), something which earned the war from its very outset the cognomen "the Great War."

I would like to ask you then what it was that distinguished this conflict from all other preceding conflicts. Why, after all, was it dubbed "the First World War" and what was so "universal" about it if not a mere scale of it?

Last-Minute Announcement

Today's class is rescheduled to take place at 4 pm in room 372. At 3 pm (i.e. at the time when our class is normally taking place) you are invited to come to the BG-Hall to listen to our professors reflect over presidential address. 

Week 2 - World War: Avoidable or Ineluctable

Europe, which seemed to have become the most sophisticated civilization, which had prided itself on being "civilized" in contrast to the rest of the world (found largely under its tutelage), had plunged itself into the abyss of barbarity from which it were never to recover. Some had considered this to be the inevitable result of social, political, economical and cultural anxieties, the kind of corollary of the very complexity and self-confidence in which Europe wallowed. Other observers, however, were quick to note that all previous crises - in Morocco, Bosnia (1908), Balkans (1912-1913), etc - were resolved without the use of arms (albeit, as Paxton puts its, after some ritual saber-rattling). They say too that in the long-run, Great Powers might have developed an algorithm, had come up with a rule whereby all conflicts involving issues of hegemony and pride might have been settled peacefully.

What is your stance on that issue? Could the war be avoided - or was it, on the contrary, unavoidable.

Week 1 - Europe in 1900: Traditional or Modern?

As it crossed the threshold of the XIX century, Europe offered a sight of conflicting scenes. Imperialist expansion transformed it into the Global Metropole, yet, most of the population kept on dwelling in profound province, buried in their parochial affairs. The poor, the middle class and the new wealth 'wrestled' with each other, giving a living testimony to the growing fluidity of the social life; at the same time, old aristocracy and withal the hierarchical structure which brooked no intervention, persisted as if it were immune to the challenges of the New Times. The old creeds - liberalism and conservatism - were permeated with the new ones, producing strange hybrids akin to Action Francaise of Charles Maurras.

This week you are asked to reflect over those contrasting visions and answer a somewhat schematic question: based on your reading and our lectures, do you consider Europe in 1900 as modern, traditional, or somehow a combination of both? You need to answer this by supporting your point with specific examples.

Good luck!