Origins and Doctrine of Fascism: With Selections from Other Works

by Giovanni Gentile

Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944) was the major theorist of Italian fascism, supplying its justification and rationale as a developmental form of dictatorship for status-deprived nations languishing on the margins of the Great Powers. Gentile's "actualism" (as his philosophy came to be called) absorbed many intellectual currents of the early twentieth century, including nationalism, syndicalism, and futurism. He called the individual to an idealistic ethic of obedience, work, self-sacrifi ce, and national community in a dynamic rebellion against the perceived impostures of imperialism. This volume makes available some of his more signifi cant writings produced shortly before and after the Fascist accession to power in Italy.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, World War II, Economics

122 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1929

About the author

Giovanni Gentile (Italian: [dʒoˈvanni dʒenˈtiːle]; May 30, 1875 – April 15, 1944) was an Italian neo-Hegelian Idealist philosopher and politician, a peer of Benedetto Croce. He described himself as 'the philosopher of Fascism', and ghostwrote A Doctrine of Fascism (1932) for Benito Mussolini. He also devised his own system of philosophy, Actual Idealism.

Reviews

[Mohammad Ali Shamekhi · Rating 4 out of 5]

نمره ی واقعی: سه و نیم

کتاب شامل بخش های زیر است: 1) سرچشمه ها و دکترین فاشیسم (1929) ( همراه با افزوده ها: الف. فلسفه فاشیسم؛ ب. قوانین شورای عالی؛ هر دو به سال 1928) - در 52 صفحه؛ 2) گزیده ای از "فاشیسم چیست؟" (1925) - 32 صفحه؛ 3) گزیده ای از "اصلاحات آموزشی" از نسخه ی بازبینی شده ی 1919 - در 27 صفحه

به نظرم کتاب خواندنی است از نظر بی تعارف بودن و تلاش برای مواجه کردن خواننده با آنچه که خود پیشاپیش درست می داند اما جزئت ابرازش در او نیست یا حداقل تبعاتش را نمی پذیرد. مثلا اینکه ایده آل هایی وجود دارند که آزادی تردیدناپذیر بشر رو سوی آنها دارد. یا اینکه فرد مستقل و اتمی لیبرالیسم و بعضی اقسام تفکر چپ نه وجود داشته، نه وجود دارد و نه وجود خواهد داشت

مترجم انگلیسی در مقدمه ی کوتاه خود متذکر نکته ای جالب می شود؛ اینکه جهان غرب مارکسیسم را به مثابه یک اندیشه پذیرفته است و جنایات و خشونت ها مانع نشده که این اندیشه در آکادمی جدی گرفته شود. اما این اتفاق برای فاشیسم نیافتاده و عموما فاشیسم را صرف شور و شوقی کور و حیوانی درک کرده اند. رجوع به آثار جنتیله در مقام فیلسوف رسمی فاشیسم که موسولینی او را جدی می گرفت، راهی می گشاید برای رها شدن از این پندار نادرست

جنتیله ایدئالیست است به چند معنا: از نظر فلسفی ایدئالیست است چون میان علت و دلیل فرق می گذارد و معتقد است هیچ چیز بدون آنکه پیشاپیش متعلق آگاهی شود قابل بحث نیست ( یعنی دلیل امری بنیادی تر از علت است ) - مثلا تمایز بدن از روح امری است ساخته ی خود روح یا خودآگاهی و به همین دلیل ماتریالیسم امری سطحی است. از نظر انسان شناسی اخلاقی و ارزشی ایدئالیست است زیرا معتقد است انسان رو به سویی دارد و اراده ای او را به جانبی می کشاند - البته این اراده غیر از آرزوهایی غیرقابل دستیابی فردی است؛ بلکه همان اراده ای است که در نهایت بالفعل می شود و نمودش در تاریخ است. از نظر فلسفه ی تاریخ ایدئالیست است زیرا معتقد است این ایده ها هستند که تاریخ را محقق می کنند و نه آنکه تاریخ ایده ها را پدید آورد. از نظر انسان شناسی ایدئالیست است زیرا من فردی اتمی را انکار می کند و معتقد است پدیده هایی مثل زبان و ایده آل های عام نشان از یک "ما" دارند که بنیان "من" است. و از نظر سیاسی ایدئالیست است زیرا دولت را تبلور ایده می داند، تبلور همان مایی که بنیاد فردیت است، تبلور روح زمانه

به نظرم کتاب علی رغم خواندنی بود ضعف فلسفی کم ندارد. ضعفش هم بیشتر در این است که گاهی استدلال ها استواری کافی ندارند و گاهی پیوندهایی فرض گرفته می شود بدون آنکه تبیینی و توجیهی در میان باشد. کاش آثار جدی تر و فلسفی تر جنتیله و مفسران فلسفی او ترجمه شود یا ترجمه های انگلیسی اش در دسترس باشد تا بیشتر این فضای فکری را بتوان درک فلسفی کرد

[Aung Sett Kyaw Min · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this collection of texts by Gentile to be indispensible in understanding not only the genesis but the ultimate fate of Italian Fascism. I had initially thought that Fascist intellectuals, enthralled by Great Man politics, made no sincere efforts to explicitly spell out the link between theory and praxis, and would always refer to the Duce's authority in the last instance. The supposed programmatic aims of Fascism are not contradicted by Duce's policy decisions because the programmatic aims themselves never crystalized into a coherent body of doctrine. But Gentile appears to be arguing along the lines that this notion of action preceding thinking (or of thinking embodied in practice, "thought in flight") is precisely what generates the dynamism that is so distinctive about Fascism. Hegelian idealism is employed in full force. Gentile conceives of the state as having a life, mind and spirit of its own, pursuing its own ends. It is not a limit that an individual runs up against, or as something that tyranically imposes empty laws on the latter, but the organic expression of true individuality, truer than the individualism of liberalism or socialism. Moreover, the state is not synonamous with the nation, even as both are conceived as a work that is always in the process of making.

[Theo Austin-Evans · Rating 1 out of 5]

I figured when I first started reading this I'd end up having to write a few things to exonerate myself. See, I'm a great enjoyer of Jünger's books - even though I fully concur with Theweleit's criticism and analysis of them, and also generally find myself on the other side of the political aisle - so I thought I might get a kick out of the whole self-sacrifice and WWI angle Gentile espouses here. You know what? Aesthetically, that stuff was just fine and dandy.

But the rest? Complete horseshit. And I have to emphasise horseshit. Who the hell did Gentile think he was kidding when he proclaimed that (I'm paraphrasing here) fascism produces a society more democratic than democracy, more liberal than liberalism? I can respect the ballsiness of such an absurd statement, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous in the cold light of day. I understand the steps he took to get there of course, here they are in a rough approximation:

(i) Deny the existence/significance of class conflict
(ii) Create a mythic notion of the State which every strata of society can identify and receive their meaning and value from
(iii) Allow these different classes to accept their position within a hierarchy through a submission to this greater notion, to a task and mission that everyone can collaborate on (although it is never finished)
(iv) Twist the very meaning of "liberty" itself so that it means something tantamount to duty, or perhaps fidelity, to the State, as one's will and freedom is defined strictly in its own terms

So everybody's happy right? Everyone in their own place? But the revelations occur to the great men, to the Il Duce's of the world, and they instantiate the ideal.

And revelation is irrefutable - it calls forth for a vicious anti-intellectual bent, because who can argue with what God has ordained? Gentile goes on an anti-intellectual screed here that would, if applied to poets, make Socrates blush. Those who argue against the fascist cause are idlers, conspirators, degenerate socialist destabilisers, and so they deserve all the violence that rains down upon them. With revelation, coherent doctrine too flies out the window, opportunism and complete inconsistency become rationalised. Fascism is a "philosophy" of action, so any whim verifies itself in the fascist soul, across all dimensions. Mussolini a staunch republican? Let's kiss the ring. Let's unify with the Roman Catholic Church. Anything for the good of the State's inception.

Contradictions are abundant, and frankly my eyes began to skim over entire paragraphs. Only three or four points are actually made, and they are made ad nauseum, so much so that I just couldn't be arsed to read the final chapter. There are some worrisome overlaps with the anti-individualist/atomistic work of contemporary communitarians here, communitarians whose work I respect (here's looking at you, MacIntyre). But I mean we see examples of this all the time with Nouvelle Droit/GRECE types, so it's not wholly surprising. But it's still a tad unnerving to know the proximity these positions can have to one another. This also applies to Mussolini's infamous beginnings as a socialist himself, it confounds me to no end to see how such similar premises can lead to such divergent (and as history has shown, genocidal) conclusions.

When all is said and done this tract isn't worth the price of admission, and although the translator's introduction begs the reader to be as lenient on this as one would when reading Marx or Lenin (the age old communism-fascism equivalency once again rears its head), I just don't buy it. If I had to sum it up, to me it seems as if Gentile read the semi-ironic hellscape found in Der Arbeiter* and completely signed off on it, reveling in the idea of life as duty (read as: suffering). Thank fuck they hung these bastards upside down and had the whole village beat them to a bloody pulp.


*Jünger's book wouldn't be published for another three years, so this analogy doesn't strictly hold water chronologically.

[Nobody · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short explain of what Fascism is by actual Fascists. Great for anyone who actually what to learn about the idea of Fascism.

[Alish · Rating 3 out of 5]

طبیعتا این نمره رو بابت توانایی نویسنده در انتقال منظور مورد نظرش و همچنین ترجمه کتاب دادم نه خدایی نکرده بابت محتویاتش

[Wilson Tun · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hegelian Idealism and Sorelianism have been a disaster for the Marxist movement. When I stumbled upon this book, a fascist book written by a fascist for fascists, it almost sounds occultist (which it is but still, not as much as what you would expect from Ayranbros across the alps). I put myself on brainwash with daily affirmations of “I will keep myself open-minded and objective while reading this book”, I realized it’s not that terrifying as I expected.

Gentile is quite an eloquent writer that articulated points in simple but sophisticated way. Firstly, he wrote about how WW1 awakened the mythical spirit of Italian People and how Risorgimento changed the ways that Italians think. In this blurry mist of nationalist outbursts of energy, Sorelianism took a right turn and synthesized with Nationalism.

This nationalism, typically associated with Traditional Right was taken to create a new original form of nationalism, not of aristocrats’ will but of people’s will. This is where Mussolini came in according to Gentile, the Übermensch with will to power to bend the reality, dripping in Nietzschean model of uprooting the slave-master morality designations to will something greater into the reality, that reality being, the Fascist Italy. If Gentile had read Don Quixote instead of Mazzini’s works, he wouldn’t have made this preposterous proposition.

My most favorite part was when Gentile talked about how Fascism is not a political or philosophical doctrine, not of intellectual type but of philosophy of practice. It’s not theoretical nor conceptual, it is not like a sect or school consisting of scriptures and biblical texts like Marxism is. It’s entirely consisting of feelings and euphoric bursts of political energy, willed into reality not by thoughts, but with action. This finally clicks in my head because I thought of Fascism as a sect of political ideology similar to Marxism is but whenever I try to research about it, it ends up being incoherent. This is also pretty obvious on Wikipedia when it tries to summarizes the ideology of Fascism and it ends up being just National Socialism but different labels which was prophetically acknowledged by Gentile when he said that the fascist state can only be determined by negative terms because the fascist state rose as an antithetical to the socialist and liberal conception of worldview from that which, Fascism articulated the nature of State.

Anti-intellectualism of Fascism was interesting too because it sounds soo paradoxical but it makes sense from their prepositions. They are against ‘intellectualism’ because intellectuals are apathetic thinkers, detached from reality while fascists (in a fascist perspective) are idealistic doers, grounded in reality. So when Fascists talk about ‘purging the intellectuals’, they are talking about this.

Other parts talk about how a Corporative State should be implemented and how a fascist state is ‘more democratic’ than a liberal democracy because “liberty of fascism” is different from “liberty of individual”, in the context of fascism, both State and Individual are the same. State is within the Individual and Individual is within the State. Everything should be subordinated to the State because the State is the epitome of liberty. Only through the guidance of State to develop the culture and morality, the citizens can be free rightful and dutiful citizens rather than selfish and individualistic citizens.

Overall, it’s a pretty good book on how Fascism truly is from the perspective of actual Fascists. I think I understand the mindset and worldview of Fascism now. Give it a read and see how it fares. We can’t keep censoring what we don’t understand. We have to understand the flaws of what once had been, to reflect, adapt, and evolve.

[Daniel Almeida Leon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amazingly complex in what it wants to be, but much more clear in what it is. This manifesto obviously gives an idealists view of fascism, but it introduces such philosophical nuance that you begin to understand how exactly the term 'third position' first arose. It is in its core anti-positivist in its material analysis; the opposite of a dialectically materialistical viewpoint. The book is a good brain exercise into fascist political theory although a bit too short and sometimes too abstract.

[Evan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Needs to be read with an open mind as well as patience. Gentile doesn’t say much of anything specifically. There are no hate-filled rants here, just philosophy and history.

[Bartholomew · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for anyone curious about what this ideology is.

[Will · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was an informative book. It helped me to understand the ideology of fascism, but still a terrible ideology.

[Mattjmjmjm · Rating 1 out of 5]

A text of word salad to justify an all powerful state.

[Alan A · Rating 3 out of 5]

Preface before my review: I am not a fascist, but someone who studies political science and political theory. Now, a short and brief comment.

The tradition of Fascism finds itself deeply rooted in being inspired by figures like Karl Marx, Hegel, and various figures between the enlightenment and romantic era of European history. Many contemporary anti-fascist people probably do not know "how" to define this ideology. It prompted authors like Orwell to write "What is Fascism" for that very reason. But nowhere better can it be found than actual primary fascist sources. Giovanni is amongst one of them. PLEASE do not equate him with someone like Julius Evola. I will probably be tempted to insult you.

Instead of giving a linear definition, it is more appropriate to lay out the contents and aspects of Fascism as a kind of methodology. Neglecting to do so would make almost anything, and everything that isn't liberal seem fascist, which is what sensational media has often portrayed when the ignorant make so and so claim.

How is it that former socialist, syndicalist, communist, and other students of Marx or Lenin find themselves to be fascist? Why Enrico Corradini (a later national syndicalist), Alfred Rocco (former Socialist/Syndicalist who became a nationalist), Ugo Spirito (marxist then fascist; advancer of actualism), and Sergio Panuzio (Another marxist who became a nationalist) betray this kind of revolution for another? The difference lies in this: what KIND of revolution was the left looking for? Lenin, infuriated, criticized the Italian left for abandoning Mussolini in a written letter. The divide between the communist and the socialist was between a national and international solidarity. The nationalist sought the closeness and wellbeing of their kin and won out in other places, causing a greater schism in the international during the early 20th century. The nationalist left then became a new kind of frontier.

Italy, the grand experiment of the trade unionism. The perfect corporatist testing ground for the time. Liberalism would be extinguished, the individual would be swallowed in favor of the collective, and the fascist would be a new and better human. It's much more than a political authoritarian belief but an anthropological, economic, and social sphere that was unique for the time.

This is an excellent book to understand Italian fascism and why it inspired figures from Oswald Mosley & Francisco Franco who would develop their own variations of fascism. This is, after all, incomparable to the uniquely unique German approach, which took the form of national socialism. Again, another party finding itself in socialist and marxist roots, propagated by nationalist sentiments, brewed a very controversial and dangerous tradition. It was as such that Hitler would force and coerce his allies to commit to various anti-semetic and even some anti-christian policies in favor of the state idolatry, a complete and unwavering loyalty to their material superior, that was warned by the Pontiff such as that of Pope Pius XII.

[Jed Myers · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is very difficult to write a review for this but this is genuinely one of the most important books for an anti-fascist to read. Ur-Fascism I think is a bad primer because it identifies the symptoms. But the disease is a virus. It is poorly understood by most and evolves very quickly but has a definite and important internal logic to know. Because contained within is the inner logic of fascism which is driven by a theory of the mind and reality that is utterly foreign to liberalism in many ways but is disturbingly intuitive. And fascism or national socialism cannot be understood without understanding "Absolute Idealism". Things that come across as magical thinking are, indeed, perfectly valid in a fascistic worldview.

It's also very hard to understand 1984 without this context too. Or various quotes by fascists. A liberal or a leftist sees: "The state and only the state" and because of how we conceive the state, as the government, we assume it means devotion to the regime. Which is true, but it misses that the primary meaning is literal. The State is a collective reality that all within it live in. There is nothing outside the state, which both is the culmination of and a shaper of reality. And you need Gentile to understand this.

Once you've read this, you will not be able to unsee their worldview. And it becomes much easier to recognize fascism or fascist tendencies. But more importantly it can be deradicalizing for Fascists. Because the real logic of Fascism creates a world that is everything that horrifies people about Post-Modernism.

[cellus · Rating 3 out of 5]

read out of intellectual curiosity, not political sympathy.

interesting to see the context in which fascism developped, why it specifically appeared in Italy and what the philosophical arguments (often dotted with abuse towards political enemies) were for it. the fact there was a whole, serious, metaphysical background to an ideology often discarded as the embodiment of bigoted populist ravings was surprising.

however still not a supporter of fascism and Gentile's pedagogica approach remains quite abstract in the extracts given (although it apparently led to an important reform in Italy itself).

[Jesse · Rating 1 out of 5]

Only read the title essay. Surprised by the prominent place that Sorellianism is given in the development of Fascism. Worth noting that the editor, A. James Gregor, seems to be a bit of a fascist himself, so there's reason to worry if his selection of essays is biased.

[Vinfort · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book shows many complexities of ideology, especially fascism. In a contemporary period full of defamation, oversimplification, and outright misuse of words all lead to the relativization of a subject.

[Alex Neo · Rating 2 out of 5]

دوستان من نمیدونم چطور کتاب عارو دانلود کنم کسی میدونه کمک کنه لطفا

[Hardman Heydrich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Concise, artistic, beautiful. Gentile and Mussolini were truly geniuses and this book speaks to that. Not a single page or sentence is wasted, you can read this a hundred times and come out with something new at every reading.

[Bob Dobbs · Rating 3 out of 5]

Instructive. The socialist origins of fascism laid bare by one of it's architects. Required reading for anyone who wants more than a pop-culture education in political thought.

[doukicanread · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book fully solidified my criticism of fascism. Fascism does not care about your race, religion, gender, or culture what fascism cares about is if you comply, comply, comply! it wants you to conform because the state wanted it. your personality, action, and mind is dictated by the state and Stated by the state it is the embodiment of totalitarianism. and Nazism is it's racist brother that states racial hierarchy with esoteric and it pseudoscience literature and understanding I dislike fascism and Nazism I detest them both but it should be taught as political theory not to be put it in practice as a system of government.

[Nathaniel Westermann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exultant.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascism is notoriously hard to describe, from its pundits but also its greatest critics.

The heart of this reason is the innate morphology and anti-intellectualism that gives fascism only principles of action and reaction, creation and destruction, in a very “Machiavellian” and pragmatic realpolitik.

Fascism despite being “totalitarian” at its heart is the ideological and structural antithesis to communism.

Conflict will always be inevitable between these factions.


For Communism, it is a rather strict ideology that absolutely dominated one’s world view, but inherent in this religiosity was a vast limitation of steps that could be taken to change society. We saw this throughout the Soviet Union, where semblances of bourgeoise or capitalist ideas, would be taboo despite the real and beneficial effects of incorporating “non aligned” ideas (free trade, private property, finance etc.)


In contrast, Fascism sees methods then see possible outcomes then uses ideology after to justify action. Communism had strict ideology and only sees a deluded outcome, scraping at methods after the ideas and goals have been determined.

Bit of a simplification, but structurally fascism sees its tools and then goals, it is willing to change itself to achieve ends, a flexibility that is its greatest strength and greatest weakness.

Will finish this review later.

This is a necessary reading if you wish to understand in a professional and “academic” sense what fascism entails.

Much work to do.

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Origins and Doctrine of Fascism" is a book by Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile, first published in 1928. The book is a critical analysis of the origins and nature of Fascism, and provides an intellectual justification for the Fascist movement in Italy.

Gentile was a prominent intellectual figure in Italy during the early 20th century and was closely associated with the Fascist movement. In "Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", he argues that Fascism represents a radical break with traditional forms of political thought, and is based on a new understanding of the nature of the state and the individual.

Gentile emphasizes the importance of the state in Fascist ideology, and suggests that the state should be seen as the embodiment of the national will. He also argues that the individual must be subordinated to the needs of the state, and that Fascism provides a framework for achieving social harmony and national unity.

Overall, "Origins and Doctrine of Fascism" provides an important insight into the intellectual and ideological origins of Fascism in Italy. The book has been widely studied by scholars of political theory and intellectual history, and has contributed to ongoing debates about the nature of Fascism and its relationship to modern politics.

GPT

[Arya Tabaie · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author truly is as stupid as he looks.