After reading Danielle's post about fascism in Italy, I found myself agreeing with a lot of the points she makes. However, I think an important assessment of fascism is missing.
When Danielle says, "I mean i can see why people would like this- especially after how the previous government FAILED at getting what they wanted from the outcome of WWI" when discussing Mussolini's speaking strategies and his regime in general, I have to add another point. Fascism was appealing to Italy, and all nations that have adopted such a regime since because they were/are weak. Fascism has only been successful in countries that were desperately looking for a way out from a terrible situation. Take both Italy and Germany for example. Before the fascist regimes, both experienced inept governments and terrible conditions both economically and socially. When either Mussolini or Hitler showed the least bit of a solution to their respective nations' problems, people blindly followed because of a few reasons: they couldn't think of anything better, fear, and it was a quick and easy option. Fascism, even though glorified (by some) for creating powerful, unified, nationalistic states, was a way out for the weak when one gets down to it. It wasn't about Italy or Germany being powerful, it was about them not being weak and, in this desire to not be weak, they turned to awful dictators. It takes time to build democracy. It's not an easy task. It is, however, easy for someone to brainwash some people, get a moderately sized army, and kill all those who oppose him/ place the blame on certain group so as to unify the nation. Basically, all that fascism is proud of (nationalism, unification, militarism, etc.) were really a weak and temporary way of solving difficult problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment