Proof that Fascism is a from of Marxism

Daniel Bonevac Lecture 2013 Fascism Clip Four 29:43 to 29:55

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf8YpfTCXLs

Now the Marxists immediately label Fascism a movement of the political right. On the other hand, to some extent, he clearly was to the right of Lenin but still it’s very similar to Marxism.

Daniel Bonevac Lecture 2013 Fascism Clip Three 12:35 to 14:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf8YpfTCXLs

But does imply that class struggle can’t be everything because after all, that’s an economic sort of struggle but if it’s not all economics that it’s not all class struggle something else is going on and so there are a number of respects in which Mussolini is a heretic from the point of view from Orthodox Marxism some of them are ones where he shares views with Lenin he believes in Vanguard minorities they’re small trained dedicated elites and what they do is that respect he sounds just like Lenin, He thinks violence will be necessary again just like Lenin. He wants to prepare the proletariat for the greatest bloodbath of all, well that phase is actually from Mussolini not from Lenin but it sounds like it could be easily from Lenin, right? So in those respects, he’s in line with Orthodox Marxism.
He is also opposed to reformism; trade union consciousness; democracy. He see the party as having a very important role and it’s gotten be centralized; it’s got to be hierarchical; it’s got to be highly disciplined in its early stages secret. He thinks the proletariat won’t organize itself. He wants the leadership of professional revolutionaries. He thinks you can bring about this consciousness and bring about the revolution that in the end violence is necessary and that organized violence will wind up. So in all those respects he’s really a Leninist. Well, then why does Mussolini diverge in other ways. Why does he end up in a different position?

Daniel Bonevac Lecture 2013 Fascism Clip Two 07:27 to 09:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf8YpfTCXLs

In any case he did diverge from Marx is some ways which are familiar but in one really fundamental way.
First of all, like Lenin, he said the revolution isn’t going to come on it’s own there will need to be revolutionary elite. A group of people who will develop the social myth; who will tell the narrative; who will not only develop proletarian consciousness in the sense of making people aware of their conditions but then a story to make a certain type of sense of their conditions but then a story to make a certain type of sense to it and to get them interested in revolution.
Secondly he rejected Marx’s materialism he thought Sorel (Georges Sorel) was right. The power of ideas; of myths; of stories; of narratives is very important. So he rejected Marx’s materialism and he’s Economic Determinism. He said no there is an independent power of ideas, of myths, thoughts are an important part of how society functions and how people act. So they have to be recognised as apart of a theory. They aren’t just economic and they aren’t just material things.
But here is the final one, which really was the fundamental brick, here is where he diverged not only from Marx but Lenin and Social and a variety of other people he rejected the idea of class struggle. He said look if all the conditions that matter are economic and if we are really just pawns in economic forces then indeed then there is nothing to understand about history except the way these economic interact and so you can think about the whole history of the world be about class struggle but if you reject that economic determinism. If ideas have separate importance if it matters what type of story you tell; what type of myths people believe in; how they understand themselves in other words. Then this idea of class struggle doesn’t really make any sense. This can’t be the sole driving force of history even if it’s one of the things that makes a difference.

Daniel Bonevac Lecture 2013 Fascism Clip One 04:48 to 05:05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf8YpfTCXLs

As I have mentioned his parents were Socialists and also considered themselves anarchists, which is an interesting combination.
They were deeply influenced by Marx and Mussolini was too. He referred to Marx as the Father and Teacher, the magnificent philosopher of working class violence.