Thread 18103137

The situation of Italy and Russia was pretty much similar to each other with a bad economy, weak leadership and constant strikes and walkouts. Why didn't we see a bolshevik revolution like Russia/Cuba in Italy? I feel humiliated seeing a bunch of goons paid by the bourgise wiped out thh socialist movement that took over the half world, the ideology that even the CIA feared!

>>18103137 (OP)
There's a thesis that communism has been massively oversold as a theoretical formulation, was always overblown, and never overwhelmingly popular and communists would've been voted out of power if there were any free elections, but it's less relevant because almost all communist governments happened due to coups, military coups, foreign occupations and direct military victories (not voting, as a rule).

It looks dumber when you think of this way. Like internal Soviet elite debates in the 1930s about this are funny (when there was massive public discussion with massive amounts of letters to the government) because they were concerned that nobody cared about communism in the Marxist sense, people just wanted free stuff. This eventually came together to end communism in the way it did, as the promises didn't materialize, and you can't kick the can down the road together with fancy words because the people are normies and didn't care much about the words in the first place. There were also a lot of situations where Stalin or some other important person understood that the stuff produced by their academies was kinda moronic and became so desperate that they re-edited Tsarist programs and textbooks.

Both the bolsheviks and fascists relied on peasantry, which was was most people in both Italy and Russia.

>>18103145
That's a really stupid theory considering it falls flat on its face in light of the facts.

>>18103145
>would've been voted out of power if there were any free elections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_Italian_general_election

>>18103148
Russia and China were on another level in terms of the scale of that. Italy had Rome then a thousand years of Catholic influence over Europe. Latin was the language of European advancement. It just wasn't the same in Russia.
It goes like this.
Western Europe: liberal, wealthy, hates Marxism, Communists are too far away to care.
Central Europe: likes Marxism but hates communism and does not want to merge with communist states at thier doorstep.
Eastern Europe: the least liberalized and the most feudal. Becomes communist or is taken over by communists.
Dont even need to check that the peasantry in Russia and China vastly outnumbered and out ratiod any of the other major powers.

>>18103137 (OP)
Italy was never in a situation where the government could easily and swiftly be overthrown in the same way Russia was on the eve of the October "Revolution".

>>18103181
March on rome?

>>18103149
>>18103163
Intelligent White people Marxists correctly pointed out peasants and jews couldnt progress society toward the communist end-state, only the aristocratic could.

>>18103182
Mussolini convinced the King to name him prime minister through unconventional means, and initially his new government was even a coalition government that included several establishment parties. This route was not open to commies.

>>18103214
>Mussolini convinced the King to name him prime minister through unconventional means,
Or maybe he just feared the blackshirts would enter his palace

>>18103237
>Rome is eternal

>>18103137 (OP)
During the 20s, the government allied with the Fascists to suppress the socialists, leading to a fascist takeover. Then in the late 60s they tried again and the result was the Years of Lead. CIA supported the government and neo-fascists to suppress the socialists once again.

>>18103237
Is that not unconventional?

>>18103163
>didn't get a majority and lost 20% of seats in next election

>>18103163
Bombacci ended up becoming a fascist lol

Simple, it's the will to power. Government can be weak, but it's no use if people are not really ready to become the new rulers by themselves.
The Roman (commoners) lack the will to power, they are content with improving the government, having good rulers instead of overthrow everything.
The Chinese on the other hand: "The Azure Sky (old order) is already dead; the Yellow Sky (new order) will soon rise" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Turban_Rebellion

Another reason is that civilization is a poison that corrupts people, the longer a nation immersed itself with civilization, the harder it is for it to return to communism. Rome is one apex of civilization, so it's not surprise that their people cannot renounce their golden chain yet, heheh

>>18103660
Chinese society is way older than Roman society though.

>>18103145
your writing style reminds me of a guy called devlin on substack

>>18103182
If the King signed the a single paper and allowed the military to suppress the Black Shirts, the march would had ended within hours
Still up to today his motivations to make a bargain with Mussolini instead of just crushing him are obscures

Perché il comunismo è criiiiiiiiinge

>>18103819
True, but the poison of civilization hasn't deeply penetrated China yet, although their ancient society has existed for a long time.
That's why Daoism as a philosophy exists. Philosophy is the domain of the elites, but only in China there was a member of elites, Laozi, said that the optimal form of governance should be communism. Even Confucius agreed that communism is superior, but mankind has lost the "virtue" to do that, so we should aim for a "humane" class society.

Meanwhile, if you let the poison of civilization (class society) penetrate deep enough, then result is similar to India, where the lower classes instead of overthrowing the caste system, are content with we're higher than dalit.

>>18103145
well we did elect the first openly Marxist US president in 2008 but it did lead to a major political backlash afterward, so..

>>18104687
0/10

go back to Truth Social

>>18103137 (OP)
fascism is the way

>>18103137 (OP)
Royal Italy was fundamentally different from Tsarist Russia. Tsarist Russia was very much a state where the Tsar controlled every aspect of the society, including the religion. The Russian Orthodox Church was and is a state church. When the Tsar was removed in the February Revolution it laid the groundwork for the Bolshevik October Revolution later that year.

By contrast Royal Italy was an enlargement of the Duchy of Savoy. The Italian state had conquered the Papal States but Pope Pius IX refused to yield to their demands. He remained in the Vatican and declared himself to be a "prisoner in the Vatican". The Pope told Catholics not to participate in the Italian state. The Italian state by contrast embraced all sorts of things like secular Masonry which they adopted from the British and French. The people of Italy had a choice and roughly 1/4 sided with the Catholic Church against the Italian government, purposefully refusing to vote in elections. Later Popes Leo XIII and Pius X kept up the pressure on the Italian state. Only later under Benedict XV did the Vatican begin to come to accord with the Italian state as a result of WWI. So even with the failures of the Italian state, Italians could still look to Popes Benedict XV and Pius XI for leadership.

>>18103182
The March on Rome could have been stopped at any moment by the Italian Army which was personally loyal to King Victor Emmanuel III. All the top officers were from Piedmont. This remained true even during Mussolini's dictatorship, the top brass was always loyal to King Victor, not Mussolini. It's the reason why Mussolini was arrested during the war.

>>18106467
But atleast socialiats could perform something like the november revolution. I just think commies jusr chickened out after regular fascist attacks and intimidation.

>>18106509
The Bolshevik Revolution occurred under pretty unique conditions. The Tsar had already left in February and the monarchists had been sidelined. The Provisional Government of Russia was in the hands of the Progressives, while other parties like the Menshevik Social Democrats, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and the Bolsheviks occupied the other seats. When the election did happen the primary winner was the Socialist-Revolutionary party, not the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks took over the Russian Provisional Government from the hands of other socialists.

>>18106518
I was talking abt the november revolution.

>>18106523
The Bolshevik Revolution is the (October) November Revolution.

>>18103137 (OP)

the italian socialist party was ruled by incompetents who would speak and do nothing.
THey just scared the upper classes.
Petit bourgeoises, after WWI, were salty at industry workers because the war raised their salaries. Also, petit bourgeoises were employed in the war as non commissioned officers accostumed to violence and giving orders.
In the countrysides, especially in Emilia Romagna, the workers were organized in "camere del lavoro" and the unions were strong. Owners in the countrysides were the backbone of the original fascism, together with angry petit bourgeoise.
They simply destroyed workers' unions and the socialist party.

Also, the socialist party's leadership was extremist but not leninist, so they never dared to actually lead a revolution but they were still too extremist and stupid to ally with the catholic Partito Popolare italiano, so reactionaries sided with fascism and the rest is history.

Italians aren't bugmen.

>>18106518
Sorry i meant the february revolution

>>18106526
>They simply destroyed workers' unions and the socialist party.
Feels so humiliating, Socialists raped the entire royal family in russia, Mao shot every single landowner in a large country in China, Lenin starved every single rich fag in concentration camps and these Italian fags couldn't even handle goons wearing blackshirts. I literally pressing my teeth right now!!!!

>>18106528
Yes, but the socialists didn't work alone. They had to build a broad socialist-liberal coalition. Even then it was only after the millions of dead Russians in the first world war that the Russian people rejected the monarchy.

>>18106534
You know alot, those were interesting times. Leaders that had a clear point of view and some dedicated men could take over governments and systems. I would love travelling back in that era to be part of these events

>>18106533

Fascists won over WWI veteran support, the "goons wearing blackshirts" were accostumed to violence and tacticts, they led a campaigns against reds in Italy, literally destroying left wing organizations where they were the strongest: the industrialized and wealthy north.
Socialist leadership incompetence paved the road. Do not be an extremist if you are not willing to do a revolution or take the power.

>>18106540
I read a few books. I would not want to live in such turbulent times. But one does not get to choose the age one lives in. If I had lived in Italy during that time I probably would have supported either the Pope, the King, or Mussolini depending on where I was born.

>>18106542
Tf? Why didn't lenin send guerrillas or something. Like i know intimidation happens... but if they shoot one of your guys you skin alive 10 of theirs. They should've started a civil war as soon as the attacks happened. What is the power of some soft shopkeepers against some hungry peasent who has nothing to lose in life

>>18106545
So you would be supporting the bourgeise? The elites that were oppressing the poor. I feel you're American. Anyone with high T would love living in such turbulant times where a nobody would become a leader of a country

>>18106548
Yes, I am an American. An Italian-American. I live in a country where there are rich and poor and a middle class. I live in a country where worker's rights to higher wages, better working conditions, and a better standard of living have been achieved without revolution. Millions of people died in World War One, millions more in the Russian Civil War, and even more millions died in World War Two. I'm sure plenty of them were high T. You strike me as someone young and idealistic. The kind of person the leader of a country back then would have put into a trench.

>>18106555
>American
Knew it
>Italian American
Your ancestors probably migrated because of the dire economic conditions imposed by the elites with the help of mafia (another version of black shirts) to destroy unions and uprisings in sicily
>You strike me as someone young and idealistic. The kind of person the leader of a country back then would have put into a trench.
So Mr. Mussolini that you claimed to support or Hitler wasn't and idealist.

>>18106555
>better working conditions, and a better standard of living have been achieved without revolution.
1776

>>18106559
My ancestors left Naples because it was the most populous city in Italy but it had very little industry or good jobs. Prior to unification Naples had been the center of Southern Italy. A king lived there and all the taxes and wealth of the south was concentrated in Naples. When Italy unified all the wealth Naples had accrued was carried off by the conquerors from the North. Without a king or taxes the city fell on hard times. So people went to America. That some of the people of Naples supported the pope, the new king, or Mussolini seems pretty normal.

>>18106561
The American War of Independence was conducted by colonial governments which were already in power in the Thirteen Colonies and had been in power since the colonies were founded.

>>18106569
If you supported a revolution like Lenin that sent millions to camps for being leeches of the masses then things would've been better for Italy. But Italians have become to Urbanized (castracized) like this anon said >>18103660 to carry out a deadly revolt like the Chinese did once

>>18103137 (OP)
>The situation of Italy and Russia was pretty much similar to each other with a bad economy, weak leadership and constant strikes and walkouts. Why didn't we see a bolshevik revolution like Russia/Cuba in Italy?


Italy was already a monarchy and not perceived by the "European" nobility to be in danger in becoming a republic against their interests.

The October Revolution was the counter-coup against the February Revolution.
Ulyanov & his Bolsheviks were ciphers for the Junkers/Kaiser & other "European" nobility that didn't wanted republicanism (Jacobinism) take over Europe & depose the rest of them.

The Bolsheviks, having acknowledged the tactical/strategic position, they engaged in ruthless internal war, buying/receiving weapons from every willing monarchy & nobilities (or their wealthy ciphers) to slaughter & put back into line any prior disobedience, masking nobiliary interests with sovietism.
The antagonism against Poland, Ukraine, the Baltics etc, was because they wanted to take the route of Jacobinism.

Sidenote – this twist retrospectively proved the French revolutionary, Marat, infallibly correct; that royalty/nobility would've massacred Paris & the Jacobins had the latter not taken the actions they took.

Ulyanov-Lenin & the Bolsheviks were anti-jacobins pretending/masking to be Jacobins. Instead, all their actions mirrored (inversely) the interests of the "European" nobilities.

>>18106578
>things would've been better for Italy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
>It is widely regarded as the deadliest famine and one of the greatest man-made disasters in human history, with an estimated death toll due to starvation that ranges in the tens of millions (15 to 55 million). The most stricken provinces were Anhui (18% dead), Chongqing (15%), Sichuan (13%), Guizhou (11%) and Hunan (8%).

>The major contributing factors in the famine were the policies of the Great Leap Forward (1958 to 1962) and people's communes, launched by Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party Mao Zedong, such as inefficient distribution of food within the nation's planned economy; requiring the use of poor agricultural techniques; the Four Pests campaign that reduced sparrow populations (which disrupted the ecosystem); over-reporting of grain production; and ordering millions of farmers to switch to iron and steel production.

>>18103145
American political fanfiction

>>18106587
>one nation produces items and one produces fags and niggers
Choose your choice

>>18106579
What type of conspiracy bs is this? The royal family got shot to death. Was this the 5d chess the 'Czar' was playing out?

1. By the time the soviet revolution began italy was a den of anarchists. Completely different ideologies.
2. Italy was really close to become a warsaw pact state or at least warsaw pact adjacent. Operation gladio, the p2, the rise of cosa nostra, and proxy scapegoat terrorist organizations like the red brigades was all a convoluted plot by the mi6 and cia to prevent italy from going communist.

>>18106606
I heard anarchists were spooky and dangerous. Why did they cuck themselves in front of fascists