Thanks for the history lesson, OUC.

I think it was Reagan: “If fascism ever comes to America it will be under the guise of liberalism.” Fascism hides an agenda under lies and public giveaways and espousing individual rights and concern. But the things they do are oppressive to the minority (as in the individual) and in favor of the collective. Fascists are led by the elitists who don't truly understand the struggles and realities of personal survival thus they are quick to give away American rights and property to maintain power and popular standing. And all the little people who follow the entitled want the approval of their idols and masters. The Left-wing has gone so far left it is opposite of what it stands for (open minded = liberal thinking.) In fact in my seventy-five years on the planet, it seems social open mindedness comes from people who are economic conservatives. But hanging a tag like liberal or conservative on those who love freedom serves the lying politicians more than it serves the truth.
Liberals are the new fascists. They encourage riots, mayhem, and lies. Black lives matter, Berkeley anti free-speech riots, and so on. Violence = Liberals. To the pot add Soros and other Democratic and foreign donors providing money to the ever name changing AntiFa and other quickly invented thug groups that use old fashioned intimidation and violent demonstrations define current conditions in the US. They even have a rapid response fund to take advantage of situations as they arise.
FASCISM IN AMERICA=LIBERALS, THE AUTOCRATS=OBAMA AND CLINTON AND OTHER POWER HUNGRY MEMBERS OF THE BELTWAY. DRAIN THE SWAMP!!

We all knew that Fascism is a form of socialism, so what does it matter the name of the fellow who thought it up?No form of socialism ca ever work because the human brain is too complex. Few humans can stay on a single track without thinking of a way to do better, i: e: make more money or do a task better than other humans.Most do not have thewill to break away in order to improve themselves, but those that do under socialism can only do it by becoming a

Although Gentile may have been the first to codify it different forms of the demand; "I get to control you", have existed probably since man became self aware and the first individual who said, "I think I will do what I want and discover the results and make decisions based on what is efficient or gets the desired results." Causing the person standing next to him to say, "Not without my permission and extortion for doing so!" It simply took time to begin to codify labels, write down the ideas. I have no doubt Dinesh is correct in identifying Gentile he is a great researcher and thinker.

I have a lot problems with Dinesh D'Souza...he is an altruist and religionist...

the father of Capitalism was the mother of Capitalism...Ayn Rand...Dinesh will not acknowledge her because she is an atheist...and he denounces all Objectivism...

For heuristic reasons, I think we should keep Fascism identified with Mussolini and Hitler:
1) It shows it's a failed form of state
2) It identifies Fascism with Socialism (Nazism = NAtional ZocIalism)
3) Gentile will be confused with 'gentile'

Great find! Thanks for posting.

I have always known this intuitively because of my base of identified values, but I did not know the history of fascism or Nazism. Now I can have an even more knowledgeable conversation with my friends on the left. Thank you for sharing.

Apparently, you have never seen a Mercury dime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury...

"Facsism" qua "fascism" is entirely an Italian phenomenon.
"By extension, the word fascio came in modern Italian political usage to mean group, union, band or league. It was first used in this sense in the 1870s by groups of revolutionary democrats in Sicily, to describe themselves." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascio

D'Souza attempts to navigate the Scylla and Charybdis of the Political Left and Political Right, but you can find "Left Syndicalism" (such as the anarchists of Barcelona in the Spanish Civil War, as in Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell) and "Right Syndicalism" which is very much like "fascism" as we know it today. The problem with "Left-Right" is that it ignores conceptual essentials. The Left-Right axis was the seating arrangement of the French national assembly in the Revolution where those on the right were monarchists and those on the left were democrats. The better way to think about this is the two-dimensional Authoritarian-Libertarian X-Y axis of "The Smallest Political Quiz." (https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/qui... ) (Just note that this 35-year old recruiting tool has changed over the years as issues have come and gone from headline news.)

The ideas of "fascism" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were widespread and commonly accepted. Our National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance come from that same intellectual tradition.

For an example of the intellectual middle ground of the time, allow me to suggest one paper, "The Rising National Individualism" by Herbert Adolphus Miller, in The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 5 (Mar., 1914), pp. 592-605. The author did not mean "individualism" as you and I do. He referred to the tendency of intellectuals to support Nationalist Socialism as opposed to International Socialism.

"It is not at all clear just where the individual merges into the social, but we have become familiar with the contrast between Individualism and Socialism, and everyone has a fairly good idea of what is meant by the two terms. We are beginning to see that men are more closely related to the groups to which they belong- family, community, and religious organization-than to any inter- est which could be more specifically called merely personal. The object of this paper is to show that there is a rapidly developing individualism that is distinctly social, and which promises to become a powerful factor in human affairs. The earlier conflict between Socialism and Individualism is likely to be diverted to that between Socialism and Nationalism or the struggle for national individuality. At the present moment the world is organizing itself into two great camps-Socialism and Nationalism. Both are expressions of the group feeling; both are movements of revolt; both are struggles for freedom. They started from a common impulse about fifty years ago, but quickly found themselves arrayed against each other. One would break down political boundaries; the other would build them up. Socialism calls all the world one; Nationalism sets part against the rest. Socialism is economic; Nationalism sentimental. Both are rapidly becoming world-wide and must fundamentally modify statescraft."

The most surprising aspect of this paper is that it was not surprising in any way. Herbert Adolphus Miller taught sociology at Oberlin College and Ohio State University. Among his few papers was "Some Psychological Considerations in the Race Problem," (Bibliotheca Sacra 63 (1906): 352-363.) The closing paragraph of that paper opens with this:

Finally, class and race as well as sex problems arise from' lack of spiritual affinity between the groups or individuals concerned. They lack " consciousness of kind." This phrase resolves itself into consciousness of the same kind of ideals or purposes. A social relation exists as soon as there are common purposes.

The explicit collectivism is obvious, but, again, not exceptional for the times.