carcajou

Yes. As well as the flip side, "communist/socialist" for "things I don't like."

jonwel

A famous Russian politician (I won't say who) once described fascism as the "chemically distilled essence of capitalism"; in Italian you could say "capitalismo nello stato puro". The concept is of pure exploitation, unrestricted by legislation for the protection of workers' rights etc. etc. etc.
It used to be fashionable to hurl the word "fascist" at anyone the speaker didn't agree with. That was wrong and created a lot of confusion, leaving people defenceless when fascism really arrived. But I wouldn't accuse the writer of the Independent article of that, because he does make the effort of presenting facts that seem to point in the direction of the rise of fascism. However, I disagree with him all the same because he mistakes the politicians' intentions for the effective regime that they are able to impose in the country. We're not at the point of a regime of "pure unrestricted exploitation", even though there are steps in that direction. There is a rising tide of opposition, with interest in left-wing ideas among the youth and attempts to push the unions to the left. This road is difficult to predict as there's no longer a left party of any size (the PD is left-wing only in its own opinion), but a route will be found. Only after the defeat of a big explosion of struggle (like May 1968 in France, or the Autunno Caldo, 1969, in Italy), with the resulting demoralisation, will it be possible to impose something like a fascist regime.

We should study the history of the rise of fascism and nazism. It's one thing to go to Auschwitz and tut-tut over the evils of nazism; it's another thing to study the complicity of the German capitalist parties, the cowardice of the social-democrats and the blind sectarianism of the Stalinists, all of which enabled the rise of Hitler.

modicasa

I disagree. Mussolini's original fascism was nothing like capitalismo allo stato puro. IN fact Italian fascism promoted a corporate economic ideal with workers and employers working together. It promoted a liberal economy, annulling taxes which hit the high earners (flat tax and foreign capital - see this years budget) An empire - through influence and propaganda which gives the state more leverage than it would otherwise have, it didnt originally mean invading other countries - the Lega's idea of a pan european populism. It promoted 'normal' sexual behaviour - (see the utterances of Fontana - minister of the family),

However, fascism has becomes one of those words, like tragedy, that has been diluted and changed its meaning over the years, and essentially has become a word which means racist and fuelling hate with a state which permits its people to be 'better' than incomers - encouraging Italians to have more children to keep the race alive.

But I agree we need to study history to know what Salvini is up to - which is why it's eerily depressing that the government wants to abolish the teaching of history in schools. Another thing Mussolini did.

jonwel

Just propaganda - it was a way to bind workers hand and foot to their exploiters. When I say "capitalismo nello stato puro" I'm not saying that there was no state intevention; There certainly was, and on a large scale. But it was all in the interests of big business.

Sancho

I've just noticed this, In the Spiegal

Matteo Salvini Has Emboldened Fascists in Italy - SPIEGEL ONLINE

philat98