Towards the liberation of Gender

This one was published in Queerelle, the Australian Queer student annual ziney thing - http://querelle09.comfypage.com/

Gender Queer has always been an interesting term to me, it is a label against labels, a steryotype against steryotypes and a box against boxes. It is a term applied to misfits, to outlaws, to those who don't feel comfortable within any of the traditional gender steryotypes and, lets face it with only two to choose from they are kinda boring. Gender Queer is for those who don't want to just push the boundaries of traditional gender steryotypes but create an entirely new and individual way of relating to gender – or doing away with gender totally, so that we can all be free to choose how to act, what to wear etc. without the restrictions of an oppressive socialisation.
Gender, as opposed to Sex, is learnt through socialisation. While sex refers to the chromosomes you were born with, gender has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with society. Gender is a set of rules that say 'Women wear dresses' 'Boys play rough' etc. These rules dictate an amazing amount of our lives to us, they tell us how to act, who to be attracted to, they determine how others interact with us, the risk of sexual assault, what careers we are suited for and more.
The thing I love about talking to other gender outlaws or about reading their experiences, is that everyone is different, there is no standard prescription. By (attempting to) cast off all expectations we decide our own rules or decide against rules altogether and move a step closer to liberation, the liberation of our identities, the liberation of our right to choose and the liberation of our desire.
The politics of being Gender Queer is the politics of personal experience and and shared stories. It is not something some psychiatrist can diagnose, or some academic can analyse. It relates to our individual stories which we share to create a mosaic that can eclipse the old, stagnant society of biological determinism.
Some people know they don't fit into gender boxes from a young age. However I never thought about it until puberty. As a boy, I was happy being a boy. I rode my bike real fast. I played in the mud. I ripped my clothes. I thought girls were silly when they played house. Puberty came as a massive shock to me, as I discovered how boys turned into men, as I discovered how we were supposed to behave as we grew up, I was disgusted. The stories laid out for me, told time and time again in magazines and in movies, by teachers and parents, those stories didn't fit any more. I didn't want to become a man. I didn't want to be strong or hairy like move stars. I didn't want to be a breadwinner like my dad. I didn't want anyone to assume I was more intelligent or better than my female friends. I didn't want to inherit the responsibility of being male. I didn't want to treat females as objects like my peers did or take a sadistic role in sex, like the pornos told me to. I did want to be able to express my feelings and communicate my desires. I did want to be able to wear clothes with frills, or lace, or ribbon. I wanted to be free to wear a dress. I wanted to be able to tell my friend I am attracted to him and not get bashed or ostracised by my other 'friends'.
I personally am lucky in that I have never come crashing up violently against gender expectations. To me gender is more like a constant barrage of low level attacks. The strange looks and questions like: “Why are you wearing a dress?”, being heckled in the street “FAGGOT”, the masculine characters in books or on the screen, those boxes you have to tick that say male or female, like it is not enough to just be fucking human. Like everyone has made up their mind before talking to you, based on your sex. Everything is telling me to conform, everyone (almost) expects homogeneity. But like so many oppressed, every step towards freedom that is made by anyone anywhere, brings me a little closer to my own liberation. So I implore you, if you are not comfortable with the crappy arbitrary expectations that are placed upon you: REBEL AGAINST THEM. Make your own rules, reclaim your identity, choose to live however you want and live your desire. It will make us all a little more free.

Ropes with Chains

Now i don't believe in their fucking rules, in the system that cages hearts and beats us down
but i don't believe in your rules either
I won't let you replace their chains with your ropes
you can't liberate us with another fucking system
they never asked for my consent
my virginity stolen by your righteous lies

if we want to make a better world
we have to end the rape
we need the consent, not from me and you, but from every single soul around this massive world

To Lovers Everywhere

well here we go again
down the same old road
the one they built for us

don't think i don't mean i don't care
when i say that
this has all been done before
and the story is a bit of a bore

'cause i've been looking for the fork in the road
looking pretty damn hard
even found one or two

and i feel so alone when i am with you
like i always have
on this road

For the great western woodlands

Melancholy expectations guide me and mine
Your beauty immense and powerful
The sun set and the yellow gum
inspires and lightens my soul
yet you remain distant, detached
your beauty unattainable, unreachable

I feel you piercing my eyes
penetrating my soul
filling me half way
yet never all the way
never to the top

what must I do?
what deed is to be done?
how can my beauty meet yours?
when will i know?
the secrets of which you reveal glimpses

glimpses of life
glimpses of meaning
glimpses of my reflection

a glimpse of my reflection
over myself, is held from me
is in-twined in the secret of your beauty
yellow wood, you are me and one day I will return

The Spanish Revolution and the European 'left'

An essay I wrote about the Spanish Revolution/Civil War for my first year European History 1890-1945 unit. I think it's a good account of what happened, supported by mainstream and radical evidence.

“The last idealistic war, the last dream of a people striving for the impossible...for utopia” ²

“In point of truth, the whole world had betrayed Spain.” - Emma Goldman³

Europe in the 1930s was a very different place to how Europeans would have imagined it. Totalitarianism was swallowing up the liberal-democratic countries, Mussolini now “proudly proclaimed that the democracies were obsolete and decaying and that Fascism represented the way of the future.”⁴ The exception was Spain; in 1931 the Spanish threw out their dictator to become a democratic republic. Then, in 1936 the Spanish civil war broke out, Mussolini and Hitler used it to test the resolve and strength of the remaining democracies. Tens of thousands of people from Europe, and indeed the whole world, volunteered to fight in the Spanish civil war, driven by ideology. Apart from those willing to travel and fight in Spain, the war was largely ignored by the working-class and the European left. The only countries that officially sent material aid to the republicans were Mexico⁵ and Russia. Britain and France officially pursued a policy of non-intervention. Britain, however aided Franco substantially. Outside Spain the conflict was viewed as a simple civil war that broke out between the loyalists and the rebels, a war between democracy and fascism⁶. In actual fact, there were many more layers of complexity than an ordinary civil war and, for many reasons, they were glossed over by the propaganda machines of Europe. It was not until many years after the war that our understanding matured to a point where we could understand what Spain had the potential to become if only the outcome was different.

The Spanish civil war started on July 17 1936 when sections of the army including General Franco rebelled and attempted a coup d'etat. When Franco rebelled, the republican government was slow to react and he might have been more successful if not for the efforts of revolutionary trade-unions who immediately formed armed workers militias and were successful in securing Barcelona, Madrid and about half of Spain from the rebels. When these workers fought it was not under the red-yellow-purple flag of the republic but for the red flag of socialism or the red-black flag of anarchism. “We fight for the revolution, we expect help from no-one. We will show you Russian Bolsheviks how to make a revolution”⁷ - The anarchists were fighting for a libertarian revolution and an independent Spain⁸, not for soviet communism or bourgeoisie democracy. The government was supported by liberals, capitalists, communists and right-wing socialists. They were fighting for the republic and capitalism, to maintain the status quo. At first, the pro-government forces and the revolutionaries had a practical alliance against Franco, however this alliance broke down and often intense fighting broke out between the two factions before Franco took control of the country.

The Spanish civil war was characterised by an unprecedented number of foreign volunteers fighting for the for all sides. There were around 35,000⁹ volunteers on the republican side, from around the world, their motivations varied, however most were motivated by vague 'anti-fascist' feelings. Numbers of Italians and Germans in Spain were especially high because many anti-fascists had already been forced into exile. Many famous public figures either fought or were sympathetic towards the republicans including George Orwell, Ernst Hemingway, Emma Goldman, Pablo Picasso and Federico Lorca. Their experiences in the war and representation of it, while insignificant at the time, has shaped our modern understanding of the Spanish civil war.

After it became clear Spain was divided and a lengthy civil war was under way, the Republicans turned to their natural ally, France, for aid. France was in a very difficult position in the 1930's. Germany had re-militarised the Rhineland and France's main concern was avoiding a war with Germany which it would almost certainly lose without the help of Britain. France was also concerned about the possibility of a revolution spilling across the boarder and the loss of its African territories, especially Morocco. Despite all of these factors France did initially agree to send a token amount of aid to the Republic, however the conservatives in parliament and British allies blocked the socialist government's attempts to send more aid.¹⁰

While some in the Republican government thought there was a possibility of British help, this was even more remote than French. Britain, like France was desperately trying to avoid a war with Germany and following a policy of 'appeasement'. Britain also owned substantial investments in Spain which were threatened by the anarchist and socialist policy of collectivisation.¹¹ British businessmen openly supported Franco, In particular; Rio Tinto Ltd, which owned a £10m pyrite mine in northern Spain, petitioned the government to allow it to trade with Franco, effectively financing the war.¹² Britain also controlled the strategically valuable ports of Gibraltar and Tanger which allowed it to control the entrance to the Mediterranean. It did not want to risk these falling into German or Italian hands.¹³ So while Britain, as a liberal-democratic country, was the ideological ally of the Republic, it was the practical ally of Franco.

While the conservatives in Britain would have openly supported Franco, in order to ensure co-operation from Labour and to pacify the trade unions they proposed and formed the non-intervention committee with the other major parties, France, Italy, Germany and the USSR. Had the non-intervention committee been sincere and effective, this would have meant victory for the republic and the revolutionaries who were numerically superior to the nationalists on the mainland.¹⁴ However, while Italy and Germany continued to directly aid Franco, with Britain aiding him indirectly, the non-intervention committee was effective in convincing the French not to aid the republicans and in delaying Soviet aid to the communists. The outcome of this was eventually a victory for Franco. The British navy was staunchly pro-Franco and played a crucial role in the early stages of the war, even if it was acting without direct orders from London. Britain used the excuse of non-intervention to blockade Spain, however the blockade was almost entirely one sided. The best example of this was in the straights of Gibraltar. The Spanish navy had remained almost entirely loyal to the government thanks to revolutionary minded sailors and was blockading the straights of Gibraltar¹⁵. This was a big problem for the Nationalists as Franco's battle-hardened army was stuck in Spanish Morocco. German transport planes then began to fly his army to the peninsular. While the British allowed the German planes to use British air-space and no attempt was made to blockade them, the battle ship HMS Queen Elizabeth did blockade the loyal Spanish navy from engaging the enemy around Gibraltar several times.¹⁶ While this clear bias seems minor, we must remember Franco's African army was 30,000 men strong and proved decisive in later conflicts around Madrid.

Perhaps most puzzling of all was the response from Russia and the Communist International (Comintern). The USSR sent fighter and bomber planes, equipment and military advisers, as well as secret police and political agitators, while the Comintern organised around 32,000 volunteers from 52 nations to fight. This aid played a decisive role in the conflict, especially in the fighting around Madrid. Of course the supplies were not given directly to the government but rather to the Spanish Communist Party, to ensure that the Kremlin's agenda was implemented in Spain. Contrary to international opinion and simple common-sense, the Kremlin's agenda was not revolutionary in Spain. The communists in Spain were on the extreme right of the political spectrum within the republican side, they were counter-revolutionary and fought for bourgeoisie democracy, against fascism and against revolutionary elements. Evidence for this is given by accounts of the Barcelona street fighting where communist police raided the Barcelona telephone exchange, which was collectivised by the anarchists.¹⁷ This is also consistent with public statements made by Soviet diplomats at the time – Viscount Chilston, the British ambassador in Moscow summarised official Soviet policy - “Spain and the world revolution could wait; meanwhile any danger to France is a danger to the USSR.”¹⁸ This policy eventually contributed to Franco's victory; it did not have the intended effect of unifying all of the 'anti-fascists' under one banner, rather it created resentment and quelled the great enthusiasm of the Spanish working class for the revolution and victory. This sentiment was best expressed by Emma Goldman - “If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution”¹⁹

In order to understand the Russian reaction to the Spanish civil war, it is first important to understand Stalin's foreign policy. Stalin's objective was 'socialism in one country', hence world revolution took a back seat to the national security of the USSR. In the 1930's the USSR was undergoing intense domestic economic development and it was still militarily weak, therefore it desperately wanted to avoid war until it had finished militarisation. Stalin judged that the greatest military threat was posed by Hitler, who was openly hostile to the 'red state'. In order to combat this threat Stalin sought to forge a grand anti-fascist alliance with the democratic countries, Britain and France. On 2 May 1935 the Soviet-French treaty of mutual assistance was signed, revealing that Stalin's primary foreign objective was not to upset France or Britain. This objective accounts for the counter-revolutionary actions of communists in Spain and the rest of Europe. The secondary objective was to contain Fascism which was rapidly expanding across Europe, including eastern Europe. If the USSR could delay a fascist takeover in Spain, this could delay the expansion in eastern Europe and a potential military invasion of Russia.²⁰ Once we have analysed these motives the stance taken by the Communist Party in Spain is makes-sense. The USSR would oppose fascism in Spain but only if it could prevent a revolution.

The communists also towed the party line in other countries. The various communist parties in Europe held modest influence and controlled widely read newspapers such as the Daily Worker and the New Statesman in England. These international communists now told Europe's militant workers to “fight for democracy” after years of saying “democracy is a swindle”. This had the effect of ensuring a minimum amount of interest in Spain. Especially so soon after the first world war when there were very few people willing to fight another pointless 'war for democracy'.²¹ Emma Goldman, who had toured revolutionary Spain was quick to point out that “...while the Russian Revolution had met instantaneous response from workers in every land, the inertia of the international proletariat created a special problem in the Spanish Revolution.”²² Furthermore, “Outside Spain few people grasped that there was a revolution; inside nobody doubted it” Orwell argued that the working class in democratic countries could have helped Spain by taking industrial action²³ such as strikes and boycotts.²⁴ Perhaps industrial action may have been able to force France to support the Republic or force Britain to enforce non-intervention against Italy. However, such action was impossible while the militant workers of the world remained ignorant of the revolution in Spain.

There were hundreds of thousands of Spanish refugees who fled Franco's regime. The European left did not seem to have any more compassion for the Spanish people after the war than they did during it. They were “dis-owned as failures and nuisances”²⁵ everywhere except in Mexico, the only country to supply the republican side with unconditional assistance during the war, where they were free to stay and work. “It was an exceptional act of charity at a time when men's hearts had turned to stone.”²⁶

The reaction of the European left proved inadequate to save the Republic from 'fascism'. All the powers acted pragmatically in what they perceived as their own self interest; the plight of the Spanish people was not a factor in decision-making. Britain had too much money invested in Spain. France was too compromised and divided to act. Stalin, in a vein attempt for French and British international support undermined and divided the 'anti-fascists' in Spain. However it was the absence of international left wing solidarity that doomed Spain. The strategy of 'non-intervention' from the British and French governments combined with the Comintern's 'fight for democracy' and denial of revolutionary Spain had the effect of “blind-folding the workers of the rest of the world.”²⁷ Liberty, equality and fraternity were and still are good motivations only of individuals and small groupos de afinidad²⁸ and not of hierarchical organisations or governments. Therefore it is not right to blame the communists or any other external party for the situation in Spain, how could we have expected them to act any differently?

“We are going to inherit the Earth, there is not the slightest doubt about that; The bourgeoisie will destroy their world before abandoning history's stage. We carry the seeds of a new world in our hearts, a world that is growing every moment.” - Durruti Buenaventa

Bibliography

Gilbert, F and Large, DC, The End of The European Era 1890 to the present, W.W Norton & Company, London, 2002

Thomas, H, The Spanish Civil War, 2001

Jackson, G, A Concise History of the Spanish Civil War, Thames and Hudson, London, 1974

Kern, R, “Anarchist Principles and Spanish Reality: Emma Goldman as a Participant in the Civil War” 1936-39, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 11, No. 2/3, pp.237-259, 1976

Kitchen, M, “The Spanish Civil War”, in Europe Between the Wars, Ch.12, Pearson, London, 2006

Libertarius, Arandra Vicente, Sogepaq Distributcion, S.A, 1996

Moradiellos, M, “The Gentle General: The Official British Perception of General Franco during the Spanish Civil War”, Preston, P and Mackenzie, A (eds), The Republic Besieged: Civil War in Spain 1936-1939, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1996

Orwell, G, Homage to Catalonia, Penguin Books, London, 1974

Smyth, D, ““We are with you”: Solidarity and self-interest in Soviet Policy towards Republican Spain, 1936-1939”, Preston, P and Mackenzie, A (eds), The Republic Besieged: Civil War in Spain 1936-1939, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1996

1For the purposes of this essay I have taken the term 'European left' in the broadest sense: Anyone left of Hitler, including the governments of Britain and France, Stalin and, of course the workers movements, excluding the catholic workers unions which mostly supported Franco.

2Libertarius, Arandra Vicente, Sogepaq Distributcion, S.A, 1996

3R Kern, “Anarchist Principles and Spanish Reality: Emma Goldman as a Participant in the Civil War” 1936-39, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 11, No. 2/3, pp.237-259, 1976, p.249

4Gilbert, F and Large, DC, The End of The European Era 1890 to the present, W.W Norton & Company, London, 2002, p.291

5Obviously, Mexico does is not part of the European Left, however deserves mention as the exception to all the countries and factions that acted out of short-term self interest.

6While there is much debate around whether Franco was a 'fascist', that is outside the scope of this essay and for simplicity's sake we shall call him and his allies fascists.

7Durruti Buenaventa, an anarchist leader, quoted in the fictional film Libertarius, Arandra Vicente, Sogepaq Distributcion, S.A, 1996

8In many cases they were actually fighting not for an independent Spain but for an independent region such as Basque, Catalonia etc.

9Thomas, H, The Spanish Civil War, 2001

10Jackson, G, A Concise History of the Spanish Civil War, Thames and Hudson, London, 1974, p.59

11Jackson, G, A Concise History of the Spanish Civil War, Thames and Hudson, London, 1974, p.60

12Blinkhorn, M(ed), Spain in Conflict 1932 1939: Democracy and it's enimies. Sage Productions, London, 1986, p.243

13Jackson, G, A Concise History of the Spanish Civil War, Thames and Hudson, London, 1974, p.60

14Kitchen, M, “The Spanish Civil War”, in Europe Between the Wars, Ch.12, Pearson, London, 2006, p. 352

15Jackson, G, A Concise History of the Spanish Civil War, Thames and Hudson, London, 1974, p.48-9

16Moradiellos, M, “The Gentle General: The Official British Perception of General Franco during the Spanish Civil War”, Preston, P and Mackenzie, A (eds), The Republic Besieged: Civil War in Spain 1936-1939, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1996, p.4

17Orwell, G, Homage to Catalonia, Penguin Books, London, 1974

18Smyth, D, ““We are with you”: Solidarity and self-interest in Soviet Policy towards Republican Spain, 1936-1939”, Preston, P and Mackenzie, A (eds), The Republic Besieged: Civil War in Spain 1936-1939, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1996 p.98

19This quote does not relate to the Spanish revolution directly; it appeared in Living my Life, published in 1931. However it still captures the feeling of the revolutionaries in Spain.

20Smyth, D, ““We are with you”: Solidarity and self-interest in Soviet Policy towards Republican Spain, 1936-1939”, Preston, P and Mackenzie, A (eds), The Republic Besieged: Civil War in Spain 1936-1939, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1996 p.95-96

21Orwell, G, Homage to Catalonia, Penguin Books, London, 1974, p. 68

22R Kern, “Anarchist Principles and Spanish Reality: Emma Goldman as a Participant in the Civil War 1936-39”, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 11, No. 2/3, pp.237-259, 1976, p.247

23Industrial action is action taken by workers, usually co-ordinate by unions such as strikes and boycotts. The aim of this type of action is to create economic power with which the unions can bargain for better wages, or in this case a reversal in governmental policy.

24Orwell, G, Homage to Catalonia, Penguin Books, London, 1974, p. 51 & 68

25Kitchen, M, “The Spanish Civil War”, in Europe Between the Wars, Ch.12, Pearson, London, 2006, p.365

26Kitchen, M, “The Spanish Civil War”, in Europe Between the Wars, Ch.12, Pearson, London, 2006, p.365

27R Kern, “Anarchist Principles and Spanish Reality: Emma Goldman as a Participant in the Civil War” 1936-39, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 11, No. 2/3, pp.237-259, 1976, p.249

28Affinity groups were the smallest basic unit of co-operation for anarchists in the Spanish civil war.

An Account of the Emergance of Facsism in Italy

 An essay I wrote for Europen History 1900-1945 at UWA.

I think it's pretty relevant to how fascism emerges, and could emerge again. These are the patterns that we all must watch out for... in responces to things like climate change and with current global events, like the near collapse of the Greek State - http://www.occupiedlondon.org/blog/

Italian Fascism, the movement lead by Mussolini which came to power in Italy in 1922 took advantage of conditions existing in Italy after the first world war to seize power. Liberalism¹ in Italy had failed, or was seen to have failed, this failure had two main manifestations: Firstly the economic slump blamed on capitalism was seen as a domestic failure. Secondly, Italians felt humiliated by Italy's unsuccessful attempts to achieve it's 'potential' as a global power and especially by the outcome of the first world war. These conditions made the alternatives to capitalism popular with the working class, however the still powerful middle and upper classes, as well as the church, feared the possibility of a revolution. Mussolini and his fascist party then filled the vacuum of strong leadership from the Italian right by offering fascism as the 'third way', the fascists then used tactics including violence and terrorism to seize power and install Mussolini as an authoritarian dictator.

Arguably the worst way in which the failure of bourgeoisie liberalism was manifested in early twentieth century Italy is the economic slump caused by the policies of the liberal government. In the late nineteenth century the 'tariff war' with France lead to unemployment and eventually the Milan bread riots in 1898². This situation improved before the first world war, however in order to finance the war effort the government resorted to printing money, causing inflation. The lira, after the first world war was worth only one fifth of its pre war value.³ These situations seemed to fulfil Marx's vision: '...bourgeois society...is like a sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has summoned by his spells.'⁴ Indeed, we will see that the Italian liberal society appeared unable to control many of it's own spells.

The nationalistic spirit that the liberal government had instilled in Italians for the purpose of unification came back to haunt it when it failed to fulfil the now national ambitions of many Italians who expected a unified Italy to emerge as a global imperial power. Most attempts to build an empire were unsuccessful, for example the military incompetence of the prime minister Francesco Crispi lead to a humiliating defeat by Ethiopia in 1896. Crispi was forced to resign over the affair, however nationalists like 'Enrico Corradini ascribed these military humiliations to 'the lack of heroism inherent in democracy and parliamentary government''.⁵ Italians turned away from liberals and towards right-wing nationalists who promised to bring glory to Italy or left-wing radicals who argued against the expansionist agenda.

The 'mutilated victory' that was the Italian experience of the first world war led to resentment towards their liberal democratic government. Negotiations failed to gain all of what was regarded as Italia irredenta including Fiume and Dalmatia that were part of the justifications for entering the first world war.⁶ The situation was poetically typified when the Italian writer Gabriel D'Annunzio lead a band of mutineers to capture the city of Fiume on behalf of Italy. The Italian prime minister rejected the plotters' offer, calling D'Annunzio a fool⁷. In short an ad-hoc band of nationalistic rebels achieved more than the liberals ever managed in negotiations with Britain and France.

This failure, real or imagined, of the liberal government of Italy, gave credibility to those parties who advocated alternative systems. The socialists, anarchists and communists were all opposed to the militarisation and colonial expansion of Italy that had proved to be a disaster. Perhaps more importantly they advocated for an egalitarian system and a redistribution of power, wealth and land. If the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and the red terror was bad enough, the threat of revolution at home was no less terrifying for those in power. An anarchist, Gaetano Bresci had assassinated king Umberto 1 on July 29 1900 as revenge for the massacre of bread rioters in Milan⁸. The threat posed by left-wing radicals was more than just a personal threat, it was also political, in the 1919 general elections the Italian Socialist Party received 'one third of total votes cast'⁹ of the votes and became the largest single party. The still powerful upper and middle classes knew that they had to defeat the 'red threat' if they wanted to survive with their wealth intact, or indeed survive at all.

Fascism's stated aim is to promote order and stability in society. It is linked to national syndicalism, a system of vertical trade unions that promoted class cooperation as opposed to left wing radicals who agitated for revolution. However, in reality Mussolini's social order was not based on cooperation but violent militias and state terrorism. In cities such as Bologna, Ferrara and Florence urban Fascists 'formed armed 'squadristi' which then undertook punitive expeditions into the countryside, destroying physically the installations and organisations of the rural left, and inflicting violence and personal humiliation upon its militants¹⁰. 'After only six months of these Fascist expeditions, the Squads had killed 202 people and wounded 1,144 ' .¹¹ Opponents of communism including the old ruling class, the new bourgeoisie class, the clergy as well as some liberals, democrats and moderates supported Mussolini at this stage. The march on Rome in 1922, was successful even if it was not technically a coup d'etat, was defiantly meant as a show of force and intimidation, not against left wing radicals but against the government itself. After this moment Mussolini was in control of the country and continued to expand his power over all aspects of Italian life.

In the beginning of the twentieth century liberalism was in decline in Italy, the economy was in ruins and attempts to distract the population with nationalistic wars proved futile. This translated into popularity for the left wing radicals who offered solutions to these problems. The many sections of society who were opposed to social revolution found their answer in Mussolini and the fascists who were prepared to violently suppress left wing organisations. Mussolini was able to use this power and his militias to intimidate and coerce his way into power. Perhaps the coalition that initially supported Mussolini against the 'red threat' thought that they would be able to control him once the socialist threat was neutralised, if so they made a serious miscalculation as Mussolini was able to seize more and more power, erode the liberty of Italians and contribute to the international fascist movement, including providing inspiration to other totalitarian regimes and materially supporting the authoritarian dictator Franco in the Spanish civil war.

1The terms liberalism, liberals and liberal government as used in this essay are meant in the broad sense and refer to the elements of society that were in political power in turn of the century Italy.

2Gilbert & Large, The End of the European Era 1890 to the Present p.67

3Gilbert & Large, The End of the European Era 1890 to the Present p.207

4Marx & Engels (ed. Findlay), The Communist Manefesto p.67

5Gilbert & Large, The End of the European Era 1890 to the Present p.70

6Gilbert & Large, The End of the European Era 1890 to the Present p.206

7G. Cubana et. al. Days of War Nights of Love p.119

8Goldman Living my Life ch.22

9Elazar 'Electoral Democracy, revolutionary politics and political violence: The emergence of fascism in Italy 1920-21' British Journal of Sociology p. 473

10Corner P., Fascism in Ferrara 1915-25 Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1975 cited in Blinkhorn 'Fascism and the Right in Europe 1919-1945 p. 32

11Elazar 'Electoral Democracy, revolutionary politics and political violence: The emergence of fascism in Italy 1920-21' British Journal of Sociology p. 480

Something Beautiful

The following was inspired by the opening paragraph to Aleksander Solzhenitsyn's Nobel prize acceptance speach.

Man & Nature

Beautiful
So Precious
Something entirely new
Undiscovered
I have found something new and oh
The beauty

Dazzling,
The way the light dances, reflects
When I turn it,
Touch it,
Twist it,
This way,
That way 

Oh shit!
Broken
I didn’t even show it off,
Didn’t even get a photo
Now it is gone
Can’t be fixed,
Can’t be helped,
My fault
Sorry.

But wait
Here is another
Just like the first
Better, even
I can get more!
I can Play!
I can have fun!
I can break them!
Kill something beautiful
– there will always be more.