O fascismo de Mussolini tinha uma doutrina: ele mesmo a compôs num livro: versão francesa, 1938

BENITO MUSSOLINI

LA DOCTRINE DU FASCISME

III^e ÉDITION

(Firenze, 1938 XVI — Stab. Grafici A. Vallecchi, Viale del Mille, 72)

 Versão em francês disponível neste link: 

https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/La_Doctrine_du_fascisme/Texte_entier 

 

TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Chapitre I^er
DOCTRINE POLITIQUE ET SOCIALE

1. Le Fascisme comme philosophie 

 Page 9

2. Conception spiritualiste 

 10

3. Conception positive de la vie comme lutte 

 11

4. Conception morale 

 12

5. Conception religieuse 

 13

6. Conception éthique et réaliste 

 14

7. Anti-individualisme et Liberté 

 15

8. Antisocialisme et Corporatisme 

 16

9. Démocratie et Nation 

 17

10. Conception de l’État 

 18

11. Un État éthique 

 19

12. Contenu de l’État 

 19

13. L’Autorité 

 

 20

Chapitre II
IDÉES FONDAMENTALES

 

 

1. Origine de la Doctrine 

 23

2. Développement 

 26

3. Contre le pacifisme : la Guerre et la Vie comme Devoir 

 28

4. La politique démographique et notre « prochain » 

 30

5. Contre le Matérialisme historique et la Lutte de Classes 

 31

6. Contre les idéologies démocratiques 

 33

7. Les Mensonges de la Démocratie 

 34

8. Contre les Doctrines libérales 

 36

9. Le Fascisme ne revient pas en arrière 

 39

10. Valeur et Mission de l’État 

 41

11. L’Unité de l’État et les contradictions du Capitalisme 

 43

12. L’État fasciste et la Religion 

 46

13. Empire et Discipline 

 

APPENDICE

Notes relatives au I^er chapitre.

 

1. Le Fascisme comme philosophie 

 51

2. Conception spiritualiste 

 54

3. Conception positive de la vie comme lutte 

 55

4. Conception éthique 

 57

5. Conception religieuse 

 57

6. Conception éthique et réaliste 

 58

7. Anti-individualisme et Liberté 

 60

8. Antisocialisme et Corporatisme 

 64

9. Démocratie et Nation 

 66

10. Conception de l’État 

 66

11. État éthique 

 68

Foi muito lido no Brasil:? Certamente: 

Existem traduções brasileiras do ensaio de Benito Mussolini (escrito em coautoria com Giovanni Gentile), publicado no Brasil sob o título A Doutrina do Fascismo em edições digitais e impressas recentes. [1, 2]

• O texto original: Foi escrito em 1932 como um verbete da Enciclopedia Italiana, dividido em "Ideias Fundamentais" (por Giovanni Gentile) e "Doutrina Política e Social" (por Mussolini). [1, 2, 3]
Disponibilidade no Brasil: O texto circula no país em formato digital (como e-books na Amazon Brasil) e em coletâneas históricas dedicadas ao tema.
 ===============
Manifesto-Programa da Ação Integralista Brasileira 
Edição Português  por Plínio Salgado (Autor), Miguel Reale (Autor)   
 
Formato: eBook Kindle
 
Da apresentação do livro:  
---
"É certo que Plínio Salgado e a Ação Integralista Brasileira foram as forças mais polêmicas de toda a história do Brasil. Por onde passam seus nomes, nascem acirradas controvérsias e discussões. É ideia quase unânime que eram fascistas ou nazistas; lugar-comum que eram totalitários e queriam a ditadura de partido único. De qualquer forma, fato é que, ainda assim, em novembro de 1937, Plínio Salgado era o nome mais cotado para a Presidência da República: todas as pesquisas presidenciais o apontavam como o vencedor das eleições que deveriam acontecer em janeiro de 1938. Foi então que Getúlio Vargas, por motivos jamais conhecidos, proferiu um golpe de Estado. Todos os seguidores de Plínio Salgado que permaneceram foram perseguidos, presos, torturados e até mortos. Plínio nunca foi eleito. Mas o que era isso que esse caboclo, de família pobre e sem fortuna alguma, que construiu uma vida inteira do zero e liderou o maior movimento de massas da história da América Latina, propunha para a Nação e que tanto a animou? Qual foi o programa presidencial que despertou a ira de Getúlio Vargas e mudou para sempre a história do Brasil, sendo adotados até hoje a maioria de seus pontos, embora ainda não integralmente?Neste Manifesto-Programa, distinto de todos os outros programas presidenciais da história da República brasileira, o leitor aprenderá o que realmente foi a Ação Integralista Brasileira, qual era o genuíno pensamento político de Plínio Salgado e quais eram essas ideias que emocionaram milhões de brasileiros, levando centenas deles ao martírio até os dias de hoje."
 

Munich, again: September 30, 1938 - Dilemmas of Diplomacy - James M. Lindsay

History Lessons: The Munich Agreement

by James M. Lindsay
The Water's Edge, September 26, 2012

Share

13

1

A new installment of “History Lessons” is now out. This time I examine the signing of the Munich Agreement in the early morning hours of September 30, 1938. (The agreement itself is dated September 29, 1938.) In the video, I discuss the origins of the crisis over the Sudetenland, what British prime ministerNeville Chamberlain thought he was accomplishing in his negotiations with Adolf Hitler, and why the Munich Agreement did not bring “peace for our time.”

Watch the video on YouTube here.

The Munich Agreement has become a classic example of how not to conduct foreign policy, and it turned “appeasement” into a dirty word. But Munich also highlights a classic dilemma of diplomacy: accommodation can signal weakness and invite aggression, but standing firm can trigger conflicts otherwise avoided. Policymakers choose between these two risks at their peril because which of them is greater is clearer when looking backward in history than when looking forward into the future.

So here’s a question to consider when thinking about American foreign policy: on what issue or conflict is the United States most likely to repeat Neville Chamberlain’s mistake?

If you are interested in learning more about the Munich Agreement, here are some books worth reading:

Faber, David. Munich, 1938: Appeasement and World War II (2009).

Goldstein, Erik and Igor Lukes (eds). The Munich Crisis, 1938: Prelude to World War II (1999).

Latynski, Maya (ed). Reappraising the Munich Pact: Continental Perspectives(1992).

Record, Jeffrey. The Specter of Munich: Reconsidering the Lessons of Appeasing Hitler (2006).

Posted in Diplomacy, History LessonsShare

• Posted by Carl FSeptember 26, 2012 at 7:41 pm
  There is a scene in The Godfather and its very striking with Clemenza & Michael. Clemenza says “you gotta stop them at the beginning. Like they should have stopped Hitler at Munich…. they was just asking for trouble”. The quote from Winston Churchill is absolutely stinging as well. I wonder if the same logic can be applied to the world situation today. Will we choose dishonor and still have war?

  An avid Reader,
  Carl
• Posted by MHPSeptember 26, 2012 at 7:58 pm
  Great piece. I don’t have an answer to your question, but a war with China seems like it would present a problem for the political leaders of that country: for instance, I believe that the leaders of the country maintain their power by allowing American money to flow into the country through their manufacturing sector — a war would mean shutting down funding from America.

  The leaders (at least partially) derive power through the export mechanism, a war might disrupt that, therefore disrupting the power of the current political class. Just my two cents–
• Posted by Arber LloshiSeptember 27, 2012 at 4:24 am
  By the question one understands that to make the same mistake USA has to make concessions to one of the two states, concession which shall bolder or strengthen that state in the point it shall directly oppose USA either in open war, or in any alike action/activity. To answer the question we should get back to history first:
  Chamberlain’s decision was a result of two main factors: First, UK was not willing to fight against Germany, but rather maintain a status quo of competing and antagonist states in mainland Europe, namely France, Germany and USSR. Since in the middle, Germany needed to be stronger to balance the power of the other historically enemies of Britain (in political, economical, historic, or ideological terms). And there was the belief that Germany would contain and oppose communism and protect West from the East.
  Second, UK was not prepared to fight an inland war with Germany. The population was not willing, neither the army was as strong. Also, economic benefits of a peaceful Europe must have had some rule.
  In the today globalized world, none of the two countries fulfills all of those characteristic: Iran is not in the position Germany was in terms of military and economic power compared to that of USA, but can be used as a tool of keeping the balances of Middle East in check (as long as it does not have nuclear armament and the present Syrian regime falls) and China is in almost the same, military, economic and political position as Germany was, but is cannot be used as a tool for keeping balances in east Asia, since it tends to disrupt it by gaining more power on itself. The social and economic factors play a bigger role in the case of China than that of Iran. for those reasons I believe that there is a bigger chance that USA refrains/limits itself more towards China than towards Iran. Although there is a bigger chance for China to act more aggressively against US interests after such a limitation than Iran, considering its economic, military, territorial and demographic might. Even though Iran tends to be more aggressive I don’t think it has any of the tools needed to directly oppose US, but is just trying to gain the leading role in the Middle East, strongly in question now. I’d think of Iran more as the Italy of WWII (was never going to fight UK alone in the Mediterranean and not any big concessions was made to).
• Posted by Jacob AGSeptember 28, 2012 at 5:50 pm
  The circumstances are very different, especially in that Israel is an American ally, but I find it plausible that the U.S. would appease Israel to such an extent that Israel gets into a hot war and the U.S. intervenes.