varroa destructor introduction and evolution
AndyHancock
America were collapsing inexplicably. More recently, I read in the
newspaper about Varroa Destructor, which Wikipedia indicates was known
throughout the world for quite some time. Why would it be a mystery
in North America not too long ago?
As well, the article said that the mother varroa enters the brood cell
and lays one male and upto 5 females. The male then mates with his
sisters. Isn't this inbreeding of the most intense kind? Why haven't
they inbred themselves into dysfunctionality and unsurvivability by
now?
Charlie Kroeger
> America were collapsing inexplicably.
But not because of Varroa Mites 'Destructor or Jacobsoni' something else.
In certain areas of the world a significant percentage of massed hives of
honeybees have disappeared i.e. not died in the hive. The few bees that
remained in these 'collapsed' hives that were scrutinized scientifically
would appear to have lost their immune system against a lot of common
viruses and bacteria they had previously resisted.
Science now is tainted by funding and leadership directly from global
commerce. The reason for this is to discourage the disparagement of commerce
that scientific inquiry might uncover. If someday in the future when global
science is not being influenced by this ideology of commerce at all cost, we
may know what it was precisely that caused all those bees to disappear.
> newspaper about Varroa Destructor, which Wikipedia indicates was known
> throughout the world for quite some time.
> Why would it be a mystery
> in North America not too long ago?
I don't see the mystery, hybridizing within species is natural. You might
change the name but the bug remains essentially the same:
http://www.ento.okstate.edu/ddd/insects/varroamite.htm
> Isn't this inbreeding of the most intense kind? Why haven't
> they inbred themselves into dysfunctionality and unsurvivability by
> now?
A queen honeybee lays eggs if she chooses she lays a few she doesn't
fertilize with sperm. The bee from this egg becomes a drone. If the workers
of this hive create queen cells and a virgin flight occurs many drones from
this hive also go forth. It is highly probable the virgin queen will be
fertilized by some or all of her male brothers. What's the difference in
this and what you've described in the varroa cycle?
The following article describes how drones from one queen will have
identical sperm. If drones from other hives are successful in adding their
sperm during the queen's flight, then that sperm will be different. When the
new queen returns and begins to lay eggs the bees that emerge will contain
the sperm from different drones. If you'll notice, bees in a hive [or at
least my hives] are not all little clones. There are some with bands on
their abdomen and some completely black. This tells you that queen wasn't
artificially inseminated and also carries the sperm from more than one drone.
Here's the science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_(bee)
Humans on the other hand are quite inbred: it is part of our genetic
composure. From recent advances in understanding the human genome, humans
have 46 chromosomes whereas the higher primates have 48. Human chromosome
no.2 is a fusion of two ancestral primate chromosomes. The only way that 46
chromosomes could have become fixed into the protohuman population would
have been by relations between one original individual with the intermediate
number of 47 chromosomes and his viable 47 chromosomes offspring.¹
¹a fact not an opinion
--
CK
kauhl-meersburg
> and lays one male and upto 5 females. The male then mates with his
> sisters. Isn't this inbreeding of the most intense kind? Why haven't
> they inbred themselves into dysfunctionality and unsurvivability by
> now?
you are right, but nature has found a way to take advantages of
inbreeding, as that set of remaining alleles stabilizes the suitable
features of the offspring - think of parthenogenesy and even paedogenesy
a reduced chance of genetic distribution can happen at those heavily
infested bee swarms where more than one mother mite enters a cell
the complete change from varroa jacobsonii to v. destructor seems to be
one of the consequences of the beekeeper's method to cut out infested
drone combs, so that mites preferring worker brood were able to attain
majority
cheers kauhl
Bozo2U
*>> they inbred themselves into dysfunctionality and unsurvivability
*>>by now?
Quite possibly there is no "genetic variation" in them. They have
reached as state of "perfection" thus allowing such breeding of
brother and syster. Everybody shares all the same traits and nothing
new may be added, but if it is, it is a failure and will breed out.
*>A queen honeybee lays eggs if she chooses she lays a few she doesn't
*>fertilize with sperm. The bee from this egg becomes a drone. If the
workers
*>of this hive create queen cells and a virgin flight occurs many
drones from
*>this hive also go forth. It is highly probable the virgin queen will
be
*>fertilized by some or all of her male brothers.
UC Davis' Apiarist was asked the above question: will the queen take
on a drone from her hive during her maiden flight? The answer was NO
due to her ability to sense the pheromone from her own hive and will
spurn that drone.
*************
No arsenal, no weapon in the arsenals of the world,
is so formidable as the WILL and moral courage
of free men and women.
-- Ronald Reagan
Charlie Kroeger
> UC Davis' Apiarist was asked the above question: will the queen take
> on a drone from her hive during her maiden flight? The answer was NO
> due to her ability to sense the pheromone from her own hive and will
> spurn that drone.
I wonder how he would know this? Was he a beekeeper with closely held
spiritual beliefs that contained well grounded mores on the subject of
incest? Did he have the technical ability to separate out all the different
types of sperm and determine that no sperm was present from the virgin's own
hive? There's another thing, I didn't know the title 'Apiarist' came with
any scientific portfolio like say, Entomologist. So I take it you mean the
UC Davis Beekeeper whose name you failed to mention for possible cross
reference, has nonetheless, declared this proclamation to be the truth, and
you are passing it on.
In the insect world and especially that of Apis Millifera I see little
wasted action without a reason or some singularity of purpose. I know when
the virgin sets forth the air is full of drones from the same box, they
being the first to know. Given the epochs of time bees have been around, I
find it hard to accept that drones in a particular hive would be useless to
that hive. What would happen if the virgin flew out and there were no other
drones in range, would she return chaste as it were, infertile? If that's
actually the case, can you prove it?
--
CK
> No arsenal, no weapon in the arsenals of the world,
> is so formidable as the WILL and moral courage
> of free men and women.
>
> -- Ronald Reagan
An apparent but clumsy paraphrasing of Victor Hugo's "Nothing is so powerful
as an idea whose time has come" and a speech by Adolph Hitler.
Adolph Hitler was big on WILL too. "Leni" Riefenstahl a Nazi toady made an
otherwise brilliant propaganda film called; "Triumph of the Will."
The great divisive fool Ron Reagan was the stupidest president we ever had
until George Bush came along. I think now he can be happily relegated to the
number 2 spot. He wasn't a bad guy intrinsically like George Bush. He was
just stupid, and he was an actor not a statesman. Things got worse after he
was shot too, it was bad luck for us and the whole world.
Another Republican, one that wasn't stupid at least, Everett Dirksen, added
a more martial tone for the American public: "Stronger than any army on
earth is an idea whose time has come."
Bozo2U
<ckr...@frankensteinface.com> wrote:
*>> It is highly probable the virgin queen will
*>> be fertilized by some or all of her male brothers.
*>
*>> UC Davis' Apiarist was asked the above question: will the queen
take
*>> on a drone from her hive during her maiden flight? The answer was
NO
*>> due to her ability to sense the pheromone from her own hive and
will
*>> spurn that drone.
*>I wonder how he would know this? Was he a beekeeper with closely
held spiritual beliefs that contained well grounded mores on the
subject of
*>incest? Did he have the technical ability to separate out all the
different
*>types of sperm and determine that no sperm was present from the
virgin's own
*>hive? There's another thing, I didn't know the title 'Apiarist' came
with
*>any scientific portfolio like say, Entomologist. So I take it you
mean the
*>UC Davis Beekeeper whose name you failed to mention for possible
cross
*>reference, has nonetheless, declared this proclamation to be the
truth, and you are passing it on.
Wow. I did not realize that such a minor post would recieve such a
strong response! Well, thank you for noticing.
It was me that asked Dr. Eric Mussen from UC Davis the above question
and no, I don't know his spiritual beliefs nor his interests in
incest, but after his presentation to our gathering it was a logical
question that I had stumbled upon.
And yet again, you may have a point, as I don't know his technical
ability to separate out all the sperm nor his ability to discern from
which hive each gamete was derived, so he may well have, since I trust
neither do you.
Sorry about my poor choice of words, as the good doctor is not a
farmer with a bee hive, but an entomologist that has studied bees for
more than half his life? Can you find it such that virtue of
forgiveness in your universe or is it the not true that knowing all
excludes such offenses?
*>In the insect world and especially that of Apis Millifera I see
little
*>wasted action without a reason or some singularity of purpose. I
know when
*>the virgin sets forth the air is full of drones from the same box,
they
*>being the first to know. Given the epochs of time bees have been
around, I
*>find it hard to accept that drones in a particular hive would be
useless to
*>that hive. What would happen if the virgin flew out and there were
no other
*>drones in range, would she return chaste as it were, infertile? If
that's
*>actually the case, can you prove it?
Your claim to "know" when a virgin flight is made, drones are there
from the same box, is based on what? What some other person has
written? And yet you do not name your source for knowing this as well,
nor cite how you came "to know" such. While one may be glad that they
are not alone in this vast universe of ignorance, or the
epistemological equivalency of such, how is it that you do not know
the 10% of drones usefulness in any given hive? Why ARE they there?
The tone of your response mandates you know such and sharing that
answer could be helpful to the rest of us hobbyists.
Furthermore, I am sorry I cannot prove your assertion, in your
questions above, as I do not live in a world of such absurdity.
I honestly don't know what would happen in your silly set up scenario.
I do believe Dr. Eric Mussen in his response to my query that she may
recognize her hive pheromone on any given drone and forgo that mating.
Or the drone may have that response to her "smell". But in any case,
reason prevails from what is closer to what is possible and not to the
absurdity you post in your last question to me.
Have you been keeping Africanize bees and is it contagious or are you
always a dick?
*************
'It isn't pollution that's harming the environment.
It's the impurities in our air and water that are
doing it.'
-Vice President Al Gore
zome...@gmail.com
> the complete change from varroa jacobsonii to v. destructor seems to be
> one of the consequences of the beekeeper's method to cut out infested
> drone combs, so that mites preferring worker brood were able to attain
> majority
Actually, this change has nothing to do with cutting out infesting
combs. It was a result of poor studies on the genus in the
beginning. There are more than one species of mite in the genus
Varroa, all morphologically similar. The original bee parasite
described by Oudemons in the early 20th century was V. jacobsoni,
found on the bee Apis cerana or another Asian honeybee host. The mite
genus was reviewed in 2000, and the species that has spread to the
rest of the world was found to be distinct, based on genetic markers.
V. destructor is the only species of the genus that is able to
reproduce within the hives of the European honeybee, Apis mellifera.
Revisions of nomenclature are common in biology, especially now that
sophisticated tools are available to study DNA patterns. For full
account, refer to this article:
Anderson, D. L., and J. W. H. Trueman. 2000. Varroa jacobsoni (Acari:
Varroidae) is more than one species. Exp. Appl. Acarology 24: 165-189.
A Varroa mite by any name is the same pest.
-JZ
Charlie Kroeger
> strong response!
That thread had fallen silent, I'm surprised it was not stricken from the
server. I would say that no post is minor here unless it is a blatant troll.
That did not seem the case with you. But now I'm not so sure.
> It was me that asked Dr. Eric Mussen from UC Davis the above question
> and no, I don't know his spiritual beliefs nor his interests in
> incest, but after his presentation to our gathering it was a logical
> question that I had stumbled upon.
I somehow knew it was you. It was a good question but I think a bad answer.
Maybe Dr. Mussen was in a hurry to leave 'your gathering' or had two glasses
of wine when he should have had one, maybe he's a member of your church. I
wish to know how he knows such a profound thing that would appear to effect
all observations to the contrary. I want him to tell us how he knows, why
don't you ask him next time you see him to post his explanations on this
thread. It would be a most interesting read.
I know you're only the messenger here but statements like you've reported
from Dr. Mussen sound more like some young republican ideologue at a church
sponsored seminar on intelligent design than a UC Davis scientist. I know
scientist can go bad. Many are on the payrolls of these 'thinktanks' created
to fight the regulation of corporate activities. We must always bear in mind
what William Burroughs said: "no job to dirty for a fucking scientist."
> And yet again, you may have a point, as I don't know his technical
> ability to separate out all the sperm nor his ability to discern from
> which hive each gamete was derived, so he may well have, since I trust
> neither do you.
That's right lets see this report and the hardware he used to come to this
conclusion. You know although science is part of the title of this newsgroup
we never get to read a scientist's post here¹ because they're too important
or careful or arrogant to give their facts or opinions. I know there are a
lot of stupid people now I mean really stupid people who've empowered
themselves with magical thinking and it might cramp an entomologists' style
to be casting pearls before farmers with beehives.
¹Thanks for that clear voice -JZ you may not be an entomologist but you
sound like one.
> Sorry about my poor choice of words, as the good doctor is not a
> farmer with a bee hive, but an entomologist that has studied bees for
> more than half his life?
That is all well and good but why do you care, you just quoted the good
doctor. You're acting like you're the one that made the statement and now
you have to defend it. Don't bother.
> Can you find it such that virtue of forgiveness in your universe or is it
> the not true that knowing all excludes such offenses?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, be less poetic.
> Your claim to "know" when a virgin flight is made, drones are there
> from the same box, is based on what?
Drones by flying around in a holding pattern in great numbers spend a
certain amount of this time going in and out of the hive in question. I
would say that's a strong indicator they happen to live there too. There is
then a lot of circumstantial evidence they're waiting for the virgin to emerge.
Circumstantial evidence, a form of conjectural assumption allowed to juries
for consideration under English and American law would apply in this
scenario: if you the beekeeper knows there are several open queen cells in
the swarming position and it is swarming season and you know when these
cells were sealed by daily observation, you can get a highly accurate idea
of the day, weather permitting, the virgin will emerge. If you're interested
in this event you can go and wait her out. Drones will let you know
something important is about to happen. The jury would also be allowed to
surmise the virgin's flight is imminent.
> While one may be glad that they
> are not alone in this vast universe of ignorance, or the
> epistemological equivalency
The disease of rhetoric can strike anyone. There's no known cure excepting
being born with special abilities reserved for the better writers or a
maturity born of suffering perhaps. Anyway that's one dumb word and I can't
see what it has to do with my complaint, still I'm open for a bit of word
sport if you like.
> as I do not live in a world of such absurdity.
What world would that be? I hope it isn't the national society of fascist
inspired epistemology and monstrous tin tabernacles made with taxpayers money.
> I do believe Dr. Eric Mussen in his response to my query that she may
> recognize her hive pheromone on any given drone and forgo that mating.
Is that 'may' or 'will?' In your announcement of this profound statement
where you've become the self appointed press secretary of Dr. Mussen your
post dated July 19th you said 'will':
<sic> UC Davis' Apiarist was asked the above question: will the queen take
on a drone from her hive during her maiden flight? The answer was NO
From an imagined B movie of 1956: "Terror on Campus." The scene opens: a
bustling vista of UC Davis in black and white, the immaculate lawns, white
people in white coats going purposely about. The camera comes to a door in a
building with a sign that reads: "Dr. Eric Mussen, Entomology." The door
opens we see a pretty blond co-ed with a clipboard and pony tail standing
beside a distinguished looking man, himself, in a white coat. The co-ed
speaks: "but Dr. Mussen if you're right and those artificial inseminators
inseminated a virgin with the sperm of a drone from her own hive, wouldn't
it create a bearded bee with seven legs and multiple stingers without
barbs?" That's right Penny, but no one would be that crazy.
> But in any case, reason prevails from what is closer to what is possible
> and not to the absurdity you post in your last question to me.
Before the Spanish Conquistadors arrived in the west and English colonist in
the east there were no Apis Millifera on this continent both north and
south. No horses either. So lets ask ourselves how many hives came over the
first time bees were brought here? I sure would like to know, or can we? Is
it written in any contemporary diaries or logs about allowing a number of
those medieval straw skips full of bees to be brought aboard a ship bound
for Jamestown? I've never seen this. We know that the bees were brought to
America we just don't know when. We know the Indians complained about them
from diaries of the time. If it was a lone hive surviving the 5 or 6 month
journey in some cranny of the ship then swarming into the new world when the
ship arrived then Dr.Mussen is wrong. Being understanding and empathetic of
human frailty we can sympathetically surmise he was driven mad whilst
waiting for his telegram from the Nobel Prize selection committee. If it
were two hives arriving at James town on the same ship, he could be right
but we need to understand why by modern methods.
I personally surmise it was a swarm of British Black Bees that built a hive
in some hidden place of the ship as it lay for weeks in harbour then had
enough stores to survive the crossing. This is how Africanized bees reached
places like Houston and New Orleans in recent times. These modern ships
however made the passage across the Gulf of Mexico relatively fast while the
attached AHB swarms went unnoticed carrying with them enough iron rations to
survive the passage.
> The tone of your response mandates you know such and sharing that
> answer could be helpful to the rest of us hobbyists.
The tone in which you allude is coming from your mind. In text messaging of
this sort I respond to posts of interest measured directly from the level of
thought or a shared experience I perceive went into the post.
Thinking about what someone says whether scientist or layman should be your
first endeavor. As a novice hobbyist beekeeper or an experienced hobbyist
beekeeper it is your duty to keep finding things out for yourself by making
the effort to have real experiences whilst reading more than you hear.
> Have you been keeping Africanize bees
I believe I have encountered them.
> and is it contagious or are you always a dick?
Study the concept of irony Bozo it will help you get a life.
> 'It isn't pollution that's harming the environment.
> It's the impurities in our air and water that are
> doing it.'
> -Vice President Al Gore
Al Gore another person who does not think about what he's saying.
--
CK
JZ
wrote:
> Thanks for that clear voice -JZ you may not be an entomologist but you
> sound like one.
I'm new to this list, so I don't know if that's a compliment or not,
judging from the tone of this discussion.
But as for queen bees mating with their own half-sisters, my
understanding is that a queen's mating flight will generally take her
farther than the typical drone flies to find a congregation area.
This gives her a better chance to mate outside of her family. Along
with that, I think there is some evidence that poor brood patterns
within an apiary can result from inbreeding--that is, developing brood
can spontaneously abort, and be removed by the workers, leaving an
empty spot in the capped brood pattern that is visible to the
beekeeper. This usually occurs when a bee yard is isolated, and the
only drones available are related. This may be more of a problem as
all the feral bees are disappearing. Alas, I can not refer you to any
scientific journal to back up what I have said, but I gleaned this
from a discussion I had last summer with Dr. James Ellis, of the
University of Florida, Gainsville.
Also on the subject of inbreeding, varroa mites do mate with their
siblings, and quite shamelessly in front of their own mothers'
proverbial noses. But there have been many thousands of generations
for them to work the bugs out of the system, so to speak. Any
individual who was unfit probably didn't reproduce, thus the bad
combinations of genes that we would associate with inbreeding are
removed from the gene pool, as in the above example with the bees.
Their reproductive cycle is very rapid (egg to egg-layer in less than
a month), and thus they have many chances (as a species) for
mutations. Mutations are probably rare, given their small genome, but
it still give them hope of a little variation here and there. That's
how the genus diverged into more than one species in the first place.
Well, that was far more long-winded than I intended.
-JZ
Charlie Kroeger
> judging from the tone of this discussion.
It used to be lively but AHB, mites, beetles, viruses, now CCD and the ever
increasing use of pesticides and GMO crops aggravated by ever decreasing
regulation, only the most determined fated beekeepers or rank novices yet to
be tested still make the odd appearance. It may be there is a new work
ethic where people expect a quick return for little effort. Beekeeping has
always been the opposite of that. Prices of equipment might have something
to do with it along with money of decreasing value. Suppliers have shifted
their emphasis to the larger beekeeper too, that's always a bad sign, there
are larger minimums for wax processing for instance. Perhaps it's General
Creeping Malaise, GCM, add it to the list.
> I think there is some evidence that poor brood patterns
> within an apiary can result from inbreeding--that is, developing brood
> can spontaneously abort, and be removed by the workers, leaving an
> empty spot in the capped brood pattern that is visible to the
> beekeeper.
That's interesting and may answer a question from way back in those years
when I would have only one hive coming through the winter. On building up in
the Spring I noticed these types of spots in the brood pattern and thought
it was a failing queen, now maybe just bad breeding. I live in a place that
could be considered isolate.
I have a short season anyway. It's not beekeeping country especially now
that global warming is changing the traditional patters of rain we used to
get in the Spring to a late Summer monsoonal period. In these dry Springs
plants that supplied bees with an abundance of nectar now only release
enough in the mornings and evenings to attract insects for seed production.
I don't think plants can evolve quick enough to start blooming in mid August
to take advantage of our new weather.
> Alas, I can not refer you to any
> scientific journal to back up what I have said, but I gleaned this
> from a discussion I had last summer with Dr. James Ellis, of the
> University of Florida, Gainsville.
That's too bad, a theory then. Still the wily ways of bees have always been
hard to know for a reliable return on investment. I've always admired them
for that. At least they have not been subject to cattle breeders who use
'line' breeding techniques that would pass for incest in humans.
> Well, that was far more long-winded than I intended.
I like reading. It didn't seem long-winded to me.
--
CK
Dominic Richens
> In the insect world and especially that of Apis Millifera I see little
> wasted action without a reason or some singularity of purpose. I know when
> the virgin sets forth the air is full of drones from the same box, they
> being the first to know. Given the epochs of time bees have been around, I
> find it hard to accept that drones in a particular hive would be useless
> to
> that hive. What would happen if the virgin flew out and there were no
> other
> drones in range, would she return chaste as it were, infertile? If that's
> actually the case, can you prove it?
Don't know if it is fact but it does make sense. Humans and many other
animals have evolved this same instinct - why not bees?
--
Dominic Richens | kn...@storm.ca
"If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!"
Charlie Kroeger
> Don't know if it is fact but it does make sense. Humans and many other
> animals have evolved this same instinct - why not bees?
<generated in UTF-8>
ℐt was generally agreed upon (I think) that maybe they do and probably they
do but the end result is inferior to outside genetic material. However that
discussion was only conjecture and hearsay even though scientist were quoted
as having an opinion. The problem with that is even science is suspect now
that the ideologues have infiltrated every aspect of government and private
endeavor and as more evidence is made public it has become quite insidious.
I do believe in observation born of experience that is repeatable and
reliable say if one had a truly isolated hive that eventually collapsed
because of malformed and continual growth of an inferior population but I
don't think this question has been considered for serious study because it
has not been considered a problem before. If say the disappearance of feral
hives of bees because of mites or GM crops is having an effect on the
quality of hives being managed that question is not going to be answered.
In our world something or someone else is always to blame not whatever it
really is.
If I were a moderator I would relegate this thread to the status of 'dead
horse" and forget about it.
--
ᛍᚴ
Fascism up to 1939:
Transcribed from The Columbia Encyclopedia 1940 edition. Compiled and edited
at Columbia University, Clarke F. Ansley editor in chief, MCMXLI.
[făsh'Ĭz-m] [from Ital. fascio. plural fasci,=bundle, union; undoubtedly
influenced by Fasces the ancient Roman symbol of the power of the state over
life and limb. The fasces were cylindrical bundles of wooden rods tied
tightly together. In the bundle there was usually an axe with the edge
pointing outward. A good representation of the fasces may be seen on the
reverse of an American dime, on which it represents union or the power of
the state. The fasces were borne by guards called lictors before praetors,
consuls, dictators, and emperors. The number of lictors was governed by the
rank of the magistrate.
Fascism took the form of a national political, economic, social, and
cultural organization typified in Italy under the dictatorship of Benito
Mussolini. Fascism has much in common with the Russian type of communism.
Both elevate the state as paramount and extend state control into all social
expression; both discard parliamentary rule and yet retain remnants of a
representative system; both decry "liberal" doctrines; both advocate the
rule of a single party in an authoritarian state, with a firm suppression of
its opponents.
From the birth of fascism, one of the few set items of its program has been
irreconcilable opposition to communism and socialism. Fascism is essentially
and fundamentally nationalist; communism is at least in theory
international. Fascism, as it has developed, has become a bulwark of
capitalism, regulated and chastened, but still capitalism, and the classes
of society have have been maintained; communism seeks the supremacy of the
proletariat and the destruction of classes. Fascism has, in general, placed
an emphasis on the spiritual, and, to some extent, the religious, aspect of
life, while communism is thoroughly economic and militantly opposed to religion.
In Italy the fascist movement arose in 1919 with Mussolini's formation of
the first of the Fasci di Combattimento, groups of men prepared to fight for
the "awakening" of Italy. The motives that brought men into the groups were
ultimately grounded in reaction to the discontent and depression following
the World War. Italy had been disappointed in the peace treaties. The war
had deranged the economic system, and conditions grew steadily worse. The
foreign policy of the government was ineffectual, and parliamentary rule
seemed impotent in the face of complex problems. The evils of the day were
laid by the Fascist at the door of the radicals, the "Reds."
The unity and "dynamic" purpose of the Fascist created both centrifugal and
centripetal forces that work quite apart from logic; men were swept into the
movement by enthusiasm; warfare with the radicals increased. With the march
on Rome [1922] and the establishment of a Fascist dictatorship, the cause
triumphed. The full program, today considered the Fascist program, was then
formulated on a groundwork largely adopted by opportunism¹. The syndicalist²
element was strong and socialism was abhorred. Private property was to be
respected, but state control of industry was to be practically unlimited.
The "corporative state" was the result. No class struggle between labor and
capital is tolerated in it; instead, industry is organized into both
vertical [employer with all classes of employees according to industries]
and horizontal [laborer with laborer, as in a trade union] combinations,
thus achieving a complete regimentation under the watchful eye of the state.
The organization is strictly hierarchic, just as the Fascist party is, and
the threads of influence are gathered into the same hands that hold the
reins of state: industry and the state are, in a sense, one. This ideal
arrangement has not been completely achieved in Italy, but order and direct
action were introduced, and the system, imperfect though it might be, was
begun. Education was reorganized according to Gentile's³ proposed reforms
with the emphasis shifted from positivistic⁴ to spiritual culture. Because
most of the people of Italy belong to the Catholic faith, Catholic religious
instruction is also incorporated into the course of study [though not forced
on non-Catholics]. Always the state an almost mystical conception, the
super-body made up of all the Italians of the past as well as the present,
with a glorious mission to fulfill in the future-is the prime factor in the
system.
This emphasis on the past and the inculcation of vaguely ethnological
arguments have combined with the antipathies of the movement to give fascism
the conservative aspect that is only incidental to it. Reactionary⁵
sentiment, strong nationalistic feeling, an authoritarian and "totalitarian"
state moving by non-parliamentary means, a strong and somewhat military
party, a dictatorship, and the regimentation of capital and labor under the
aegis of the state-all these are characteristics of the fascist movements
that sprang up all over Europe and in South America, China, and other parts
of the world.
The defeatism arising from the war, the impasse reached in most
parliamentary governments. and the worldwide economic depression have all
helped to produce in other countries effects like those in Italy. Youth
movements spread like wildfire; young men, seeking the revitalization of
nations and the clearance of old scores, have banded together in fascist
groups. Fascism, being highly nationalistic, has variant characteristics, In
Germany, where the fascistic National Socialists [the Nazis] rose to control
under Adolf Hitler in 1933, the movement has a strong tinge of the racial or
pseudo-racial feeling. In Austria, von Starhemberg's Heimwehr appeared early
and the activities of the German National Socialist brought two fascist
groups more or less into conflict. Early in 1934 a "totalitarian" state was
set up under Dollfuss. The National Socialists have also appeared in Danzig
and have sought footholds in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and even farther east.
The Gömbös government in Hungary has fascistic aspects. A large group of
Polish fascist were brought to support Pilsudski after he had made an
earlier attempt to suppress their organization. An active group of Finnish
National Patriots originated as a fascist organization. In Spain a fascist
group gathered and became increasingly active after the revolution of 1931
with the younger Primo de Rivera at their head. In England a band of
negligible political importance gathered about Sir Oswald Mosley. In
Romania, the Iron Guard, a strong anti-Semitic and fascist party, became
increasingly important. In Portugal, the syndicalist aspect of fascism was
the central point in founding a party. Sweden, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland,
and Bulgaria have also witnessed the rise of fascism. More and more over the
world the great struggle has been between the "reactionary" and "radical"
forces of fascism and communism.
Suggested reading: "Capital and Labor under Fascism" Carmen Haider (1930)
"The Corporative State" A. Pennachio (1927) "The Pragmatic Revolt in
Politics" W.Y. Elliott (1928) "Bolshevism, Fascism and Capitalism" George S.
Counts, Luigi Villari, M.C. Rorty, and Newton D. Baker (1932) "A new
Economic Order" ed: Kirby Page (1930)
¹Opportunism:the policy or practice, as in politics, business, or one's
personal affairs, of adapting actions, decisions, etc., to expediency or
effectiveness regardless of the sacrifice of ethical principles.
²Syndicalism: a form or development of trade unionism, originating in
France, that aims at the possession of the means of production and
distribution, and ultimately at the control of society, by federated bodies
of industrial workers, and that seeks to realize its purposes through
general strikes, terrorism, sabotage, etc.
³Giovanni Gentile Italian philosopher born May 30, 1875, Castelvetrano,
Italy died April 15, 1944, Florence. He was a major figure in Italian
idealist philosophy, politician, educator, and editor, sometimes called the
“philosopher of Fascism.”
His “actual idealism” shows the strong influence of G.W.F. Hegel. Gentile in
1917 became professor of the history of philosophy at the University of Rome
where he wrote "La filosofia di Marx" (The Philosophy of Marx) a Hegelian
examination of Karl Marx’s philosophy.
After the fall of Benito Mussolini in 1943, Gentile supported the Fascist
Social Republic established by the Germans at Salò and was made the
president of the Academy of Italy, in which post he served until his death
at the hands of anti-Fascist communists.
⁴Positivism: a philosophical system founded by Auguste Comte, concerned with
positive facts and phenomena, and excluding speculation upon ultimate causes
or origins.
⁵Reactionary: pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme
conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.
Charlie Kroeger
> Don't know if it is fact but it does make sense. Humans and many other
> animals have evolved this same instinct - why not bees?
Dominic Richens wrote:
> Don't know if it is fact but it does make sense. Humans and many other
> animals have evolved this same instinct - why not bees?
<generated in UTF-8>