- 29 Mar 2009 22:30
#1852401
Fasces
Fascism is a difficult ideology to define, for various reasons. Chief among these is the fact that fascism is notoriously anti-ideology. Without a single exception, fascist leaders held pragmatics first, ideology second, and commented on the need for ideology to adapt to changing situations. For this reason, the anticlerical Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty, recognizing the Vatican. For this reason, Franco refused to join his allies in the war they would not win. Thus, a scholar who comes to study fascist ideology must do so from two perspectives: the actual, and the theoretical.
However, a scholar must always have a working definition. By what bar will we measure the ideas without it? How can we criticize something as “un-fascist†if we have no initial definition, however flawed. Thus, we must search for one. The ideal place, of course, is from the mouth of the fascists themselves. George Valois, a Frenchman, defined fascism simply, in words that would be stolen by Hitler in his second book to name his movement. Valois said that “nationalism + socialism = fascismâ€. Oswald supported this, saying “If you love our country you are nationals and if you love our people you are socialist.†If one thing has remained constant throughout all incarnations of fascism across the globe, it is that. Fascism is a love of the state, and its people, and the quest to better both.
These definitions, of course, are very simple, and as useful to define the revolutionary right as saying that Marxism is simply about creating a worker’s utopia. While they may be true, they ignore the depth of the ideas, which we will get into later.
It is also necessary to dispel the academic myths about fascism. It is not a post Great War ideology, held up by a bourgeoisie fearful of Marxist revolution. It has its roots in the intellectual crisis of the 1890’s, by men who sought to bridge the gaps between the many types of socialism. As the Great War began, fascist ideology had already been well-defined, by men such as Berth, Sorel, and others. Both Marxism and fascism were reactions to the bourgeoisie, a revolt against their society. Their conflict stems from competition.
Unfortunately, in modern days, fascism has been lost. Overuse by leftists as a means of slander, and lack of understanding by the skinheads who make up the bulk of the movement today have destroyed its more intellectual, and noble, roots. It is disgusting, it has become the very thing leftists despise. It has ceased to be an ideology; it is now merely a reaction to Marxism, and without Marxism to combat, could not stand on its own today. It is necessary to reestablish what it was – so that it may once again hold a respectable position along the other political ideologies of Western civilization. I hope for the return of yellow socialism.
Fascism is a difficult ideology to define, for various reasons. Chief among these is the fact that fascism is notoriously anti-ideology. Without a single exception, fascist leaders held pragmatics first, ideology second, and commented on the need for ideology to adapt to changing situations. For this reason, the anticlerical Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty, recognizing the Vatican. For this reason, Franco refused to join his allies in the war they would not win. Thus, a scholar who comes to study fascist ideology must do so from two perspectives: the actual, and the theoretical.
However, a scholar must always have a working definition. By what bar will we measure the ideas without it? How can we criticize something as “un-fascist†if we have no initial definition, however flawed. Thus, we must search for one. The ideal place, of course, is from the mouth of the fascists themselves. George Valois, a Frenchman, defined fascism simply, in words that would be stolen by Hitler in his second book to name his movement. Valois said that “nationalism + socialism = fascismâ€. Oswald supported this, saying “If you love our country you are nationals and if you love our people you are socialist.†If one thing has remained constant throughout all incarnations of fascism across the globe, it is that. Fascism is a love of the state, and its people, and the quest to better both.
These definitions, of course, are very simple, and as useful to define the revolutionary right as saying that Marxism is simply about creating a worker’s utopia. While they may be true, they ignore the depth of the ideas, which we will get into later.
It is also necessary to dispel the academic myths about fascism. It is not a post Great War ideology, held up by a bourgeoisie fearful of Marxist revolution. It has its roots in the intellectual crisis of the 1890’s, by men who sought to bridge the gaps between the many types of socialism. As the Great War began, fascist ideology had already been well-defined, by men such as Berth, Sorel, and others. Both Marxism and fascism were reactions to the bourgeoisie, a revolt against their society. Their conflict stems from competition.
Unfortunately, in modern days, fascism has been lost. Overuse by leftists as a means of slander, and lack of understanding by the skinheads who make up the bulk of the movement today have destroyed its more intellectual, and noble, roots. It is disgusting, it has become the very thing leftists despise. It has ceased to be an ideology; it is now merely a reaction to Marxism, and without Marxism to combat, could not stand on its own today. It is necessary to reestablish what it was – so that it may once again hold a respectable position along the other political ideologies of Western civilization. I hope for the return of yellow socialism.
- By ingliz
- By JohnRawls
- By Rich