Fascism is ochlocracy that leads to tyranny.
I don’t beleive so.
I’m guessing by “ochlocracy”, you are referring to the mass mobilization and direct action tactics that Fascist revolutionaries utilize. How they will (many former military) organize into Squadristi to use violence to achieve their political goals.
Then by “Tyranny” you are reffering to how many Fascist movements call for the need of a strong heroic leader to head the revolution and take role as the leader of the nation to give it a guiding Authority.
Your descriptions seems to be the most narrow,base and insulting terms and therefore purely meant to be dismissive of Fascism.
The fascist sentiment par excellence is the anger of the angry mob. 'Tis the sentiment that inspires witch hunts, razzias, and the like. In late eighteenth century France, however, 'twas not a case of fascism, as it did not lead to tyranny, but to monarchy: Napoleon’s empire. Thus Nietzsche says: “The Revolution made Napoleon possible: that is its [sole] justification.” (WP 877.) Being in every way the opposite of aristocracy, fascism is the anti-aristocratic movement par excellence. I must therefore admire the Idealism with which you project something noble into it.
Sure the movement utilizes the people, their emotions, in this case their hate.
Fascism unlike Liberalism and Leftism, while advocating for the advancement of man doesnt see these emotions, Hate for example, to be something to be moved past.
The French revolution in it’s orgy for societal change tried to impose every sentiment of Liberal thought, Egalitarianism and Republicanism.
And at the End of the Day it was only by the Hand of the Authoritarian that brought sense to the revolution and grounded the salvagable ideals of the revolution with the realities of the world.
Fascism is incredibly noble it opposes Degeneracy and Decadence on principle, it desires to unite the energies of Reason and passion in order to bring about a State which will most benefit man.
It does not blindly seek change as if it were automatically progress and doesn’t blindly cling to tradition if it is indeed harmful.
Yet it is willing to adapt while also honoring it’s Traditions.
The only way in which it could be described as “anti-aristocratic” is that fact that it is a populist movement, but it is not a popluist movment in the sense of promising the common man everything at the cost of the established powers. But to seek harmony in society by having them share common cause for the good of their Nation and therefore themselves.
Nazism/Fascism is Yang over Ying. The sun over the moon. Hence the Pinwheel/Swastika.
The Fasci symbolizes us versus them, my ethnicity/nation/race versus your ethnicity/nation/race, blood/soil warfare as opposed to class (Marxian) warfare.
Republicanism is the absence of both kinds of warfare.
Fascism—of which Nazism is indeed an example, but actual “Communism” as well—is revolt by many underprivileged that leads to the overprivileging of one. Ochlocracy tends to into tyranny because “[w]hat is more likely to happen [than that “[t]he unwise multitude” will “recognize the wise as wise and obey them freely because of their wisdom”] is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right” (Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, page 141). “The best regime is that in which the best men habitually rule, or aristocracy. Goodness is, if not identical with wisdom, at any rate dependent on wisdom: the best regime would seem to be the rule of the wise.” (ibid., page 140.) Thus aristocracy, as the rule of “[t]he few wise” (page 141), is in every way the opposite of fascism, which is the rule of one unwise that comes about through the consent of many unwise.
Fascism is elitism, Communism is egalitarianism.
Fascism achieved its ideals, if only for a little while, Communism never did.
I agree that doctrinarian Communism—as opposed to what has been called “Communism” from the Soviet Union and China to Cuba—is egalitarianism. I disagree, however, that Fascism “is” elitism; it just avails itself of it in order to win over those it appeals to, just as it avails itself of egalitarianism for the same reason (consider the term “National Socialism”).
Ironically, Communism achieved Fascism’s ideals: thus Hitler really looked up to what Stalin had achieved, and sought to emulate him. Fascism’s sole ideal is power; thus to say that Fascism achieved its ideals is to say that there were Fascist states. The word “ideal” is ironic here, by the way, as is accusing Plato of Fascism: Plato’s ideal state is the state that keeps Fascism—i.e., the mob’s empowering a tyrant—at bay by winning over the gentlemen with the “noble” lie that the philosophers have immediate access to the Ideas.
“The gentleman is not identical with the wise man. He is the political reflection, or imitation, of the wise man. Gentlemen have this in common with the wise man, that they ‘look down’ on many things which are highly esteemed by the vulgar or that they are experienced in things noble and beautiful. They differ from the wise because they have a noble contempt for precision, because they refuse to take cognizance of certain aspects of life, and because, in order to live as gentlemen, they must be well off.” (Source: Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, page 142.)
Stoic Guardian comes across as a perfect example of a gentleman.
I see where you’re going with this, it’s a pretty picture you paint but I’m not sure it’s anymore true than mine. Fascism in theory is one form of simplicity (A over B, dualism), Communism in theory is an equal and an opposing form of simplicity (A = B, monism). Neither of which, resemble anything remotely real, that ever was, nor that ever will be. In that sense, they’re both tools in the hands of the elite, they’re both empty promises. The elite can always fall back in them, no matter how badly the lemmings are being fucked, because they’re believed in for their magical potency, not because of their truth value. Nature is infinitely more dynamic than either of these static models suggest. If you want to change reality, it helps to be more in tune with it.
Perhaps Fascism and Nazism in theory weren’t entirely elitist, as you say (National Socialism). Mussolini spoke of class collaboration (where wealth and resources could be redistributed top-down or bottom-up) and cultural warfare. Hitler spoke of class collaboration and racial warfare. Marx spoke of just the opposite, class warfare and cultural/racial collaboration. Of course it was about the personalities themselves really, and their selfishness, not the ideologies.
Platonism as an alternative to the ideologies of the 20th century?
Is this what you believe in?
No, though it seems Strauss believed in it. I don’t think Platonism would be the way to keep fascism at bay in our age, which as you may remember I conceive as late Machiavellian Age. If for some reason we were to go back to the Middle Ages, then I do think it would be the best way to keep it at bay—in the form of Islam, for example. But short of that, I think the best way to keep it at bay would paradoxically be by not trying to keep it at bay, but to the contrary, willing it; as I wrote about a year and a half ago:
“The Nietzschean Übermensch is the man who wills the eternal return of all things, including all suffering and inequality! Including the anger he arouses by willing suffering, and the envy he arouses by willing inequality! Including all attempts to shoot him down! Including fascism!”
Yin
Plato was essentially the Proto-Fascist.
How you find Plato’s ideal society and a Fascist one from being so distinct as to be opposed to one another, makes me think your knowledge of Fascism is lacking.
Fascism reconciles the traditional concepts of Nationalism, Militarism and Hierarchy with the ideals of civic responsibility in mending societal ills and aiding the workers aganist international Capitalism, the Return of State directed economy,social programs, Civic Works etc.
I’m not sure what the metaphysics are about, though we could discuss the metaphysics on Fascism as well.
It’s all simple to discover with study, though legitmate information on Fascism is hard to come by due over half a century of villification by the establishment.
Fascism was about combatting degeneracy and moral decay at all costs, and reviving something glorious that had been lost by all monarchies, democracies, etc. of the 20C.
Exactly right.
As far as I can tell, the only unifying theme in Fascism is the belief that a nation must have a project (or perhaps IS a project), and that to be a citizen of the nation is to be obligated to work towards that project. Contrast this with the belief that individual/community projects are what’s important, and the job of the nation to enable people to pusue them by maintaining the peace, and otherwise stay out of the way.
Also, Plato was fascist-left as I read him.
To the contrary, he was essentially one of the anti-fascists—other examples being Machiavelli and Nietzsche.—
Those “ideals” spring from fascism’s core; the “traditional concepts” you mention belong to its window dressing. More on that in my response to Ibn Malikshah below.
My definition of fascism, and especially my identification of its core sentiment, actually implies that much of the establishment is fascist. For example, the French Revolution, which is still celebrated yearly in the democratic republic of France, is not an example of fascism only because it led to the rule of a Caesar like Napoleon, and not to that of a tyrant.
That “revival” was just its window dressing. As the phrase “moral decay” suggests, it was itself an expression of degeneracy. Indeed, it was an especially vehement outburst thereof—and for this reason even more than the rest of that degeneracy movement a force to be reckoned with. In order to really employ that force for overcoming degeneracy and giving birth to something glorious, however, one must paradoxically embrace its degenerate source. Only through love of the seething hatred that is the core of fascism can one attain the love of life that is the condition of sursumgeneracy and thereby of all glory.
I find Plato to be a fascist too, but because of his approach, rather than his conclusions. His approach was to assume that his nation was about some goal or ideal, and the purpose of Government was to order every aspect of every citizens lives (down to what they eat, who they have sex with, and what music they are allowed to listen to) in terms of serving that goal. That’s straight up fascist.
Elaborate.
No, those are as well absolutely part of it’s core.
No. Fascism advocates the Spiritual ,the Masculine, the Virtuos, the Heroic and the Community.
The Establishment represents Materialism, Selfishness, Hedonism, Egotism, Plutocracy and the Individual.
Bonapartism ia very similar to Fascism.
Italian Fascism took much inspiration from Imperial Rome.
What?
So how does Fascism not do this then?
It limits the masculine and feminine and punishes those who refuse to be boxed in by those limited definitions of each.
It advocates a specific kind of spirituality. Generally one with a lot of Control, with rules that are not followed by the elite classes - often in secret. The recent would be fascist Italian leader a perfect case in Point.
It advocates its version of virtues. To say it advocates virtues does not distinguish it from most other political value systems.
It advocates a specific kind of heroism and denies that other forms of brave action are heroic.
It advocates the Community in a specific set of ways, demanding a lot of conformity - one often evaded by those in Power beyond show versions of it. One could say that it olaces values above the Community. Of course most political systems will do this, but usually they work in the desires of the Community and the effects of the virtues on the Community into the evaluation. Fascism creates the ideals and forces people to match them. Humans are for the values, not the other way around.
How exactly?
Which is? Yes they wish for society to be able to effectively manage itself in the interests of the nation as a whole rather than intetrnational finance and individual greed. Is that wrong.
True, but it Virtues are what do. As they are both Traditional and Revolutionary.
Such as?
Such as?
This is nonsense, Fascists are of the people it is a mass movement of the people, it’s not some overlordling beating down the people to follow a set of principles not in it’s interest.
This is an out and out lie spread by opponents of Fascism.
The Fascist love his Nation and a Nation is it’s people he works for what he beleives is the best interests of his people as a whole, he isn’t opposed to freedom unless such freedom does society as a whole harm.
Fascist societies aspire to be more organic and natural as opposed to plutocratic soulessness.
They are not the robotic conformity that the left try to frame them as (the well known speechby Charlie Chaplin in “The Great Dictator” while stirring is completely assbackwards in it’s understanding of Fascist Society.)