PDA

View Full Version : Can Fascism be Critiqued from the Right?



Mister D
04-23-2013, 01:25 PM
I just finished Julius Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World and his relationship with the Fascist government was touched on in the introduction. Apparently, he wrote a long treatise on the potential of fascism (reviewed below) which is some interest since a proper perspective on fascism's relationship to the traditional right is important to me.

Note: this article is linked from a racialist website. It's a classy place as far as the articles are concerned but if you are squeamish about that sort of thing or worried about the Man...

---


Snip

Evola drew a distinction between two kinds of state. One kind is defined from below, by “social” factors, and is established to promote material well-being. The typical example would be a democracy, in which different groups and factions agree on a framework to advance material ends. The other kind of state, which Evola considered a vast improvement, is not defined from below but sanctioned from above, by a transcendent principle. The typical example would be a monarchy empowered by divine right.

Evola was, himself, deeply spiritual, and believed that only in a regime with a transcendent purpose did such Roman virtues as honor and service to the state gain their full meaning. He believed that without some spiritual purpose, the individual impulse for “self-transcendence” could not rise any higher than material goals that aim merely at the increase of physical comfort.

Mussolini claimed that Fascism had religious values, but Evola believed the regime never achieved a spiritual sanction which would have given it a transcendent character. Without religious sanction, man’s best efforts are largely wasted: “Even elements like struggle and heroism, loyalty and sacrifice, contempt for death, and so on can take on an irrational, naturalistic, tragic and dark character.”

Evola also recognized the totalitarian threat of Fascism, though he considered this threat “from the point of view not of a shapeless liberal democracy, but rather of a true Right.” In particular, Evola criticized the Fascist slogan “Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” He considered this intrusive and coercive. The Traditional state, for Evola, “acts out of prestige with an authority that can, of course, resort to force, but abstains from it as much as possible.” He approved of what he called “rational decentralization,” as opposed to the systematic interference by the state that is characteristic of socialist regimes that care only about material progress.


http://www.amren.com/features/2013/03/can-fascism-be-critiqued-from-the-right/

Chris
04-23-2013, 01:39 PM
Not sure how monarchy is an improvement on democracy since democracy was supposed to be an improvement on monarchy. Perhaps he didn't mean "improvement on" in that way. I do agree, monarch is better than democracy. Hoope's Democracy: The God that Failed argues that monarchies have property at stake in governing and a long time preference--eye on long-term, as advantages over democracies. Also, democracy today is no more than the left-over of socialism, social democracy with it highly centralized state. He seems to see the similarities in both as totalitarian threats.

That dichotomy leaves out political economies based on "rational decentralization." Something Europe has seen little of. Hoppe's book examines this alternative.

Not sure what "true Right” is other than a no true Scotsman argument.

Mister D
04-23-2013, 01:50 PM
Not sure how monarchy is an improvement on democracy since democracy was supposed to be an improvement on monarchy. Perhaps he didn't mean "improvement on" in that way. I do agree, monarch is better than democracy. Hoope's Democracy: The God that Failed argues that monarchies have property at stake in governing and a long time preference--eye on long-term, as advantages over democracies. Also, democracy today is no more than the left-over of socialism, social democracy with it highly centralized state. He seems to see the similarities in both as totalitarian threats.

That dichotomy leaves out political economies based on "rational decentralization." Something Europe has seen little of. Hoppe's book examines this alternative.

Not sure what "true Right” is other than a no true Scotsman argument.

I'm not sure what is meant by a "true right" either. Where did you see it? Where did you see "improvement on"?

Pre-modern Europe (roughly prior to the Treaty of Westphalia) was largely decentralized politically, socially, and economically.

Common
04-23-2013, 07:00 PM
Id like to contribute to your thread Mr D, but its waaaay over my head :)

Chris
04-23-2013, 07:11 PM
I'm not sure what is meant by a "true right" either. Where did you see it? Where did you see "improvement on"?

Pre-modern Europe (roughly prior to the Treaty of Westphalia) was largely decentralized politically, socially, and economically.

Improvement is in paragraph one of OP citation, true right in the fourth.

Decentralized in nation states.

Mister D
04-23-2013, 07:22 PM
Improvement is in paragraph one of OP citation, true right in the fourth.

Decentralized in nation states.

"Improvement" not improvement on. They (i.e. the two types of state) are different animals to Evola. By "true right" Evola refers to the forces seeking to preserve tradition which is what characterized the European right.

No, nation states are a modern phenomenon. Pre-modern Europe was largely decentralized politically, socially, and economically.

Mister D
04-23-2013, 07:30 PM
For example, a 15th Century "Spaniard" or Frenchman would not have thought of himself in those terms. It was similar to the way antebellum Americans thought of themselves as Virginians or Ohioans first. The difference being that they were more conscious of the concept of "America" than the latter folks were of France or Spain.

Chris
04-23-2013, 07:31 PM
"Improvement" not improvement on. They (i.e. the two types of state) are different animals to Evola. By "true right" Evola refers to the forces seeking to preserve tradition which is what characterized the European right.

No, nation states are a modern phenomenon. Pre-modern Europe was largely decentralized politically, socially, and economically.

He talks of democracy, then says the other kind is an improvement.

Then he should define what he means, not claim it's true as opposed to others.

You mentioned Treaty of Westphalia. It was attended by the French, the Swedes, the Spanish and so on. These are states, not the modern ones we have now but states nonetheless. It wasn't a decentralize population that fought the 30 Year's War.

Mister D
04-23-2013, 07:44 PM
He talks of democracy, then says the other kind is an improvement.

Then he should define what he means, not claim it's true as opposed to others.

You mentioned Treaty of Westphalia. It was attended by the French, the Swedes, the Spanish and so on. These are states, not the modern ones we have now but states nonetheless. It wasn't a decentralize population that fought the 30 Year's War.

Right. Like having enough to eat is an improvement on not having enough to eat. I'm not sure what your quibble is here.

It's an excerpt from a book review.

Those are nationalities, Chris. They are much older than the nation state. Don't confuse the two. All European societies were pre-national prior to the modern era. The Treaty of Westphalia is considered pivotal in the onset on centralization and the emergence of nationalism. Still, it took centuries and really peaked with the French Revolution and the reaction in the 19th Century.

Chris
04-23-2013, 07:47 PM
nation-alities. I get it, they're not true states.

Peter1469
04-23-2013, 07:56 PM
A nation is a group of people with a shared culture.

A state is a political organization.

Mister D
04-23-2013, 07:58 PM
nation-alities. I get it, they're not true states.

They were highly decentralized entities. They were kingdoms not nations. For example, a significant segment of the population of the Kingdom of France didn't speak French. The Hapsburg and Tsarist lands remained a hodge podge of "nation-alities" well into the 20 Century.

Mister D
04-23-2013, 07:59 PM
A nation is a group of people with a shared culture.

A state is a political organization.

Right. The latter created the former in the modern era,.

Peter1469
04-23-2013, 08:03 PM
Right. The latter created the former in the modern era,.

In general.

Afghanistan is an example of a state without a nation.

Kurdistan is an example of a nation without a state.

Mister D
04-23-2013, 08:10 PM
In general.

Afghanistan is an example of a state without a nation.

Kurdistan is an example of a nation without a state.

Agreed. Lets not drop a blanket over everything. I'm speaking specifically about Europe. There were a variety of regional identities before there were Frenchmen, for example. As I pointed out to Chris, the same is true of our own country but the centralized state would have loomed larger in their consciousness because it was a reality whereas the French nation per se was not.

Chris
04-23-2013, 08:11 PM
If you enjoy quibbling about semantics, I'll leave you to it.

From wikipedia on 30 Year's War that ended with the Peace of Westphalia.

http://i.snag.gy/AEB7k.jpg

Mister D
04-23-2013, 08:13 PM
If you enjoy quibbling about semantics, I'll leave you to it.

From wikipedia on 30 Year's War that ended with the Peace of Westphalia.

http://i.snag.gy/AEB7k.jpg

By that logic, nation states have always existed. Anything described as a state is a nation state. Don't be an ass.

Peter1469
04-23-2013, 08:15 PM
Agreed. Lets not drop a blanket over everything. I'm speaking specifically about Europe. There were a variety of regional identities before there were Frenchmen, for example. As I pointed out to Chris, the same is true of our own country but the centralized state would have loomed larger in their consciousness because it was a reality whereas the French nation per se was not.

Agreed; look also at how many German states merged to create a greater German nation/state in 1871.

Chris
04-23-2013, 08:16 PM
By that logic, nation states have always existed. Anything described as a state is a nation state. Don't be an ass.

Not that logic, yours. Nice personal attack though. I guess that's all you got when you got nothing else.

Mister D
04-23-2013, 08:17 PM
Agreed; look also at how many German states merged to create a greater German nation/state in 1871.

You know, there were actually many more of them than I at first realized. Well over a 1000. No, that's not a typo.

Chris
04-23-2013, 08:17 PM
Agreed; look also at how many German states merged to create a greater German nation/state in 1871.

I didn't claim that the nation states involved in the Treaty were today's modern states, that's D's straw man of what I said.

Mister D
04-23-2013, 08:18 PM
Not that logic, yours. Nice personal attack though. I guess that's all you got when you got nothing else.

Nation states have always existed. Great point, Chris. Brilliant. Thanks for your contribution.

Chris
04-23-2013, 08:21 PM
Nation states have always existed. Great point, Chris. Brilliant. Thanks for your contribution.

Why are you repeating what you said? I didn't say that. And thanks again for the personal attack. If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

Mister D
04-23-2013, 08:28 PM
Why are you repeating what you said? I didn't say that. And thanks again for the personal attack. If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

You're welcome to the ridicule when you deserve it. I'm not sure what compels you to do this but it's the same every time. See, but the Wiki says "France"! Was that your message? lol You realize the Kingdom of France is as old as the 9th Century? It wasn't a nation state. Nation states are a modern phenomenon.

Peter1469
04-23-2013, 08:36 PM
You know, there were actually many more of them than I at first realized. Well over a 1000. No, that's not a typo.

I know. The Germans are trying to do the same thing again (on a smaller # scale) with greater Europe and the EU- or really the EZ.

Mister D
04-23-2013, 08:41 PM
I know. The Germans are trying to do the same thing again (on a smaller # scale) with greater Europe and the EU- or really the EZ.

I think something structured on the spirit of the Holy Roman Empire (relative autonomy, decentralization) is just what the doctor ordered. The imperial vision of the Eurocrats is a more modern one, IMO.

Peter1469
04-23-2013, 08:49 PM
I think something structured on the spirit of the Holy Roman Empire (relative autonomy, decentralization) is just what the doctor ordered. The imperial vision of the Eurocrats is a more modern one, IMO.

My only point was the end of sovereignty at the local level.

Mister D
04-23-2013, 08:52 PM
My only point was the end of sovereignty at the local level.

That's what both the E.U. and the modern German state are all about. No doubt about that. Europeans seem to be more sensitive about it than Americans.

Chris
04-23-2013, 09:24 PM
You're welcome to the ridicule when you deserve it. I'm not sure what compels you to do this but it's the same every time. See, but the Wiki says "France"! Was that your message? lol You realize the Kingdom of France is as old as the 9th Century? It wasn't a nation state. Nation states are a modern phenomenon.

Ridicule seems to be all you got when you have no argument. It really is amazing when someone starts a topic under On the Serious Side, and handles the first comments with first quibbling about semantics, then a trirage of insults, and then straw men. Three pages of that. I had the impression you were interested in serious discussion. Wrong again.

What was my message? It still sits untouched in post #5 after your smoke screen, my challenge to your claim "Pre-modern Europe (roughly prior to the Treaty of Westphalia) was largely decentralized", which has been demonstrated false. In fact your OP denies it: "He approved of what he called “rational decentralization,” as opposed to the systematic interference by the state that is characteristic of socialist regimes that care only about material progress." Niether democracies not monarchies are decentralized.

Mister D
04-23-2013, 09:39 PM
Ridicule seems to be all you got when you have no argument. It really is amazing when someone starts a topic under On the Serious Side, and handles the first comments with first quibbling about semantics, then a trirage of insults, and then straw men. Three pages of that. I had the impression you were interested in serious discussion. Wrong again.

You were quibbling about semantics, Chris. Or perhaps you don't understand the terms you use like nation state? Your choice. :smiley: I'm only interested in "serious" discussion with those who present serious questions and comments. Sadly, you often refuse to be one of those people as your focus on "improvement" and "true right" demonstrate.



What was my message? It still sits untouched in post #5 after your smoke screen, my challenge to your claim "Pre-modern Europe (roughly prior to the Treaty of Westphalia) was largely decentralized", which has been demonstrated false. In fact your OP denies it: "He approved of what he called “rational decentralization,” as opposed to the systematic interference by the state that is characteristic of socialist regimes that care only about material progress." Niether democracies not monarchies are decentralized.


Pre-modern Europe was pre-national, Chris. I'm not quite sure what you thought your Wikipedia chart proved? The Kingdom of France was a kingdom not a nation. As far as decentralization, again, I'm not sure what your Wikipedia chart is supposed to prove? :grin: Again, the Kingdom of France is as old as the 9th Century. Are you seriously suggesting Medieval Europe wasn't decentralized? Really? lol Did you know that the 30 Years War was fought in an utterly decentralized locale (i.e the Holy Roman Empire)?

Where does Evola deny that pre-moderrn Europe was decentralized? What are you talking about? Pre-modern European monarchies were all decentralized. The struggle to centralize power in the hands of the king characterized the early modern era.

Please leave the history to me. Thanks. :smiley:

Chris
04-23-2013, 10:32 PM
You were quibbling about semantics, Chris. Or perhaps you don't understand the terms you use like nation state? Your choice. :smiley: I'm only interested in "serious" discussion with those who present serious questions and comments. Sadly, you often refuse to be one of those people as your focus on "improvement" and "true right" demonstrate.



Pre-modern Europe was pre-national, Chris. I'm not quite sure what you thought your Wikipedia chart proved? The Kingdom of France was a kingdom not a nation. As far as decentralization, again, I'm not sure what your Wikipedia chart is supposed to prove? :grin: Again, the Kingdom of France is as old as the 9th Century. Are you seriously suggesting Medieval Europe wasn't decentralized? Really? lol Did you know that the 30 Years War was fought in an utterly decentralized locale (i.e the Holy Roman Empire)?

Where does Evola deny that pre-moderrn Europe was decentralized? What are you talking about? Pre-modern European monarchies were all decentralized. The struggle to centralize power in the hands of the king characterized the early modern era.

Please leave the history to me. Thanks. :smiley:

I made a point about decentralization, you went off on the tangent quibbling about nation and state which had noting to do with the point.


I'm only interested in "serious" discussion with those who present serious questions and comments.

With quibbling, ad hom and straw men?


Pre-modern Europe was pre-national, Chris.

And there you go again. I reiterate my point about centralization and you race off on a tangent to quibble semantics about the word nation. I'll leave go off on ther road by your lonesome.


Where does Evola deny that pre-moderrn...

Where in fact does Evola talk about pre-modern? He in the OP speaks of democracies and monarchies: "Evola drew a distinction between two kinds of state. One kind is defined from below, by “social” factors, and is established to promote material well-being. The typical example would be a democracy, in which different groups and factions agree on a framework to advance material ends. The other kind of state, which Evola considered a vast improvement, is not defined from below but sanctioned from above, by a transcendent principle. The typical example would be a monarchy empowered by divine right." Before looking at Fascism: "Evola also recognized the totalitarian threat of Fascism...."

Where is this pre-modernism you keep dragging into this thread? Once again you digress from your own topic. No wonder there has yet to be a challenge to my point in post #5 which had to do with what Evola said, not your digression.

My comment in post #5 was related to my comments in post #2 on "He approved of what he called “rational decentralization,” namely that that had been left out of the centralized democracies and monarchies, and especially Fascism.

Care to talk about your topic?

Mister D
04-24-2013, 08:00 AM
I made a point about decentralization, you went off on the tangent quibbling about nation and state which had noting to do with the point.



With quibbling, ad hom and straw men?



And there you go again. I reiterate my point about centralization and you race off on a tangent to quibble semantics about the word nation. I'll leave go off on ther road by your lonesome.



Where in fact does Evola talk about pre-modern? He in the OP speaks of democracies and monarchies: "Evola drew a distinction between two kinds of state. One kind is defined from below, by “social” factors, and is established to promote material well-being. The typical example would be a democracy, in which different groups and factions agree on a framework to advance material ends. The other kind of state, which Evola considered a vast improvement, is not defined from below but sanctioned from above, by a transcendent principle. The typical example would be a monarchy empowered by divine right." Before looking at Fascism: "Evola also recognized the totalitarian threat of Fascism...."

Where is this pre-modernism you keep dragging into this thread? Once again you digress from your own topic. No wonder there has yet to be a challenge to my point in post #5 which had to do with what Evola said, not your digression.

My comment in post #5 was related to my comments in post #2 on "He approved of what he called “rational decentralization,” namely that that had been left out of the centralized democracies and monarchies, and especially Fascism.

Care to talk about your topic?

You made an ignorant claim about decentralization. You didn't realize that a) premodern Europe was largely decentralized and that b) nation states (a term describing a specific phenomenon) is a modern phenomenon. Contrary to your assertion, Europe has known quite a bit of decentralization politically, economically, and socially.

Now is that behind us? Thanks. Are you ready to get "serious"? :smiley: We'll see...

Sigh...

Post #5?


Improvement is in paragraph one of OP citation, true right in the fourth.

Decentralized in nation states.

To which I responded several times.


"Improvement" not improvement on. They (i.e. the two types of state) are different animals to Evola. By "true right" Evola refers to the forces seeking to preserve tradition which is what characterized the European right.

No, nation states are a modern phenomenon. Pre-modern Europe was largely decentralized politically, socially, and economically.


Right. Like having enough to eat is an improvement on not having enough to eat. I'm not sure what your quibble is here.

It's an excerpt from a book review.

Those are nationalities, Chris. They are much older than the nation state. Don't confuse the two. All European societies were pre-national prior to the modern era. The Treaty of Westphalia is considered pivotal in the onset on centralization and the emergence of nationalism. Still, it took centuries and really peaked with the French Revolution and the reaction in the 19th Century.

You made a claim about pre-modern Europe being "decentralized in nations states" which is of course oxymoronic and an obviously ignorant remark. It doesn't make any sense. Now are we ready to move on from your ignorant comments? Let me know.

Mister D
04-24-2013, 08:06 AM
Maybe this will help you...



That dichotomy leaves out political economies based on "rational decentralization." Something Europe has seen little of.



Pre-modern Europe (roughly prior to the Treaty of Westphalia) was largely decentralized politically, socially, and economically.

Indeed, Europe has seen quite a bit of decentralization. Evola sees Europe's traditional decentralization positively.




Decentralized in nation states.

That doesn't make any sense because a) it's oxymoronic and b) nation states did not exist in pre-modern Europe or anywhere else for that matter.

You to continue to insist pre-modern Europe was centralized. It wasn't. Are we done now?

Chris
04-24-2013, 09:10 AM
You made an ignorant claim about decentralization.

Well, then, address it in the context of what Evola said. Don't immediately go off topic with a red herring about "premodern Europe". You even cite the OP, as I have, "That dichotomy leaves out political economies based on "rational decentralization."" When decentralization in the Europe Evola addresses?


You to continue to insist pre-modern Europe was centralized.

You're the one talking about pre-modern Europe. I'm addressing what Evola said about democracy, monarchies and fascism--modern Europe.

Mister D
04-24-2013, 09:23 AM
Well, then, address it in the context of what Evola said. Don't immediately go off topic with a red herring about "premodern Europe". You even cite the OP, as I have, "That dichotomy leaves out political economies based on "rational decentralization."" When decentralization in the Europe Evola addresses?



You're the one talking about pre-modern Europe. I'm addressing what Evola said about democracy, monarchies and fascism--modern Europe.

I've been addressing nothign but what Evola said and your misinterpreation of it. There was little decentralization in the Europe contemporary with Evola. States have been increasingly centralized over the course of the modern era. That's sort of the point. Evola argued for something different than what European societies had adopted. Something more traditional. In this regard, as well as others, he had a bone to pick with the fascists.

Chris
04-24-2013, 09:31 AM
I've been addressing nothign but what Evola said and your misinterpreation of it. There was little decentralization in the Europe contemporary with Evola. States have been increasingly centralized over the course of the modern era. That's sort of the point. Evola argued for something different than what European societies had adopted. Something more traditional. In this regard, as well as others, he had a bone to pick with the fascists.


There was little decentralization in the Europe contemporary with Evola.

That's what I said. You've argued yourself in a circle.

Mister D
04-24-2013, 09:38 AM
That's what I said. You've argued yourself in a circle.

lol No, you said pre-modern Europe was "decentralized in nation states" and insisted that Europe has known little in the way of decentralization. That is false. Europe had long known decentralization. That was the norm.

Chris
04-24-2013, 09:46 AM
lol No, you said pre-modern Europe was "decentralized in nation states" and insisted that Europe has known little in the way of decentralization. That is false. Europe had long known decentralization. That was the norm.

Sorry if you misunderstood and thought I was commenting on your digressive pre-modern red herring. You know, instead of a rant of quibbling, personal attack and straw men (you just did it again, tried to put words in my mouth), you could have simply asked and I would have said, as I have, I was commenting on the OP, which is about modern Europe, which are obviously not decentralized, as even you now admit.

Mister D
04-24-2013, 09:54 AM
Sorry if you misunderstood and thought I was commenting on your digressive pre-modern red herring. You know, instead of a rant of quibbling, personal attack and straw men (you just did it again, tried to put words in my mouth), you could have simply asked and I would have said, as I have, I was commenting on the OP, which is about modern Europe, which are obviously not decentralized, as even you now admit.

You shouldn't apologize for your misunderstanding. You should apologize for your persistence in defending that misunderstanding. Again and again you do that and inevitably cover your retreats with "ad hom!", "straw man!", and "contradiction!".

Europe had long known decentralization and pre-modern European monarchies were not centralized states. That was the norm. Furthermore, Evola was not talking about what existed in modern Europe but what he hoped one day would. I addressed your error. Move on.

Chris
04-24-2013, 10:16 AM
You shouldn't apologize for your misunderstanding. You should apologize for your persistence in defending that misunderstanding. Again and again you do that and inevitably cover your retreats with "ad hom!", "straw man!", and "contradiction!".

Europe had long known decentralization and pre-modern European monarchies were not centralized states. That was the norm. Furthermore, Evola was not talking about what existed in modern Europe but what he hoped one day would. I addressed your error. Move on.

There you go again with that pre-modern red herring. Not going to follow you off topic down that rabbit hole of semantic quibbling, personal attack and straw men. Enjoy yourself.

Mister D
04-24-2013, 10:49 AM
There you go again with that pre-modern red herring. Not going to follow you off topic down that rabbit hole of semantic quibbling, personal attack and straw men. Enjoy yourself.

Evola didn't claim decentralization existed or could exist in the way modern society is constructed. He was looking back on Europe's past for a model. You misunderstood, Chris. That happens a lot. Unfortunately, so does your defensive, face saving routine.

Mister D
04-24-2013, 10:50 AM
Now that the typical Chris "challenge" is over...:rollseyes:

Chris
04-24-2013, 11:22 AM
Now that the typical Chris "challenge" is over...:rollseyes:

And the typical ad hom bs from d. 《Yawn》

Mister D
04-24-2013, 11:34 AM
And the typical ad hom bs from d. 《Yawn》

Please use ad hominem properly. You often don't. Case in point ^^^

Evola didn't claim decentralization existed or could exist in the way modern society is constructed. He was looking back on Europe's past for a model. You misunderstood, Chris. That happens a lot. Unfortunately, so does your defensive, face saving routine.