Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Definition and Problems of Fascism as Reflected in Anusian Thought

Quote
Along with liberalism, conservatism, communism, socialism, and
democracy, fascism is one of the great political ideologies that
shaped the 20th century. In the 21st century interest in the history
of fascism and its crimes is perhaps greater than ever. Yet how can
we make sense of an ideology that appeals to skinheads and
intellectuals; denounces the bourgeoisie while forming alliances
with conservatives; adopts a macho style yet attracts many women;
calls for a return to tradition and is fascinated by technology;
idealizes the people and is contemptuous of mass society; and
preaches violence in the name of order? Fascism, as Ortega y Gasset
says, is always ‘A and not A’.

Fascism - A Very Short Introduction, Kevin Passmore, Oxford University Press.

I had always found Fascism to be a very problematic to define coherently, and to understand. And thus - even to use.
Since I believe ANUS shares many principles and ideas previously expressed and reflected in Fascism (of course, I know political dichotomies are no good, but my regard is to similarities]. I would like to know what definitive solution people here suggest to a real problem of ideation.
In addition - I always found the idea of 'post-eugenic' society as opposed to egalitarianism to be problematic. Since, well...if we are against egalitarianism (equality) - why do we want to create a society of people who are, essentially... all intelligent? Sure, we can say some will be better than others, even in such a society. But isn't this a threat for itself?
Now, I ask - Intelligent people leaving peacefully isn't the kind of vision I can't see Anusians really adhere to, or am I wrong? [That's like an advanced version of the bourgeois!]

Any suggestions / solutions / ideas?

Quote
Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country; individuals and generations bound together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission which suppressing the instinct for life closed in a brief circle of pleasure, builds up a higher life, founded on duty, a life free from the limitations of time and space, in which the individual, by self-sacrifice, the renunciation of self-interest, by death itself, can achieve that purely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists.

http://www.anus.com/zine/db/benito_mussolini/the_doctrine_of_fascism/

However, I must concede that one could call this idolatry, which only qualifies as "spiritual" in a very restriced sense.

Quote
The Fascist State does not attempt, as did Robespierre at the height of the revolutionary delirium of the Convention, to set up a "god” of its own; nor does it vainly seek, as does Bolshevism, to efface God from the soul of man. Fascism respects the God of ascetics, saints, and heroes, and it also respects God as conceived by the ingenuous and primitive heart of the people, the God to whom their prayers are raised.

In Fascism, God is respected, but is not the Alpha and the Omega, so to speak.

Actually, I believe that in Fascism, Godly qualities are misattributed to the state; so I would rather call it a false or misdirected spirituality.

Mussolini's fine poetic phrasing is inspiring, and yet they are description of the ideal - not the reason behind it - there are questions to be answered.

Can we really call Fascism a spiritual regime? Any word can be compounded along with anything 'spiritual' - but, once more, in this very strict sense you were speaking of - What is spiritual, and can we really call Mussolini's Fascism "spiritual". If it is 'spiritual' - from which 'spirit' does it draw its powers? From the spirit of Catholicism? The tradition it landed upon Europe, combined with the ideal of war? What is spiritual without the absolute Truth it denotes - is there a 'God' in Mussolini's view? Is the leader of the State a god? Is idolatry the absolute Truth? When it comes to the battle between 'God' and the State - who wins? Spiritual is by no mean 'Fascist'. So we need to explain and to understand Fascism in different ways.

Last Edit: I have just seen your last paragraph. So, wouldn't it be better if you hadn't mentioned the word 'spiritual' in first place?


I have just seen your last paragraph. So, wouldn't it be better if you hadn't mentioned the word 'spiritual' in first place?

Yes, but I did that to counter the view that Fascism were materialist. It is not the opposite, of course, so where could we place it? Somewhere between materialism and true spirituality? But maybe that is too optimistic, and not a good approach.

Let "spirituality" be, for now, defined as: "absolute submission to God": then "absolute submission to an idol" will still be absolute submission. But we ought not call that spiritual. The religious call for the absolute submission of man to God is not problematic; a submission to Truth, Beauty and Virtue cannot be so. Fascism, however, demands essentially the absolute submission to error and relativity:

Quote
In the Fascist conception of history, man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in function of history to which all nations bring their contribution. Hence the great value of tradition in records, in language, in customs, in the rules of social life (8). Outside history man is a nonentity.

You witnessed the invasion of relativism: God replaced by history, Tradition replaced by custom, Spirituality replaced by a "spiritual process". Not far from other modern forms of government.

Any suggestions / solutions / ideas?

I'm positive that perpetual peace isn't assumed anywhere in the ideas here. The sustained mass battles of the civilized world, since after civilizations arose, are probably not the best way. The honor duels of the Renaissance, a merchant ship fending off pirates, or small scale cattle raid battles of ancient Europe are a better way.

As for organizing a society, Corrupt's idea of taking individual responsibility toward what's best for the group is intriguing. It works very well in a business department, an army unit at perhaps company scale or smaller, a volunteer group event, etc. I'm not sure how well this would scale up without increasing enforcement in some form because then we would be sacrificing, or going above and beyond, for people with whom we are not in routine contact.

In addition - I always found the idea of 'post-eugenic' society as opposed to egalitarianism to be problematic. Since, well...if we are against egalitarianism (equality) - why do we want to create a society of people who are, essentially... all intelligent? Sure, we can say some will be better than others, even in such a society. But isn't this a threat for itself?

I never got the feeling that ANUS and affiliates were opposed to equality itself, just the insistence that individuals are equal when they clearly are not. I've frequently heard the idea that a society would function best if its members were all roughly equal in ability, meaning that they support true equality - people are (almost) equal in actuality - and reject false equality - treating everyone as though they were equal even as they demonstrate themselves not to be. You'll notice this is related to the idea and true and false elitism.

I think in the context of defining fascism - it may not be so much enforcing strict, artificial eugenic laws but acknowledging and encouraging the eugenic tendency naturally present in people. A strong-smart-attractive-trustworthy person is more likely to reproduce and successfully raise his offspring than a stupid-weak-ugly-lair, even nowadays.

Any suggestions / solutions / ideas?

I'm positive that perpetual peace isn't assumed anywhere in the ideas here. The sustained mass battles of the civilized world, since after civilizations arose, are probably not the best way. The honor duels of the Renaissance, a merchant ship fending off pirates, or small scale cattle raid battles of ancient Europe are a better way.

As for organizing a society, Corrupt's idea of taking individual responsibility toward what's best for the group is intriguing. It works very well in a business department, an army unit at perhaps company scale or smaller, a volunteer group event, etc. I'm not sure how well this would scale up without increasing enforcement in some form because then we would be sacrificing, or going above and beyond, for people with whom we are not in routine contact.

Cattle raid on who? Piracy on who? Who's going to be the pirate? Intelligent people are going to be pirates? I always thought it was reserved for those uneducated wretched beings. Aren't these just forms of what we would normatively call 'crimes'? Didn't ANUS call for the castration of criminals? State-fonded crime is no crime (Piracy, for example, was at times fonded by the British Empire itself)? I think your suggestions are somewhat weird, in the context of living in a civilization.....post-industrial civilization. I have nothing against these activities...but, well...variantly, instead of piracy we'll probably have armed bank / institutional robberies(?).
The honorary duels are more reasonable. The rest of your suggestions (and suggestions alike) can only exist in our civilizational world in the form of anarchy or crime (regardless of whether we can 'metaphysically' define crime).
One point I never quite get, and is relevant to the subject  - Is there a clear decision at so whether we should 're-industrialize' the world, or should we live along with technology? Should we omit certain technologies and focus on other technologies?
If we'll work together, we'll find this alleged point of Syncretism faster.

I never got the feeling that ANUS and affiliates were opposed to equality itself, just the insistence that individuals are equal when they clearly are not. I've frequently heard the idea that a society would function best if its members were all roughly equal in ability, meaning that they support true equality - people are (almost) equal in actuality - and reject false equality - treating everyone as though they were equal even as they demonstrate themselves not to be. You'll notice this is related to the idea and true and false elitism.

Well, it is said that in some (proto) Indo-European warrior bands - the social structure was indeed 'egalitarian', to some extent. But there was always a leader, I suppose. They were all equal because they were doing the same thing - fighting. Someone had to lead these attacks. Else, everything 'High Culture' would have never been created, and thus - civilizational. But the fabric is different in our world. What am I trying to point out? Collaboration of almost-equal people at first may not last for too long, and I believe that in Civilization it is even more prone to be the case - the very way of life, the conduction of all the various processes in civilization, the economics, the culture - it is all there to interfere greatly.
Even in the future society you can treat people who aren't equal as if they are. But we really can't, can we? We already abandoned this idea, because people are only 'almost-equal'. There will always be Hierarchy, and so far, it was always the rich, successful, smarter, infamous, powerful who were put in the top of the chain, and those who are weaker were the bedraggled strata. In a future post-eugenic society - all which is attributed laboredly to the weak, will have to be done by the intelligent people who are less intelligent than the 'super-strata' of the future society, who'll most definitely be the leaders of such a society (else, we once more deal with a society that refuses or is incapable of doing anything as it should be, right? You can't relay on people who are 'merely' intelligent to do greater tasks, they're no geniuses - and, consequentially, you'll put them to do inferior tasks - for their entire life). You create here 120-IQ serfs. It will, necessarily, create conflicts - regardless of how idealistic the individuals of that society will be. Again, I say this: It's a 'heightened' society with the some of the same problems this society deals with, and it probably take an advanced form, since the forces are 'stronger'.

Quote
I think in the context of defining fascism - it may not be so much enforcing strict, artificial eugenic laws but acknowledging and encouraging the eugenic tendency naturally present in people. A strong-smart-attractive-trustworthy person is more likely to reproduce and successfully raise his offspring than a stupid-weak-ugly-lair, even nowadays.

Where do you find such a compound of good qualities in one man amidst an ocean of people, and why do we think his likeliness to have ever reproduce is 'higher'? How's the few who are strong-smart-attractive-trustworthy existing in our world are going to change it so radically? 'Naturally present in people'? I think this site battles exactly the 'natural tendencies' people have to chose people who are, perhaps, more attractive in some way, but are no better nor no intelligent than themselves. Reproduction has little to do with intelligence, only occasionally(?). The choice of spouses is a weird, oblique thing, characterized by its in-definitiveness and 'evolutionary' sentimentality and attraction - a hard thing to control. Not once nor twice do we find intelligent or successful people (by socio-economical standards) mating with lower-than-life 'wretchlings' or intelligent people marrying and mating with average people (and it is completely superfluous to exemplify all the other reproductive mixtures in regards to the other 'attractive', 'strong' and 'trustworthy' attributes, it is simply attached awrong).
Would you call this a natural tendency? I think everything 'reproductive' in humans is 'natural'. Do not refer to 'natural' as being 'qualitative', since we have billions of specimens proving why 'natural' is not necessarily good. What is the value or worth of anything 'natural'?

Other than all the technicalities I have presented regarding this argument, I have no other other reservations.

Cattle raid on who? Piracy on who? Who's going to be the pirate? Intelligent people are going to be pirates? I always thought it was reserved for those uneducated wretched beings. Aren't these just forms of what we would normatively call 'crimes'? Didn't ANUS call for the castration of criminals?

Yeah, but I believe they can be put to use as outcasts to go have a fight with. Other uses are slaves, cheap labor, Democrat or Labour type party voters. I like the former best. If some are simply exiled, it doesn't make the system seem like a rampaging psycho that needs to be removed.

Well, it is said that in some (proto) Indo-European warrior bands - the social structure was indeed 'egalitarian', to some extent. But there was always a leader, I suppose. They were all equal because they were doing the same thing - fighting. ...
... It will, necessarily, create conflicts - regardless of how idealistic the individuals of that society will be. Again, I say this: It's a 'heightened' society with the some of the same problems this society deals with, and it probably take an advanced form, since the forces are 'stronger'.

I was trying to explain what I interpret the ANUSian position on eugenics to be. Your comments on the validity of that position need not be directed at me and right now I'm not going to address specific points.

Do you hear yourself? Where do you find such a compound of good qualities in one man amidst an ocean of people, and why do we think his likeliness to have ever reproduce is 'higher'? 'Naturally present in people'? I think this site battles exactly the 'natural tendencies' people have to chose people who are, perhaps, more attractive in some way, but are no better nor no intelligent than themselves. Reproduction has little to do with intelligence, only occasionally(?). The choice of spouses is a weird, oblique thing, characterized by its in-definitiveness and 'evolutional' sentimentality and attraction - a hard thing to control. Not once nor twice do we find intelligent or successful people (by socio-economical standards) mating with lower-than-life 'wretchlings' or intelligent people marrying and mating with average people (and it is completely superfluous to exemplify all the other reproductive mixtures in regards to the other 'attractive', 'strong' and 'trustworthy' attributes, it is simply attached awrong).
Would you call this a natural tendency? I think everything 'reproductive' in humans is 'natural'. Do not refer to 'natural' as being 'qualitative', since we have billions of specimens proving why 'natural' is not necessarily good. What is the value or worth of anything 'natural'?

When I said "natural eugenic tendency" I was referring to the fact that individuals tend to reproduce with others that they consider to have positive traits - Artificial Selection - not that this process is necessary valid on its own, it was just an observation.

Upon reading the details of your lengthy response:

I was not trying to imply that there are perfect supermen out there, just that having certain traits increase your likeliness to reproduce (strong and smart and nice) and others don't (weak and stupid and bitter). I know there's alot of unknowns involved, but there is still a trend in the selection pattern for the population at large. Maybe mate selection (love) is a mysterious, magical thing we don't understand, BUT marriage - ergo much of reproduction - tends to occur between people of similar intelligence, socio-economic background, attractiveness and moral beliefs.

If some are simply exiled,

Think about it. Rather than making a big dramatic spectacle, or burdening ourselves with prison systems, we just throw them out into the wilds. They're free to make what future they will, which isn't likely to amount to much. So, many will end up as pillagers. I don't know what form it takes, which is irrelevant for concept - think Mad Max and The Road Warrior if you need something to work with. That's an incentive to keep the cities guarded and check newcomers carefully at the gate. It brings real risk back to adventuring, keeping people out of the wilds a bit better and since hired security adds overhead, puts the brakes on commercial activity between cities to some extent. It gives local militia and paramilitary real live fire missions to keep them in top performance. Lastly, the most aggressive and stupid exiled criminals therefore get culled anyways, but society doesn't need to round up its defectives and mass execute them. Just inform them in no uncertain terms that their welcome has come to an end.

Ideas on Fascism:

Fascism is a spectre of Tradition, that is to say, an exhumed corpse.  It is an attempt to implement traditional values top down, as opposed to letting them develop organically.  It is political rather than cultural for the most part.  The organic state is superior, but harder to form.

"Fascism", as a general concept/ideology, works better as the root of a suitable ideal towards which to build, rather than as a system to be meticulously forced upon a nation.

We can have a civilization designed to allow for the pain of failure, the possibility of learning, and following this course, the probability of lasting improvement for survivors. We're getting the inverse now. Safety nets, foreign aid, bailouts, ailment treatment, and disaster relief that are designed to avoid pain and the need to learn how to get it right or improve next time.

hyperconcern has the net effect of making us less resilient; that may be why we're entering a state of collapse

Ideas on Fascism:

Fascism is a spectre of Tradition, that is to say, an exhumed corpse.  It is an attempt to implement traditional values top down, as opposed to letting them develop organically.  It is political rather than cultural for the most part.  The organic state is superior, but harder to form.

Good point.  I don't think Fascism tries to implant traditional values per se. It is indeed influenced by anachronistic values, and at the same time It tries to incorporate them within the whole spiritual composite of the State - which is suppose to be 'advanced' in its material form. Fascism offers a rather 'secular' interpretation of tradition.

"Fascism", as a general concept/ideology, works better as the root of a suitable ideal towards which to build, rather than as a system to be meticulously forced upon a nation.

I tend to agree, but not entirely. It's a somewhat dry proclamation. The lack of 'casual' evidence and the fact Fascism, at its purest form never really lasted for too long - means we can't really rely on any inductive-to-practical conclusion, let alone the fact the we first really need to define and really 'understand' Fascism, because the doctrine of Fascism is basically 'anti-bourgeois' ideals, anti-communism, anti-capitalism and such - and yet - it is somewhat 'ambiguous' in-itself and it really shows a roughly general ideal of a nation. It is something like not-X, Y, Z and yet not-anything. I suppose that this rather ideological obscuration is indeed a ground from which to build an new world-view, but suppose we hypothesize upon this ideation of Fascism and construct something out of it - we are  to encounter some simple philosophical (or logical) problems - like those presented in the beginning, which Fascism, if we are to limn our path in a somewhat similar direction - encountered previously. I find this of extreme importance, because, if we understand the general idea of Fascism, with all its rather 'ambiguous' premises - we realize that it was really a first hit on the very foundation of Western Civilization, as commonly interpreted by scholars and the folk alike. If the foundations of Fascism are somewhat unsound, than how can anything we produce out of it be of great strength (note that I'm only continuing the line of thought you present)?

Quote
We can have a civilization designed to allow for the pain of failure, the possibility of learning, and following this course, the probability of lasting improvement for survivors. We're getting the inverse now. Safety nets, foreign aid, bailouts, ailment treatment, and disaster relief that are designed to avoid pain and the need to learn how to get it right or improve next time.

Although I generally agree with the usual mantra, I think it is a bit irrelevant.

Quote
Fascism, as Ortega y Gasset says, is always ‘A and not A’.

Or rather:

A is everything but !A

Then again, we engage in this thinking anytime we make a YES or NO answer; we take one thing, and exclude the rest.