The Essence of Fascism

[BitWhys]

by Karl Polanyi

I've been tossing the word around enough lately I thought one or two of the more curious around here might want to know what I mean by it.

Philosophy you say? Well, if you're into it its worth the read. I love this part...

But the anti-individualist formula meets also the practical requirements of this movement most adequately. By denouncing Socialism and Capitalism alike as the common offspring of Individualism, it enables Fascism to pose before the masses as the sworn enemy of both. The popular resentment against Liberal Capitalism is thus turned most effectively against Socialism without any reflection on Capitalism in its non-Liberal, i.e. corporative, forms. Though unconsciously performed, the trick is highly ingenious. First Liberalism is identified with Capitalism; then Liberalism is made to walk the plank; but Capitalism is no worse for the dip, and continues its existence unscathed under a new alias

beauty :read2:

but according to Polanyi here's the crux of the matter...

The central proposition of Fascism is that society is not a relationship of persons. This is the real significance of its anti-individualism. The implied negation is the formative principle of Fascism as a philosophy. It is its essence. It sets to Fascist thought its definite task in history, science, morals, politics, economics, and religion. Thus Fascist philosophy is an effort to produce a vision of the world in which society is not a relationship of persons. A society, in fact, in which there are either no conscious human beings or their consciousness has no reference to the existence and functioning of society.

The only "people" with no real conscious of their own are corporations.

If you do get into it, try substitute "the clash of civilizations" for nationalism (since, as you'll see, the nation-state is just a convenience anyways). Or maybe NASPI (pdf)

Polanyi's commentary on pseudo-mysticism sheds an interesting light on the "personal relationship with God" crowd.

Maybe think WTO when it comes to modern day anti-democratic tendencies (as an example), or maybe Strahl's current charade of a plebecite about the Wheat Board.

 

[tamarin]

Fascism is the belief that the state is a living, politically organic being that exists to exult and promote the ambitions of its people. It is ruthlessly centralist and relentlessly nationalistic. Dissent is squashed. Scapegoats are zealously selected. A sense of destiny drives and preoccupies the fascist state's administration.
That says it. Tell those other folk to learn how to write.

 

[BitWhys]

dissent was squashed well before the rise of fascism. fascism would have no identity were it not for capitalism. your analysis is surperflous and fails to comment on the central thesis of the essay, which is why fascism stood in opposition to the accepted tenets of post-feudal Christianity regarding the individual.

 

[gopher]

http://www.amazon.com/American-Fasc...=pd_bbs_1/102-4172610-9124121?ie=UTF8&s=books


American Fascists -- look forward to reading it soon!

 

[Toro]

Is this a new cologne or something?

 

[Kreskin]

Whatever you do don't get that FascistCanuck nut started again.

 

[tamarin]

Fascism doesn't belong to a few political scientists and philosophers. It's a form of governing and government that can be seen apart from the tangle of capitalism or Christianity. You have to simplify things to understand them. Black and white. And that's the nut of communication. Karl never did get it.

 

[Toro]

 

[BitWhys]

Is this a new cologne or something?

maybe we shouldn't pick on Cologne in a thread about fascism

 

[tamarin]

Damn, I thought Hooters was a bar!

 

[BitWhys]

Fascism doesn't belong to a few political scientists and philosophers. It's a form of governing and government that can be seen apart from the tangle of capitalism or Christianity. You have to simplify things to understand them. Black and white. And that's the nut of communication. Karl never did get it.

your effort to simplify things reduces fascism to nothing more than fervent patriotism and authortarian rule. perhaps you can explain to me then how that distinguishes Fascism from Stalinism.

thank you for pointing out that you're not interested in reading a historical review of the progression of fascist thought.

 

[Toro]

Actually, the RU Serious owl picture doesn't really belong in this thread. I just posted it because I thought it was hilarious.

I'll find a better thread to put it in.

 

[tamarin]

Bit, fascism and Stalinism could never suckle on the same bosom because the former would never permit an internationalist leaning. How could you possibly create a state, testy and proud of its past, and waxing eloquent of its citizens and their destiny, while embracing the world's rabble?
Stalinism is sneaky. It admits the stupidity of trying to forge a great new world from a workers' collective and will bed a capitalist when it needs to but it could never lionize capitalism the way fascism does as a means to own the future for its citizens.

 

[BitWhys]

...It's a form of governing and government that can be seen apart from the tangle of capitalism ...

...lionize capitalism the way fascism does as a means to own the future for its citizens.

pick a horse

 

[tamarin]

Easy. Fascism is autonomous. It's an organization within itself that operates independently within the state. But it sets the standards, it sets the expectations. And capitalism is but one lever to use to meet its goals.

 

[BitWhys]

Easy. Fascism is autonomous. It's an organization within itself that operates independently within the state. But it sets the standards, it sets the expectations. And capitalism is but one lever to use to meet its goals.

So which is it? Is Capitalism coincidental or requisite to the Fascist system?

 

[tamarin]

Both Stalinism and fascism depend on it. The one obliquely, covertly and the other openly. It's coincidental to no system that espouses longevity.

 

[BitWhys]

So you're saying that a command economy is somehow covertly Capitalist. So what happened to all that talk about things needing to be black and white?

 

[tamarin]

You're a fast little bugger. I like that. Come on. I used 'black and white' in reference not to systems but to communication. For instance- Karl. He's not a communicator. And that's his job. The village idiot is a grand obfuscator but it doesn't matter. It's not his job to elucidate. The best teachers (and, hopefully, we view them as communicators) are able to reduce the most complex things to their basics. Black and white.

 

[BitWhys]

Actually, IMO, Polanyi makes a hell of a lot more sense than you do. At least he doesn't just go around in circles. Maybe you're just not listening properly. Its a poor craftsman that blames his tools.

If you think the relationship demonstrable line of thought through 1930's German Christianity, mysticism, democracy and property rights can be drawn with proper reference to influential fascist philosophers in more simple terms that "Karl" uses, you're more than welcome to try. I can wait.