May 6, 2006
Speaking of Fascism...
Since the topic of fascism has come up, I should probably address where I stand on the topic.
I am not exactly a fascist. I object to the secular emphasis of the movement, and harbor some mistrust of them based on their earlier anti-clerical stance. However, much of that mistrust has been mitigated by the Lateran Treaty, which created the finest model of Church and State relations for modern times. It is not as good as an Imperial Christendom (AEIOU), but it is a good second choice for modern times.
I would toss out the entire Bill of Rights, even our whole constitution if it meant that we could have a relationship with the Church like that outlined in the Lateran Treaty.
As for the rest of Fascism, it was a work in progress with some room for improvement, but I am totally on board with its economic agenda, its neo-baroque power aesthetics, its understanding of the proper role of myth in society, its authoritarianism, and its very limited system of checks and balances.
Note that all of that pertains to the political philosophy of fascism. Where the problems came in was the personal, Wilsonian nature of Mussolini himself. There was the problem of Mussolini the showman, who would pull such stunts as leaving a light burning in his study, so that the populace would think that the Duce worked all through the night micromanaging the republic, althewhile he was sleeping ten hours a night (often in the company of his mistress), and there was the problem of Mussolini the foreign adventurer. I completely endorse and support his role in the Spanish Civil War, fighting for the side of Right and Good, and my own family played a part in the Abyssinian Campaigns, although I find them a bit of a problem in terms of strategic uses of Italian resources. All of these escapades ultimately ended in the hideous alliance with the Celto-Germanic Pagan Hitler, which is where fascism loses me (and all other Catholic Authoritarians).
Certainly a few adjustments of the structure of the Fascist Government would have put the brakes on Mussolini's exuerances. A stronger Grand Council, for instance, would have had great benefits to the Kingdom of Italy.
So, for these reasons I am not a Fascist, but am very sympathetic to Fascism, and tend towards a rather favorable view of the Duce and his granddaughter.
Speaking of Mussolini's granddaughter, read this article, paying careful attention to the last line, a line I wholeheartedly endorse. There was a day I can get nostalgic for, when the Communists held some understanding of the danger of sexual deviance. Now they have even lost that, and have earned every drop of castor oil ever administered to them.
Posted by erik at May 6, 2006 1:37 PMVictor, first, thank you for commenting.
Second, I do not call myself a Fascist, simply that I am sympathetic to historic Fascism, as well as Italian neo-Fascism, as exemplified by Alessandra Mussolini.
I am an authoritarian. I, like you, recognize that it is impossible to remake man. It is only possible to temper their bad habits and a duty to at least attempt to crush their barbaric tendencies. That is about all a state can do: tax people to keep their materialist tendencies in check, allowing entrepreneurship and innovation only with proper government permissions and controls (note that part of the lie of liberalism, which does not work, is that for our society to work, we must be illiberal. So, just try to start a new company. The only difference between them and me is that they give lip service to free enterprise, as they collect myriad fees and throw regulations at you).
My model is Franco or Salazar. Not a fascism, and certainly not some group that seeks to remake man. I am no utopianist. In fact, my economic aims would be to slow things down. Have a few years of stagnation. People can still strive to increase the amount of crap they buy, but it will be a little harder. We need that in our society if we are going to survive.
Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at May 9, 2006 7:57 AMThroughout the 1990s, whenever Christopher Hitchens would appear on CSPAN, Brian Lamb would always tease him with the question "are you still a social-ist/Marxist." About the sixth time I saw this, Hitchens repsonded (close as I can recall): I have no idea what it might mean to be a social-ist/Marxist in a country with no social-ist movement, where class consciousness hardly exists, and even labor unions are first and last means of bougeoisification."
Brecht was being mordantly cynical when he said maybe the GDR should dissolve the people and elect a new one (and Pol Pot and the Shining Path tried their damndest to do so anyway). But he was pointing at something deeper -- it is the basis of left totalitarianism to remake man in some "rational" image, come what may. Should one (try to) govern accordingly, one must then think any problems must be the result of saboteurs (Stalin), Jews (Hitler/Arabs), bourgeoisie (Mao), foreign influence (practically every totalitarian), or some other nefarious unreasonable plot. And to think that one can think of politics in such an ahistoric sense is the greatest lie liberalism tells. Ahistoric "man" is not a meaningful political category. De Maistre famously mocked the Declaration of the Rights of Man by saying that he's never met "man" -- "in my life I have met Englishmen, Frenchmen, Russians. Thanks to Montesquieu, I know that one can be a Persian. But 'man, ' should he exist, is entirely unknown to me."
Might not a similar question apply to you? Modern Anglo-American political culture is 100% liberal in its presuppositions, its "of course"s, its terms, its rules of the game. To overthrow the rules of the game and/or remake the people is, politically speaking, a totalitarian project, not a Catholic one. Fascists, on their own terms, cannot dissolve the people and elect a new one (well, they can, but then they become Nazis .. a distinction I agree is valuable and important, particularly for Catholics.) Or in a phrase -- there were areas where the Church was on rock-solid ground in its rejection of 19th-century political philosophies. And those critiques were the breeding ground of Fascism, and the basis for much of F's popular support and Church acquiescence therein in such places as Portugal, Italy and Croatia. But those very areas also make it quite meaningless for an early 21st-century Anglophone to call himself a "fascist."
Posted by: Victor Morton at May 9, 2006 3:16 AMUndoubtedly sabotaged by Communists.
Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at May 7, 2006 1:23 PMLink is broken....
Posted by: Petellius at May 7, 2006 12:45 PM