>>704
>>705
>>712
I'm talking about these guys, which are probably the more radical reactionaries out there. Libertarians like Rothbard like them a lot, i suggest reading history of economic thought by rothbard btw. And they don't "slide" into fascism. They actually think this:
(i translated this text using Yandex and i corrected a few mistakes manually, so if something sound weird is because that, also is from a random article i found)
------------------
"All this unfortunate set of irreverences and violence were verified with such an intervention of party members and insignias, with such unanimity from one end of Italy to the other, and with such condescension from the authorities and the public security forces, that it was necessary to think of dispositions from above (Pius XI).
I would like, given the ambiguity of the title of this article, to begin with this phrase of Pius XI to clear up any doubts that may arise about the legitimacy of fascism as an ideology. There are many who, disgusted by the current system, are going to quench their thirst for truth and justice in the swampy fascist fountains. I would therefore like to point out some brief notes on the subject to clarify this situation.
The ideological basis of fascism
Fascism is an ideology, that is, a biased and misleading interpretation of reality based on previous assumptions. The emergence of fascism as such must be studied in the historical context in which it develops. The so-called interwar period was characterized by an undeniable liberal pride and a stark arrogance of the victorious powers. Faced with the situation of total crisis, some nuclei of response to the system emerge, standing as opposed to the liberal system. However, these nuclei of resistances have one main characteristic, and that is the concern for the popular masses (heavily affected by the conflict). This will not lead them to be swallowed up by the red giant that Soviet Marxism represents, but to propose a different system (later we will see that the conformation of fascism at no time remains totally alien to these ideologies).
We must go back to a fundamental thinker in the history of the rise of fascism, without whom we will understand absolutely nothing: Hegel. Undoubtedly in Hegel we see a lot of the philosophical matrix that operates in fascism. Hegel is the father of dialectics, which he maintains that through the formation of the antithesis as a reaction to the thesis, synthesis arises from the confrontation between the two, thus materializing the progress of society. This phenomenon is the one that underlies the development of fascist thought, where the thesis would be identified with classical liberalism, the Marxist antithesis would emerge as a reaction and it would be the fascist synthesis that would emerge from the ruins of the confrontation between the two. Thus it is perfectly appreciable that fascism is nothing more than a transformation of modern thought (1), which through the revolutionary essence of modernity, would re-emerge as the liberating regime of the preceding.
Once the philosophical basis of fascism has been established, let's now turn to an aspect that, being ideological, has very clear political repercussions: nationalism. It is no coincidence that Italy and Germany hosted these very particular regimes, being powers whose formation is more or less even. And it is that in the process of unification and shaping of both, nationalism was used as an instrument that guaranteed the success of the process. Nationalism, having the will to substantiate its own nation, aims at the search for its own and characteristic elements such as language, race, customs ... Once substantiated, nationalism will carry out the sublimation of the nation, becoming a substance that can absorb and nullify individuals (2). Thus we see that the individual, once the nation has been configured, does not have a considerable weight in it, now the nation is substantial and permanent (3). Throughout the modern age the conformation of the modern State and its gradual absorption of the power of the kings, the State and the nation were intermingled originating a thorny concept. When the nation is exalted in nationalism, its modern assimilation with the State will lead to an absolute State: “Everything in the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State” (4).
As far as economics is concerned, they start, in order to attack liberal capitalism, from the analysis of Marxism. In fact, the socialist element remains latent in fascism itself: Socialism means the elevation and purification of individual consciousness, and its implantation will be the result of a long series of efforts. Everyone, in fact, from the professional to the worker, can put a stone in this building, performing a socialist act every day and thus preparing the overthrow of the existing society (5). Although it is true that they do not share Marxism in a total way, they do share much of their economic analysis. This is an incorrectness because Marx carries out the Hegelian dialectic, but from a materialistic perspective (unlike Hegel, who oriented it to the Spirit). The materialistic interpretation, by leaving the supernatural realm aside, lacks an acceptable similarity with reality.
The mistakes of fascism
Very briefly I would like to focus the study now on the most significant errors of fascism itself in order to clarify the issue:
Acceptance of the modern state, being this sublimated by resorting to nationalism.
Revolutionary dynamics, contrary to the development of Tradition and reaction (whose goal is natural and supernatural restoration).
Acceptance of the principle of modern sovereignty. The problem of this has already been explained previously (6).
Rupture of the classical concept of politics, leaving it monopolized by the party.
An attack on the principle of subsidiarity by advocating statism, implicitly or explicitly. We must remember that the principle of subsidiarity is one of the pillars of the Church's Social Doctrine.
Nationalist conception of the political community, contrary to the patriotic natural order (substituting the importance of the end of the community for its origin and essence (7)).
Liberating voluntarism. For fascism, the state is conceived as an entity that in the exercise of the will grants an element of liberation to the people (closely related to the cult of the leader).
Caesaropapism. The Church is relegated from the role that corresponds to her in society (indirect power on the temporal plane), being therefore subjected to the directives of the State (8).
Religion subordinated to the nation itself. The place that belongs to God, to the Church and to the natural order is taken by that which arises spontaneously from the substantive human collectivity (9).
Vitalistic loopholes in the cult of strength, youth, passion…
I understand that the brevity of this article does not allow me to continue listing, so we will leave the listing here.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is necessary to remember that any attempt to deny and combat the modern world must obviously be carried out from doctrinal premises alien to modernity itself. Thus, the answer to the modern world necessarily passes through Tradition, understood in its total and binding dimension. Well, as Professor Rafael Gambra said (referring to fascism), by going back to distant traditions (Roman Empire, Catholic Monarchs...) they lose the duty of transmitting it (10). Therefore, going back to Tradition implies its direct restoration where it was usurped, that is, in the traditional and representative monarchy."