/lit/ - Literature

>>21333583
I was just reading Evola's assessment of him and the Falange, good shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zn2fpOUHuU

>>21037711
That's the point, to dialectically sublate the two apparent oppositions (modernity and tradition) and reveal them as not opposed.

Marxist Communism seeks to do the same thing in its own way: to sublate the apparent opposition and tension between civil society and the state and reveal they were predicated on a misconception (an inevitable one as it was part of the rise of the bourgeoisie to CREATE the dialectical opposition that the proletariat will SUBLATE).

The "total state," "total mobilisation" (Schmitt, Junger) was inevitable in the 20th century, and we already live in it, or the post-liberal/post-bourgeois version of it, i.e. the managerial anarcho-tyranny welfare-nanny state in which everyone is free because everyone is a slave of an expert class. As Paul Piccone says, the Stalinist USSR just ended up being a mirror image of this, "red capitalism," Djilas' "New Class" of communist apparatchiks were just the Russian mirror of the banking and culture-creating class foreseen by Saint-Simon and Comte, demanded by Bernays (Propaganda) and Lippmann (Public Opinion), and described empirically by Carroll Quigley.

Fascism and national socialism were the attempt at a "third way" between Anglo-American finance and Bolshevism, often collapsed by Heidegger and others into simply "Anglo-Bolshevism," meaning the worldwide technological managerial "total state," political by dint of calling itself apolitical, totalitarian post-political posthumanism. Fascism was the attempt to in-corporate, in the sense of sublating and "bringing up into," all the elements destroyed by managerial technocracy: preservation of and respect for human diversity (multipolarity, genuine federalism), the hierarchy and corporatist autonomy of the lost feudal society (which Marx also acknowledged was more authentic and transparent than bourgeois proletarianization), the democratic principle of liberalism with the realities of mass machinic society, the aesthetic harmony of the republican and nationalist principles (according to which man naturally wants to live in a poetizing collective or "nomos," surrounded by myths and symbols he understands in his heart), etc.

All the contradictions you see in fascism, like the fact that it attracted equally speed- and machine-worshipping Futurists and radical avantgarde artists like Pound and Benn as well as traditionalist corporatists like Edgar Julius Jung and Othmar Spann, are a feature not a bug. Fascism was the attempt at the great synthesis, governed by the principle of faith in man and in what is best in man (his natural capacity for responsible freedom in apparently paradoxical combination with selfless cooperation), rather than the opposed managerial-technocratic principle of pessimism and the concomitant the obsession with "managing" and "curating" society (because man left to his own devices is supposedly evil and stupid instead of noble and good).

>>18551818
Fascism is often called the "Third Position" or vice versa. In most cases it was an attempt to combine organic nationalism with socialism or syndicalism of some kind. The idea being that it takes the best of the left (critique of the effects of capitalism and the dislocations of industrialism, technology, and modernity) while avoiding its worst elements (naive utopian internationalism and a "workers' consciousness" that never really materialised) with the best of the right (genuine love of one's community and people, duty, willingness to sacrifice and serve the greater good) while avoiding its worst (mere preservation of old customs for the sake of preserving them, which often meant preserving corrupt old elites who were in bed with capitalist classes anyway).

Some of the best writing on fascism as a third position stresses that it was anti-bourgeois, and anti-liberal, the ideology of the bourgeoisie which is really a halfway ideology that NOMINALLY allows for freedom and dignity of every individual but in PRACTICE allows for the domination by established/moneyed classes. Not only did it have this anti-bourgeois critical stance in common with the left, it derived much of it from the left directly.

Right and left by themselves don't mean much. After WW2, the "right" was propagandistically and ideologically subverted by shit like libertarianism, which is yet another fake-out by the moneyed classes to make the lower classes not recognise they are being screwed.

>>18183407
>Federite
My nigga

What about Peronism?

>>18088501
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CryZCP6BpO4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zn2fpOUHuU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLhoqmt9hEw