You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
devotech2 on scored.co
8 months ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
Yet world War one was the birth of something greater, *real* paradigm changers - fascism, national socialism, national syndicalism, et al.
All of Europe's traditional systems and beliefs were dying before the war. They would have died without it, anyways. Traditional forms of government and culture were, in fact, dying off since the 1700s.
The violence and turmoil of ww1 and the bolshevik revolution gave us a better answer to stand against bolshevism, hopeless reaction, and capitalism.
WW1 can rather be considered as the *rebirth* of society in its aftermath. The only reason that this did not continue and extend to the rest of Europe and the Americas, and even into east Asia and the middle east, is because it was intentionally destroyed (although it did reach the middle east through baathism and *kind of* east asia through china and the DPRK's bizarre interpretations of communism). The entire purpose of the *second* world war was to destroy the Renaissance of Europe... actually, not just Europe, but rather the entire world. The second world war destroyed civilization. The first world War was what gave people the impetus to return to glory, while the second world War was what caused people to be woefully unable to achieve it.
Oh it goes far beyond that. A true deep dive into fascism and mussolini's origins will show that fascism is syncretism between reaction and revolutionary socialism. It's not a rebirth of monarchism so much as it is a reimagining of socialism. Marxist, reactionary, ancient Greek, enlightenment era, and even anarchist theory is all put into the pot of fascism to create something that is quite set apart from any of its ingredients.
They're all totalitarian systems where one man is inextricably tied to the fate of the state, personifying it. I think that this is far more important than it may seem on the surface.
Allowing partial ownership of the state means there is ultimately no responsibility for the rulers; they just walk away from the mess they created. But a king, or dictator, lives and dies by the success of the country.
They also don't view their countrymen as competition if there is no way to replace them. Instead they're tools, which are valuable and need to be maintained. Most democrats are thrilled when competent men are destroyed because it clears a path for their own ambitions.
All of Europe's traditional systems and beliefs were dying before the war. They would have died without it, anyways. Traditional forms of government and culture were, in fact, dying off since the 1700s.
The violence and turmoil of ww1 and the bolshevik revolution gave us a better answer to stand against bolshevism, hopeless reaction, and capitalism.
WW1 can rather be considered as the *rebirth* of society in its aftermath. The only reason that this did not continue and extend to the rest of Europe and the Americas, and even into east Asia and the middle east, is because it was intentionally destroyed (although it did reach the middle east through baathism and *kind of* east asia through china and the DPRK's bizarre interpretations of communism). The entire purpose of the *second* world war was to destroy the Renaissance of Europe... actually, not just Europe, but rather the entire world. The second world war destroyed civilization. The first world War was what gave people the impetus to return to glory, while the second world War was what caused people to be woefully unable to achieve it.
Allowing partial ownership of the state means there is ultimately no responsibility for the rulers; they just walk away from the mess they created. But a king, or dictator, lives and dies by the success of the country.
They also don't view their countrymen as competition if there is no way to replace them. Instead they're tools, which are valuable and need to be maintained. Most democrats are thrilled when competent men are destroyed because it clears a path for their own ambitions.