Destroy the Enlightenment
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
He's getting hitler and mussolini confused with evola and maurras
There are numerous positive aspects of the enlightenment in regards to the field of scientific discovery and technological progress, which fascism in all forms *fully embraced*.
It was a disaster in the economic and social fields, however. It brought us liberalism and capitalism.
Fascism is a *revolution* against the current order because it seeks to establish something completely different that has never been done before. It is overall a revolutionary ideology with hints of reaction splashed in.
The fact that it is in opposition to marxism and enlightenment era liberalism does not make it a less revolutionary ideology, because it is also in extreme opposition to reaction and counter revolution.
Liberalism is no longer revolutionary. It is the predominant system. It is the primary system of almost every country in the world. It is not reactionary either. It is the status quo, it is the "conservative" faction more than it is anything else.
In fact, rather than being "3rd position", fascism can be more accurately described as "4th position" because it finds itself at odds with 3 different beliefs: reaction, liberalism, and marxism.
If hitler wanted to be a reactionary he'd have simply joined one of the various German monarchist parties floating around at the time and not the fucking "german workers party", which also happened to be extremely irrelevant at the time and objectively had no future without him (so the argument of opportunism isnt there). Same as mussolini. Same as Rivera. Same as everyone really.
I have flirted with different ideologies. At one point I was a leninist (cringe), I've read evola and I've been a reactionary for a bit. I was a conservative. But I've been a fascist for years and I'm sticking to my guns on that one. It's the only ideology that makes any fucking sense
There needs to be a solid underpinning of all reality or you have nothing at all.
I really think we need to get back to the late 1600s and redo the enlightenment, this time with less tolerance for dissenting opinions. Any time someone says we need to change something, the question should be, "Why?" Go ahead and question why things are done the way they are, but you can never change a thing unless you fully understand the thing being changed in the first place. It's the old idea that if you see a fence, don't knock it down until you know what it is for.
The bourgeoisie uprooted the entirety of europe (and later the world) through their system, capitalism. And capitalism comes from industry. Capitalism ensures that the industrial bourgeoisie class controls the means of production and thus the wealth. Which makes the aristocracy irrelevant in terms of wealth and (rightfully, and inevitably) calls into question their status as political leaders over the bourgeoisie.
The consequence of this leads to exploitation, destruction of traditional society, wage gaps, monopolization, etc etc (the list goes on). The flaw of capitalism is that power is determined by wealth alone, and there's no obligation for the "higher ups" to do anything except turn a profit.
Traditional monarchical reaction fails to address much of anything in practice. Which is why it has always failed. Evolian style reaction is apocalyptic and impossible to achieve (and evola also knew this and never advocated for his ideals to be a political movement)
There are 2 exceptions otherwise, however: Germany and Japan, where the monarchies shoved their aristocracies to the wayside. In Japan's case, the monarchy ironically brought about the bourgeoisie revolution directly. But they still ended up with the exact same issues as any liberal country.
So that leaves you with 2 options that actually have a chance against liberalism, both of them promise to transform society again, not return to anything:
Fascism, which seeks to create a syncretic traditional and futurist society under a totalitarian government with corporatist economics which elevate the employee to equal status in representation to their employer.
Or marxism. Don't have to explain that one very much
You're going to have to define that.
To me, capitalism is simply "people own things." Go ahead and tell me how that is wrong.
You are probably thinking of "people can do whatever they want as long as they can get away with it." That's tangential to capitalism.
> The bourgeoisie uprooted the entirety of europe
You did that to yourselves. You were doing it for a very long time before you started to notice.
> 2 options: fascism or marxism
No, you're leaving out a whole lot of other options.
Have you considered a period of anarchism? We Americans live in almost a perpetual state of anarchy. And we are more than comfortable with it. Get rid of all the cops, all the government, everyone who has a badge or a title, and nothing will change. Well, I take that back -- life will get a hell of a lot better for us.
Maybe once you guys realize that if the ants don't behave a certain way then the colony can't survive, you might start behaving that way. Too many of you think you can get away with small indiscretions and in the end the colony dies. Someone has to sacrifice themselves. A whole lot of people do. Everyone in fact.
... no. Capitalism is private ownership over the means of production, that's all that it is. It isn't private property or starting a business, or having stuff, the idea that that's what capitalism is comes straight out of the mouth of communists. Capitalism isn't even the market economy.
>You did that to yourselves. You were doing it for a very long time before you started to notice.
I'm not european. I'm American. This also happened in america. After it happened in Europe.
>No, you're leaving out a whole lot of other options
Nevermind. Perhaps I should have said "2 options that actually have a chance of working at all" instead. An anarchist state has never existed. Do you know what would happen if america became anarchic? There would be groups that take over territories and form some type of governments within their boundaries. Holy shit, what's that? States with governments. Or, at the very least, tribes with borders, leaders, a force that can protect those borders, and a common law and culture.
> no
So people don't own things?
> Capitalism is private ownership over the means of production, that's all that it is.
What do you think "private ownership" means?
> Capitalism isn't private property
Now I'm really confused. You just said it's "private ownership"?
Do people own things or not under capitalism?
> Capitalism isn't even the market economy.
So people may or may not own things according to the principles of capitalism according to you, but no matter what, capitalism isn't the "market economy", whatever you mean by that. I won't bother trying to guess what you mean by "market economy", "market" or "economy".
> This also happened in america. After it happened in Europe.
I'm confused. What happened in America after it happened in Europe? Capitalism? Market economy?
> An anarchist state has never existed.
You say you live in the US but you don't believe anarchy is possible? I live every day without even thinking about what "the government" is doing. I protect my own property. I make my own food. I trade with people I want to trade with and I don't trade with people I don't want to. I literally have NO ONE telling me what to do or how to do it. If someone tried to I would just ignore them, the same way pretty much most Americans live their lives out in rural USA.
> Do you know what would happen if america became anarchic?
I don't have to wonder what would happen because I am living it right now.
> US government
You misunderstand the entire principle of the US government.
When the founding fathers got together to form a new government, after the Articles of Confederation were failing, they had a few goals in mind. One of those goals was to increase the ability of the government to do the one thing it can do better than a bunch of people operating independently, and that is to wage war and keep Europeans off of our soil. The other goal was to keep it out of the way of everything else.
The way they created such a government was by carefully erecting a system of competing interests such that anyone who thought they could use government to enrich themselves would be forever entangled in a morass of conflicts of interests until the end of time. In other words, people who get into government end up spending their lives dealing with government, while the rest of us don't care what they are doing.
We live in anarchy, and they spend all their time pretending to care about us, all the while the only time they can get anything done is when they get to bomb Europe back to the stone age.
And that's the way we wanted it from the beginning.
Nah, the Enlightenment just took credit for Scientific Discoveries that would have happened regardless. The whole "muh Church was suppressing scientific discovery" is complete jewish slander. What the Church was suppressing was fraud from charlatans like the Alchemists and jewish poisoners. If anything, the Church ensured that Scientific discoveries were actually backed up by evidence and replicable (this is why the inquisition was actually involved in Gallileo's trial, one of their main duties was validating scientific discoveries, Gallileo's model was such utter garbage that the Inquisition's Helio-Geocentric model was mathematically more accurate, but Gallileo refused to retract like an absolute idiot despite his model being proven to be defective).