It's not like we are literally saying the word 'fascism' though.
Does "The Third Position", really sound all that complicated? Besides, if they are confused as to what it's about, then that is actually why they have to be told. Unlike liberal-capitalism, which needed only to set up a legal system and sprinkle its mores over the society, our ideas have always had the more uphill task of having to change the way of thinking of the persons involved in it and in getting them to actually build the labour power base.
Basically we cannot approach them in the same way that liberals do in present day politics - it is in fact because we see the need to explain to them how they are to be a part of what is happening rather than a mere observer, that we win them. As much as I dislike quoting this
(because of the connotations - but really this applies to all revolutionary groups and not just Nazis), there is a quote from a book published in Nazi Germany where they were discussing the application of rule of law in the National Socialist state. What makes the book interesting in the context of this conversation that we are having now, is not the law itself, but how to cause people to support new ways of governing society. So I'll show you it. The book itself became the first shot fired in an 'war' over the form that the Nazi state would take:
'Der nationalsozialistische Rechtsstaat', page 40, Dr. Otto Koellreutter, 1938 (emphasis added) wrote:The horrendous experience with the First World War has in our generation replaced the individualistic mindset with that of the community experience, thus creating the necessary preconditions for the coming into existence of the rule of law of the National Socialist state. It is understandable that the Liberal state of the rule of law portrayed itself, based on its intellectual attitudes, as the constitutional state and as the state of the rule of law, just as liberal democracy has been immersed in the belief that it is the only possible political form of modern statehood in the world. What we are observing here is the claim to totality in the world of liberal ideas.
This claim to totality, regarding the shaping of our national and state life raises, of course, the issue of the National Socialist worldview. National Socialism does not strive, in a sense of the long overdue liberal thinking, for a "total state" in the sense of the totality of the state power structure; rather it strives for the totality of the National Socialist worldview in all spheres of life.
Therein lies its "illiberal" attitude. And therefore resistance is being put up here at home and abroad by circles which, for their part, strive to hold on to the totality of the liberal world of ideas. The construction of the National Socialist German state governed by the rule of law is the sign that the totality of the National Socialist worldview has [already] prevailed in the German people.
The reason I selected this quote is to highlight an agreement between Koellreutter and myself on this issue. The Third Position cannot actually be successful unless it can actually impact people's thinking. Trying to sell them just nice feelings that they want to feel on the front door step would only result in us fooling ourselves, since our worldview would not take hold in them, and then they'd just continue to uphold the liberal hegemony.
Hegemony comes from largely from
below, and it is from below that we have to act first. Kylie Smith from IGJ explains in a way quite similar to the aforementioned Otto Koellreutter:
Kylie Smith, 'Gramsci at the margins: subjectivity and subalternity in a theory of hegemony', International Gramsci Journal No. 2 April 2010 (emphasis added) wrote:[Gramsci] argued that hegemony comes from below, originating in the thoughts, beliefs and actions of everyday people who may or may not see themselves as part of organised groups. Hence, Gramsci was intensely aware of the way hegemony operated at a personal level. Capitalist hegemony was not, is not, possible, without a complete identification at the level of the self.
[...]
The politico-historical criterion on which our own inquiries must be grounded is this: that a class is dominant in two ways, namely it is leading and dominant. It leads the allied classes, it dominates the opposing classes. Therefore, a class can (and must) lead even before assuming power; when it is in power it becomes dominant but it also continues to lead (Gramsci 1992: 136-137. Q1§44).
[...]
The major innovation that Gramsci makes to our understanding of civil society, which make it so important for a theory of hegemony, is the way in which he reconfigures the concept of the ‘superstructural’ (Texier 1979). Whereas Marx posited a base/structure conception, with civil society being the ‘superstructural’ site of historical development (but ultimately ‘determined’ by the base), Gramsci extends the distinction to argue that civil society is more than just superstructural, but is the essential terrain of historical development. Instead of justifying ideologies emerging from the base into the realm of civil society, for Gramsci the ‘ideas’ are contemporaneous, emerging in civil society, so that man acts on structures rather than structures acting deterministically on man.
In Gramsci’s words: “Structure ceases to be an external force which crushes man, assimilates him to himself and make him passive; and is transformed into a means of freedom, an instrument to create a new ethico-political form and a source of new initiatives. To establish the ‘cathartic’ moment becomes therefore, it seems to me, the starting point for all the philosophy of praxis” (Gramsci 1971: 367, Q10II §6i). This is the practice of hegemony, a hegemony that occurs in the realm of ideas, in the “minds of men” (Gramsci 1971: 367, Q10II §6i). Thus, man is an active subject, and the structures of human life do not exist separately from the thinking of them, and so the question of consciousness, the nature of human subjectivity, is essential to understanding society as it is, and what it can become.
And then to quote myself:
Rei Murasame, Tue 21 Feb 2012, 1426GMT wrote:Since the far right in Europe still has some ideological issues within itself to work out and is still waging a 'war of position' (trying to get people to believe that a particular way of viewing life is 'common sense') [...]
It needs to capture hearts and minds first so that it can lead culturally before it is swept to power. [...] Obviously nationalist parties would be defeated in a liberal hegemony. This is why it is necessary to be critical of the present liberal order [...] and by acting as critics we gain the power to reshape the very terrain of the debate that we are planning to win.
Knowing what question to ask, and what doubt to induce, is just as important as the eventual answer. Yes, questions are ideological. The fact that everyone in Europe accepts that the questions asked by the far right are legitimate questions (something which was not possible just two decades ago) which should be answered, shows that ground is being prepared for future campaigning even in these very days and hours.
Liberals can play the game all they want for now. Just grant to us the ability to be spectator, referee, and commentator, and we on the far right are content with that for now. We will have the minds of your children within a generation.
But none of that can happen without economic power
(through labour support) starting from the very beginning:
'National Guilds and the State', S. G. Hobson, 1920 (emphasis added) wrote:[...] economic power precedes and dominates political action [...] It is permanently true in that statesmanship must possess the material means to encompass its ends, precisely as one must have the fare and sustenance before proceeding on a journey. [...] Economic power is not finally found in wealth but in the control of its abundance or scarcity.
If I possessed the control of the water supply, my economic power would be stupendous; but with equal access to water by the whole body of citizens, that economic power is dispersed and the community may erect swimming-baths or fountains or artificial lakes without my permission. Not only so; but the abundance of water, which economically considered is of boundless value, grows less serious as a practical issue the more abundant it becomes.
The dominance of economic power depends, therefore, upon two main considerations artificially, by the private control of wealth; fundamentally, by a natural scarcity.
Now that I've said all that, I will acknowledge that it's sensible to get all of this condensed into tight packages that can be easily understood, but this must be done
without compromising their understanding of what is happening to them. You phrased it as "presenting itself as intellectual", but it is not for presentation, it is out of absolute practical necessity.
In short, it's
only through painstakingly educating the people on what is happening to them, and allowing them to understand their presence
in the situation, that our worldview - rather than remaining a series of complaints and normative statements - can be elevated to a theory of
practice and subsequently
decisive action.
Demo can I plz haz chance to post chauvinistic degrading comments. Just this once? I finished my homework and I did the bed. Come on! You never let me. 
- By litwin
- By wat0n