[Ash Faulkner]

But these qualities can't be disconnected from the political (which I am defining here as the relations of power). What, for example, is to stop the more charismatic and intelligent people using those qualities to rally other people to steal the communal property? I don't see how you can disconnect personal qualities, particularly those two, from the exercise of influence and (eventually through that influence) power. This has always been my problem with Marxism: I'm perfectly happy to accept, indeed I'd heartily agree, that class is a major and usually the primary factor in the exercise of power in a society, but I can't accept that it's the only one. Gramsci made an improvement on traditional Marxism in this way, but in doing so I think he tacitly moved away from materialism proper. Class is a useful tool of analysis, but I just can't see how it's the only one.

What are the class origins of homophobia, or nepotism? Are these not political concerns? It depends what your definition of political is I suppose; if it is simply the realm of government action, then obviously in a stateless society there will be no politics. But that's just tautology, it isn't really saying anything. It doesn't speak to the other structural factors which shape our lives. To stick to the topic at hand, I think one of the strengths of fascism is that it does acknowledge this: proper fascism recognises class, it just (for a reason I cannot fathom; perhaps a fascist here could answer?) doesn't think it should be abolished. But on top of that, it addresses other concerns too: the need for a sense of place and belonging, the need for order and discipline, etc. I think a kind of progressive fascism (as advocated for example by Rei, and as opposed to the reactionary fascism of the past) could for that reason find a much stronger base of support than socialism, which is more radical and so involves more upheaval, and seems to have a weaker or at least less human business pitch. I think this is a problem because, while I think such a fascism would be superior to the liberalism we have now, it would not be the best option for most people.

So my question to the fascists is pretty much this...if you recognise that class exists, and is something that needs to be resolved, why aren't you socialists?

[telluro]

Depending on your definition of socialism, many Fascists are socialists.

If you adhere to the common definition that Communism seeks to remove class distinctions whereas socialism seeks to harmonize class distinctions, then clearly Fascism is socialist.

Nevertheless I don't think Fascism adheres very strictly to the Marxist analysis of class. Class in this sense is seen solely in an economic-material light, whereas Fascists are more likely to be interested in more intrinsic and fundamental types, such as those analysed by Vilfredo Pareto.

[Fasces]

Fascists recognize that class exists, but also recognizes that class distinctions are positive, that classes are more aptly suited to certain tasks, and harmonizes class antagonism for the common good of all, while retaining class structure and the benefits it provides. Socialists seek to dismantle the class structure entirely.

[Ash Faulkner]

But what exactly do you mean by class? If you mean a sort of Platonic division based on skill, that's something I'm open to in theory. But it seems to me that corporatists explicitly accept the socialist definition of class - as based not on aptitude, as you define it, but on the ownership of the means of production - because they recognise the distinction between workers and owners. But rather than do away with these distinctions, which are a matter of historical construction, it seeks to 'harmonise' them - which really just sounds like papering over the cracks to me. If by class fascists mean the natural skills and talents of individuals, that's quite different from the socialist understanding of class as based on ownership and exploitation. Indeed the two visions aren't incompatible. But corporatism specifically takes the socialist definition of class, yet ignores its origin and has no interest in moving beyond it. Class conflict is a consequence of workers and owners having different priorities: surely the solution to this is to abolish the distinction, rather than try and brush the problems under the carpet? Wouldn't that be better for the workers?

[Fasces]

Aptitude is largely the product of experience and environment. The upper class are capable in certain regards simply because of their potential upbringing - they are better suited to be managers, bankers, and so forth, because of the wealth they have and the education that wealth can provide. While a perfectly egalitarian society does sound ideal, it would result, for example, in a world wide GDP per capita of $8,500. That level of wealth cannot procure the education necessary with which a competent administrative class is formed, resulting in less capable government. To see the effects of poor education on leadership, simply examine the post-colonial African governments. Inequality is not inherently negative.

Fascists recognize aptitude by helping provide for those in the lower classes the means by which they can advance, and by removing the parasitic elements/individuals within the upper class.

Fascists also recognize that the interests of the upper class and working class are not in competition with one another. It is a symbiotic relationship, from which both benefit. Fascists seek to make those benefits more apparent, and more central to the community, by serving as a mediator when conflict does occur, and harmonizing them. EG: It is in the interests of the workers to be governed with competence, because this results in an increase in their own wealth over time, and in stability and security. It is in the interests of the upper class to improve the quality of life of the workers, because it safeguards their own position. It is in the interest of everyone to implement mechanisms by which the lines between classes are blurred, and mobile, but not irrelevant.

[starman2003]

It is in the interests of the upper class to improve the quality of life of the workers, because it safeguards their own position.

In real life, fascists put the proles in their place. Their basic needs were met but their standard of living was hardly above subsistence. Fascism/wholism are about enhancing the State or civilization as a whole not the individual. Keeping the masses down and limiting their wealth is the key to advancing the state's agenda. I believe in a platonic system in which bright and capable people from poor or ordinary backgrounds can rise to positions of authority. But the objective is to strengthen the elite at the expense of the masses or workers who, bereft of leadership, are easier to control, in the interest of the State.

[Section Leader]

The elite should consist of persons whose intelligence, skills and abilities got them their position, as opposed to blood ties or social class. Some of the best and brightest can be found among the working classes, the reason fascists oppose capitalism is because those people are kept down by the capitalist system while some of the least intelligent and least wise are in the upper classes (a prime example being George Bush Junior, in no society other than a democracy could he have come to power, because he basically bought his place in the Oval Office, as all election winners in a democracy do). The mass of the workers should of course be guaranteed the necessities of life, decent housing, health care, employment and the like, but they should have to earn everything above that basic minimum. Ideally once the revolution is complete even the children of millionaires or prominant politicians could in theory end up as factory workers or lorry drivers because they were not skilled or intelligent enough to earn a higher position.

Some fascists are socialists, the two systems are not entirely exclusive since fascism has its roots in syndicalism, but even they do not seek to politically empower idiots who deserve to be at the bottom of society.

[Preston Cole]

Some fascists are socialists, the two systems are not entirely exclusive since fascism has its roots in syndicalism, but even they do not seek to politically empower idiots who deserve to be at the bottom of society.

Communists used to take any idiot from the countryside, give him a party license, and put him in a position where he could end up a General or Colonel in the armed forces. I know this from personal experience. I've also heard that Mao's People's Liberation Army initially gave every soldier an equal say in tactical matters, ending up with severe incompetence.

One shouldn't underestimate the leftists' egalitarian rhetoric. They can often end up propping people who don't deserve support in the first place, with no regard to any meritocratic, "rightist" concepts.

[starman2003]

...because he basically bought his place in the Oval Office, as all election winners in a democracy do).

Good post SL but here you exaggerate. "Shrub" didn't rely exclusively, or even mainly on $$$. Thirty years ago, John Connolly blew $10 million and got just a single delegate in the presidential primaries; Reagan had much more charisma. Like so many others, shrub got into the oval office because the dummies could relate to him. (His self deprecating humor played well with voters in TX.) He had political ability. Of course he was an absolute idiot when it came to governing. The fault really lies with the masses and the system that empowers them.

[Francis Drakeleigh]

I completely approve of just about everything that Section Leader has said on this topic. Allow me please to develop the point about the elite drawing from the working classes. At present the working class has effectively been neutered, pensioned off with state benefits (though even that is in jeopardy) as their jobs have gone east. The working class by definition needs to work. and in failing to create that situation, the present sorry excuse for leadership have wholly abdicated their responsiblity. The awful result of this is the infantilisation of what should be the most vital section of society. Where once they had Trades Unions to give an overarching sense of purpose to their economic existance, now only the the crack dealer dispenses his pernicious feelgood powder. In pursuit of ever greater returns from usury the money-ocracy have forsaken the Worker.

But it was in the working class institutions that had grown up largely through the Trades Unions that the best of the working class learned to articulate. These instituions need to be restored and fostered. The army too, were it to be more meritocratic, could bring forth material the elite.

All this can only really come about when Mosley's proposals for a Syndical economy are put into effect, industry owned by those that work on them and Syndicates that cross a whole industry will create the conditions where we will find The Worker and the leaders of tomorrow.

[Preston Cole]

Very true, Francis. Without an educated working class, the nation is doomed. Almost all revolutionary right-wing movements have expressed general disapproval of middle class values and sought to inject the struggling spirit of the workers into the nation. You'll never see a nationalist movement rely on the middle class spiritually, because its history is filled with corruption, money hunger, comfort, material greed. The Squadrists attacked these values gradually by rejecting pacifistic expressions such as afternoon tea and informal handshakes. Even fascists with bourgeois origins couldn't resist this reevaluation of fundamental national values.

[starman2003]

Without an educated working class, the nation is doomed.

I dunno...machines may soon replace most anyway.

Almost all revolutionary right-wing movements have expressed general disapproval of middle class values and sought to inject the struggling spirit of the workers into the nation.

Naturally they tried to get prole support but as elitists didn't really relate to proles nor saw their "struggling spirit" as the basis of national renewal. The latter relied on a more martial/nationalistic/ideological spirit. As I see it, the basic difference between revolutionaries and "middle class values" was dedication to a cause beyond mere self-seeking.

[Preston Cole]

Naturally they tried to get prole support but as elitists didn't really relate to proles nor saw their "struggling spirit" as the basis of national renewal. The latter relied on a more martial/nationalistic/ideological spirit.

The working class's struggling spirit and the martial nationalism of the fascists are the same thing. Both Mussolini and Ikki Kita (the Japanese fascist) proclaimed their nations "proletarian." Struggle is the common ground in both nationalism and pre-revolutionary socialism. Difference is that nationalism maintains this struggle in the form of militarism and war, while established socialism is anti-militarist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_nation

[starman2003]

Both Mussolini and Ikki Kita (the Japanese fascist) proclaimed their nations "proletarian."

I think that was just tactical. The proletariat was important in 20th century industrial societies so of course any political movement seeking enough support to gain power had to win them over as best it could. Fascism in particular, though, was no natural ally of the proles. It wasn't egalitarian but elitist, and flattened unions and collective bargaining, to ensure the proles had to get by on little above subsistence. Any real wholist system suppresses the masses to maximize the power of the State. With the proles working hard for little in return, the State could invest in big armies with all kinds of cool weapons. Heck even the communists in practice did exactly the same thing.

[Fasces]

Or, perhaps one should recognize that a nation is more than the top 2% of the population, and that the proleteriat have a role to play in the national good.

Of course, as you reject nationalism, I don't expect you to agree.

[starman2003]

Under present conditions, the proles still have a role in the national and/or global good. In the latter case, they can help build space vehicles or solar/geothermal systems. But that doesn't mean a regime should fulfill their foolish desires. Better to dominate them to ensure the national wealth goes to better things than six packs, ball games and porn. Of course, machines might replace virtually all of them.

[Figlio di Moros]

Seriously, what's your obsession with porn? Are you asexual? Does your junk not work? Ex leave you for vivid productions?

[Ash Faulkner]

Starman, I take it you assume you would not be one of the proles? Why are you so sure of this?

[Preston Cole]

Yeah, it's growing a bit repetitive. Starman's view is basically that everyone except the elite should work like robots. Not quite realistic.

[Potemkin]

Starman's view is basically that everyone except the elite should work like robots. Not quite realistic.

It's realistic in the sense that it could actually happen; indeed, it did more or less happen in Britain in the early 19th century. Whether it would be a desirable or stable state of affairs is another matter, of course.