Charles Maurras - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Political Interest
#14345952
It has been said before that fascism was the result of the merger between the integralism of Charles Maurras and the syndicalism of Georges Sorel. Yet it has also been noted that there are differences between the ideology of Maurras and fascism.

What are these differences and on what basis can his thinking be distinguished from fascism?
User avatar
By Orestes
#14346000
Maurras probably still remains in the range of classical Ancien régime reactionism, unlike fascism which is supposed to be a revolutionary synthesis of the old with the new.

He didn't aim for much innovativeness in the cultural sphere, rejecting both secularism and paganism despite his strong personal inclinations, for the sake of Catholicism as an institution (an only as that, since he considered original Christianity itself a dangerous creed that was luckily sanitised by Rome).

From what I remember, he also wanted the French state decentralised so that it would resemble itself from before the Revolution, when particular territories enjoyed some autonomy (Maurras himself was born in Provence), so that's another difference.

I guess this is it in a nut-shell.
Last edited by Orestes on 28 Dec 2013 17:58, edited 1 time in total.
By annatar1914
#14371479
Rei Murasame wrote:I pretty much agree with Orestes.

My view also is that Georges Sorel is absolutely the more important of the two figures.


Ah, Sorel...Loved his critique of Science, second in my view only to Shestov's.

Coming back around to a similar view on violence to Sorel's myself, on another note.

Regarding Maurras.... A lone transitional and anomalous figure, were it not for the obvious fact that his views were so commonly shared among the Roman Curia of the early 20th century, and was an influence on Petain and Franco.
User avatar
By Fasces
#14371516
I will, of course, disagree vehemently on the value of Sorel as opposed to Maurras, and that is the major source of my disagreement with many fascists on this board.
By annatar1914
#14371876
Fasces wrote:I will, of course, disagree vehemently on the value of Sorel as opposed to Maurras, and that is the major source of my disagreement with many fascists on this board.


Maurras was a Monarchist, very tied in principle to a Bourbon restoration in France. I personally have warm feelings about Monarchy, but a history of betrayal by monarchs of Fascists and Fascistic principles (the Martyrdom of Codreanu on orders of King Carol of Romania, Mussolini's betrayal by Victor Emmanuel, King Juan Carlos of Spain's turn against Francoism after Franco was safely dead, Hitler's turn against the SA and the Strasser Bros only to be continually betrayed by the Reactionaries he got in bed with, etc...) has soured me on the State altogether, unless I hear a better argument.
User avatar
By Fasces
#14371881
He was not a monarchist, or rather, that is too simple.

He believed each country should be governed in a way that respected its traditions and history, whatever that may be. This is why, even as an atheist, he supported a national Catholic foundation for France, or the French monarchy. A monarchy, however, would make little sense in the United States - something he admitted - with its republican traditions.

Maurras was not a fascist - he was an integralist.
By annatar1914
#14371888
He was not a monarchist, or rather, that is too simple.


Understood.

He believed each country should be governed in a way that respected its traditions and history, whatever that may be. This is why, even as an atheist, he supported a national Catholic foundation for France, or the French monarchy. A monarchy, however, would make little sense in the United States - something he admitted - with its republican traditions.


I'm more universalist and thus looking for more global political solutions, as I see republicanism as degenerating everywhere among all peoples without exception. Monarchies themselves become degenerate to the extent they are basically Republics with 'Monarch' figureheads. My own 'Anarchism' seems to be what it is because of the historical trends I think I see-betrayal of the forces of the Nation by those of the State-but if my fears could be settled I'd be happy to be like my hero Codreanu- Orthodox, Monarchist, Fascist- Once again.

Maurras was not a fascist - he was an integralist.


Therefore, even less capable than the later Fascists of seeing the troubles of alignment with reactionary elements.

Doesn't he have billions in Truth social (you pos[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]

Based on what? On simple economics. and in t[…]