In the present brief article, Alain de Benoist sets forth a basic definition of “Fascism,” challenging by implication the unacceptable generalizations of this term by certain Liberal and Leftist scholars today.
Great article. Again, De Benoist shows why he remains the pre-eminent thinker of nationalism today.
Two points are confusing for me, though.
De Benoist says ‘..a true community spirit is incompatible with statism.’ In his view, fascism sees a trinity of state, nation and people.
So firstly, what’s the difference between a people and a nation? If we take an organic view of nationality, surely ‘a people’ is the same thing as an organic nation? To be very precise, I’d define a nation as a group of people with shared ancestry, history, culture and homeland.
Secondly, statism (a system where the state has substantial control over social and economic affairs) wouldn’t necessarily be incompatible with the spirit of the national community, *so long as* the state effectively served, protected and promoted the interests of the community. The problem today, of course, is that our state(s) are so completely captured by vested, global interests. They effectively work *against* the organic national community - to the point of denying its existence and criminalising its promotion by individuals.
Thanks for bringing this excellent article to English speaking readers.
I think he's trying to say that statism is 1. Unnecessary if the state is a reflection of the spirit of the community and 2. That statism would be antithetical to a community spirit bc the spirit is truly free whereas statism is a state-enforced way of being which would be unnatural.
Thanks for your reply. I guess it comes down to the role of the state.
If the state provides material infrastructure (rail, ports, hospitals etc) for the public good, then I don’t see it as limiting the expression of national community.
Going a step further, it could be argued that the state could try to develop its citizens in healthy ways. For instance, by encouraging children to engage in sports for some period each week. The problem with this, IMO, isn’t so much about the state using its power, but about the rationale for its use. Kids playing sport seems positive and not contentious, but what happens if the state decides it’s ‘healthy’ to encourage kids to spy on their parents? In this latter case, the will of the national community is likely being subverted.
Statism, to some extent, is in the eye of the beholder.
The problem is cultures are spontaneous and often powered by singular geniuses, ala Nietzsche, whereas states by the their nature are bureaucratic and uniform and crush individual genius that drives the most excellent cultural creations. From this it does not follow that we can't have ethnos centered communities, just that the state is a poor vehicle to bring this about.
I’d agree that the state can’t be relied on to bring about an organic, ethnic community. That’d be putting the cart before the horse.
The organic nation must exist first - and then demand a state apparatus of its own to administer affairs in its homeland.
The Kurds are an example of a stateless organic nation. They exist as a separate people, located in a geographic homeland, but don’t have a state of their own (yet).
Great article. Again, De Benoist shows why he remains the pre-eminent thinker of nationalism today.
Two points are confusing for me, though.
De Benoist says ‘..a true community spirit is incompatible with statism.’ In his view, fascism sees a trinity of state, nation and people.
So firstly, what’s the difference between a people and a nation? If we take an organic view of nationality, surely ‘a people’ is the same thing as an organic nation? To be very precise, I’d define a nation as a group of people with shared ancestry, history, culture and homeland.
Secondly, statism (a system where the state has substantial control over social and economic affairs) wouldn’t necessarily be incompatible with the spirit of the national community, *so long as* the state effectively served, protected and promoted the interests of the community. The problem today, of course, is that our state(s) are so completely captured by vested, global interests. They effectively work *against* the organic national community - to the point of denying its existence and criminalising its promotion by individuals.
Thanks for bringing this excellent article to English speaking readers.
I think he's trying to say that statism is 1. Unnecessary if the state is a reflection of the spirit of the community and 2. That statism would be antithetical to a community spirit bc the spirit is truly free whereas statism is a state-enforced way of being which would be unnatural.
Thanks for your reply. I guess it comes down to the role of the state.
If the state provides material infrastructure (rail, ports, hospitals etc) for the public good, then I don’t see it as limiting the expression of national community.
Going a step further, it could be argued that the state could try to develop its citizens in healthy ways. For instance, by encouraging children to engage in sports for some period each week. The problem with this, IMO, isn’t so much about the state using its power, but about the rationale for its use. Kids playing sport seems positive and not contentious, but what happens if the state decides it’s ‘healthy’ to encourage kids to spy on their parents? In this latter case, the will of the national community is likely being subverted.
Statism, to some extent, is in the eye of the beholder.
Thanks again for your reply.
The problem is cultures are spontaneous and often powered by singular geniuses, ala Nietzsche, whereas states by the their nature are bureaucratic and uniform and crush individual genius that drives the most excellent cultural creations. From this it does not follow that we can't have ethnos centered communities, just that the state is a poor vehicle to bring this about.
I’d agree that the state can’t be relied on to bring about an organic, ethnic community. That’d be putting the cart before the horse.
The organic nation must exist first - and then demand a state apparatus of its own to administer affairs in its homeland.
The Kurds are an example of a stateless organic nation. They exist as a separate people, located in a geographic homeland, but don’t have a state of their own (yet).
The central insight of Fascist theory was that a 'people' without a 'State' to represent it is doomed.
Whites in the West are learning this very hard lesson right now.
I stopped reading where you called Fascism “time-bound”, which it is not. Why cope with more untruths?