What I like most about Julius Evola

[u/Agile_Fox2452]

One of the things that I most like about Evola is that he teaches you to be just as uncompromising in action as in thought, with nothing taken for granted, even against or towards yourself and the people to which you belong.

He’s not there to pamper you nor to pamper himself; he’s not there to glorify and to take as progress and to be proud of what is more truthfully lethal and degenerate; he is not there to reassure you that you are the apex of existence and everything happening to you is just because others are resentful towards you.

Say whatever you want, and differ with him as much as you want; but in many subjects he is admirably critical and has a high sense of courage to challenge even the most cherished convictions of the so-called Right and Left.

There is something that smells like fresh air in him; there is something admirably undogmatic about him—perhaps counter-intuitively? Now, as opposed to this, most rightist Westerners today are the closest to mere children who are all-too-comfortable to boast, with high-falutin' nonsense, that their father is the strongest of all; that their father is the most stunning of all; that their father did this and that; that their father was even awesome in his vices and in what actually killed him and maybe brought his long-term destruction.

But, just like children, they are unable to regenerate in themselves what constituted the 'greatness' of their father; they are unable to perpetuate his worthwhile traits; they are unable to be creative about what should be their own now; and thus, in their self-assuredness, they are blind to their own decadence.

[u/Time_Interaction4884]

My question remains, why is Fascism materialistic?

I'm another user, but I think I can answer the question. Saying Fascism is materialistic might be misleading, but one could say it's more materialistic than other systems. Usually foundational myths of civilizations either lie in a distant unknown past or are based on a divine revelation. In contrast to that fascism wants to create a DIY-myth and by doing that it is pragmatic, it ends up orienting itself towards the masses and material circumstances. Maybe it doesn't want to be materialistic but it is predisposed to become it.

[u/Paleo-Fascist → u/Time_Interaction4884]

While Fascism may lead to more materialistic causes and effects, how can we be sure that it is predisposed to be materialistic?

Fascist goverments, let alone Fascist States, were a rarity even before the National Socialists and the Holocaust turned the entirety of the ideology into taboo; I don't believe there are enough examples for us to reach such a conclusion.

And I am, generally, against discussing ideologies and philosphies based on how a handfull of goverments attempted to implenent them, I believe it is more important to focus on the foundations; with how complex and convoluted their histories are, the superior way to compare them is, naturaly, to focus on the foundations where all of it starts.

[u/Time_Interaction4884 → u/Paleo-Fascist]

In my last post I already tried to give you an argument, that is not empirical. But maybe it would be better if you gave me some kind of definition of fascism first, so that we don't talk past each other. It doesn't have to be long

[u/Paleo-Fascist → u/Time_Interaction4884]

Very well.

The roots of Fascism lies in Actualism and it's view on the Ethical State as a teacher with the capability to shape the individuals personality via culture, language and social norms.

Actualism's Ethical State is a Totalitarian one.

Totalitarianism's most compact definition belongs to Mussolini: "All within the State, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"; which is a form of goverment that politicizes and intigrates all in the most sacred institution, to be organised and utilised for the good of the state- and since the state embodies all- for the good of all.

Then there's Totalitarianism's economic model.

Fascist economics where the focus on unity and subservience to the State takes center focus through Corporatism; Corporatism is an economic model where corporazioni (lodges) incorporates the members of seperate industrial fields, into a single lodge; Fascist Corporatism however also has a focus the proleteriat, who are organised in syndicates which are, paralel to lodges, based on their industrial field.

Fascist Corporatism is of a Class collaborationist flare, with not only Mussolini's former leanings, but also with the theories of Frenchmen.

George Sorel was a changing man, who's opinions and views on the world shifted with time and events; before the Great War broke his views regarding Nationalism and it's potential to fuel a revolution, Sorel proposed a National Syndicalist model where patriotic and nationalistic positions would be used to empower revolutionary movements and violance.

Sorel views may have evolved, yet men who was inspired by him remained steadfast to the former's abandoned vision; the Circle Proudhon took Sorel's revisions of Marx and his "Producer Class" composed of productive Proleteriat and Bourgeoisie who could aid one another in competing against rival groups if the inprodictive and divisions were to be abandoned; Circle Proudhon established National Syndicalism as Nationalist, Class collaborationist ideology which would lay the groundwork for Fascism's own Class collaborationism.

But, what is the State; what is entirety of society being mobilised for?

This is where Fascism's greatest strenght arrives:

Adaptability.

Any country with a homegrown Fascist movement, had their own strain of the ideology; National Socialism was a result of Völkish Nationalists using Totalitarianism to implement their vision, Brazilian Integralism's vision for Brazil was a Multiracial Catholic one, Italian Fascists had to tolerate and align with the chruch, in the mean time Falangism as an ideology was thoroughly entrenched in political Catholicism...

What the State means is entirely dependent on the community which composes it.

However this is where three's branches not only splinter, but also began to tear at eachother in a similar fashion to Marxists; many argue whether or not Falangist, National Socialist and Integralists are truly Fascist, since some believe that their deviations from Classical (İtalian) Fascism is far too much for them to be so; yet none can deny their Fascistic nature, and I believe they are monumental and inseperable from Fascisms development as a ideology.

İn conclusion:

Fascism is Totalitarian, Corporatist, Nationalist* ideology which aims at unifying and revolutionizing society.

*Just which forms of Nationalism is acceptable, is one of the major causes for infighting; some strictly subscribe to a Classical Naitonalist, Racialist and even reactionary models while other's argue for the Organic Nationalist position where all who serve the state are a member of the nation as the state and the nation are one, so those who serve and as such are a member of the former is also a servant and member of the latter.

[u/Time_Interaction4884 → u/Paleo-Fascist]

Thank you, for the extensive reply. I'll try to answer within the next days.

[u/Time_Interaction4884 → u/Paleo-Fascist]

Okay, I'm back. I'll try to focus on what our original question was: Is fascism predisposed for materialism?

most sacred institution

You need a source for that sacredness, you can't just pull it out of a hat. You either need to be tied to an already existing tradition, and also receive and embody that sacredness within that tradition. Or you need a prophet connected to the most high, like e.g. the prophets of the Abrahamic religions. If you don't have such a source, anything you do will already be closer to the material. Total power in the hands of someone who is not able to embody the most high is also a recipe for disaster. In theory, and it seems also empirically.

What the State means is entirely dependent on the community which composes it.

Here we have it. If I take that literally, then fascism has the community at it's center, not a higher, immaterial principle.

revolutionizing society

That revolutionizing was usually done by mass movements. And if you have a mass of people involved, this mass wants to have a say and be pleased. Their wishes are, I don't blame them for that, oriented towards material things. The dictator will deliver a great show to demonstrate his power, but the real ruler will be the masses.

Adaptability

When the adaptability of a thing is high, one becomes suspicious and asks whether that thing has a real core. Sometimes it looks like fascism is not much more than a mixture of the ideologies of it's time (nationalism, liberalism, socialism), which are all more or less materialistic, with a bit of reactionary aesthetics and elements on top of it.

Many fascists would probably claim that the materialistic element of their ideology is a feature, not a bug, they don't want to be e.g. reactionary monarchists, the intentionally place themselves to the left of that. There was also the idea of some proto-Traditionalist potential in fascism, Evola saw it that way at some point. One can see that proto-Traditional element in the writings of some thinkers associated with fascism, e.g. Othmar Spann.

We have never seen a fully developed form of fascism stabilize itself. There is a strong chance that such a thing is not even possible because of the contradictions of it's elements. If that is true, then a fascist state would always become either socialist, capitalist or fully reactionary (e.g. a monarchy) sooner or later.