Fascism: The Career of a Concept (Paul Gottfried)
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 06. 2024
- A book of history which implicates the future, in particular fueling thoughts of what a revolutionary Right in America might look like.
The written version of this review can be found here: theworthyhouse.com/2024/06/12...
We strongly encourage, in these days of censorship and deplatforming, all readers to bookmark our main site:
www.theworthyhouse.com
and to subscribe for email notifications of new posts. The Worthy House does not solicit donations or other support, or have ads. You can subscribe for email notifications here:
theworthyhouse.com/subscribe-...
Video podcasts identical to YT are also available at Odysee and at Rumble:
odysee.com/@TheWorthyHouse
rumble.com/c/c-1747695
Other than at the main site, you can follow Charles here:
x.com/TheWorthyHouse
gab.com/TheWorthyHouse
This and all Worthy House narrations are offered with accurate closed captions (not auto-generated).
"What is fascism? Generically, it is a political philosophy, but what is its content? The word today is almost always used simply as an infinitely flexible synonym for “enemy of the Left,” but fascism was once a real thing, even though it has long disappeared from actual politics. Paul Gottfried, who has forgotten far more of history and politics than you or I know, wrote this book to closely analyze and, to the extent possible, systematize fascism. He consigns fascism strictly to the past, a creature born of a unique historical moment, the interwar period. But his subtle and penetrating analysis offers food for thought about the political systems of the future, which we can be sure will be very different from those of the present." . . .
“There’s nothing wrong with Fascism. Nothing wrong with Fascism at all.”
― Jonathan Bowden
I see Charles Book Review, I click immediately
Would recommend Stanley Payne's book "A History of Fascism, 1914-1945".
I have a copy of every one of Payne's books. Have not read that, however.
Without hesitation.
8:26 ecstatic enthusiasm makes much more sense than enthusiastic enthusiasm.
Thanks putting in your own subtitles. A worthy endeavor.
Working on a project right now that touches some on italian fascism, very enthused to here some of my conclusions co-signed by Gottfried, according to you at least. Might have to pick this book up!
A. James Gregor's Mussolini's Intellectuals next?
"greeted with enthusiastic enthusiasm" -- Gottfried might want to re-write that sentence.
That was my fault. It is "ecstatic enthusiasm." I misspoke.
"fascism is not a religious phenomenon."
This is rather hard to believe. If one reads Mussolini and Gentile's "the doctrine of fascism", there they say that fascism is fundamentally anti-materialist, that it is an idealist doctrine that posits a spiritual ideal: the nation/people (volk)/race as the highest good. This, they say, is a religious or emotional value, a faith or feeling, a mythos, not some rationalistic material deduction. And with good reason: because a simple look at reality shows that this ideal is based on a lie. The nation is not some unitary, homogenous whole, but a collection of antagonisms and social differences.
"fascism is corporate, not totalitarian."
Again, Mussolini and Gentile say that corporatism is indeed totalitarian because all of the classes are mediated by the corporate state. The whole idea is that society is an organic total unity and this is represented by the state. The state is the highest sovereign power that represents all past, present and future generations. It serves to perpetuate the people of a nation as a whole and thus the individual is insignificant in relation to this species-ethnic concept, and since the nation is the ideal, individuals have a duty to sacrifice themselves for it, whether through working hard or it times of war. What it demands is a total sacrifice and dedication to the state and the national community the state represents. Corporatism is the total mobilization of all classes, all institutions, of society as a whole for the purpose of national renewal through war.
America for Americans is not egalitarian and universalist?
No.
Your question is kinda weird.
Would anyone ask if "Italy for Italians" or "Mexico for Mexicans" was egalitarian or universalist?
@@sullathehutt7720 that's a good point, but give it time. They're crazy enough to get there.
Perhaps we should see the 20th century as a time when experimentation with ideology of all kinds reached fever pitch? Like a kind of mass hysteria there really is no way to explain it, or bring much clarity to what happened.
If we accept that we might be able to confine the never ending search for an ideal society to the dustbin.
Unfortunately, in the first quarter of the 21st century, we still do not seem to have learnt much from the last.
We remain like some desert potentate randomly building huge structures in the belief they symbolise the future; when in fact they symbolise the egoism of the past.
Well, I was going to say that hardly onky the 20th century is guilty of this, since we are 23 years in and as much garbage trains of thought are being allowed to fester. In the 20th century, but you've argued it yourself.
@@user-lu5uy4uu1u
The essence of civilization is the domestication of man.
Domestic animals need consistent structure & incentives to avoid becoming wild again.
Here in the 21st century, those structures, those systems of reward & punishment are being undone. By technology, and by corrupt self-serving masters.
Very interesting. Here in Russia we have always called the National Socialists "fascists," not "Nazis." I can only assume we do that because of the "socialist" component in the name "National Socialist." God forbid that we stop to think and make any connection.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us and our world ☦ 🙏 🌍 🙏☦
"the study of fascism by studying what it is not"
Imagine if i said, "I have figured out what the anatomy of whales is by studying giraffes, pea soup and trains."
This is clearly absurd, but apparently it seems deep and profound when it comes to fascism. You dont look at the thing on its own terms, but rather make a comparison.
Not only that, but from the start, he "doesn't look at anything particular about fascism or form any particular theses".
This is in total contradiction to the concept that fascism "takes on various forms". You cannot say something is a particular form without having a general concept of what it is a variation of. As if the general cannot be found in the particular! What else is a theory? Its so popular for historians and social scientists to drone on about "how complicated it all is, how much variation there is" about how "this or that state has a different historical development." Yet each of the different states is in fact a state, as the concept implies. They have common principles, and these principles are what a theory explains. The professors can examine the differences between, say, English and German law, or between Italian and German social provisions, until the cows come home. But as long as they insist on denying the concepts of *law* and *state*, or *fascism* in general, the particular analysis of Germany, Italy or any other state has to come out wrong. And wrong it comes out without fail!
So, its already a completely irrational contradiction to claim "fascism isnt a unitary phenomenon" and then insist it consists of "various forms". This is like claiming there isnt a unitary general concept of "dog" by listing the different features of various breeds of dog. "No, this isn't fruit, it's a plum and cherry!" It assumes exactly what it wants to deny, and because it proceeds uncritically in regards to its own assumptions, it ends up as a nest of incoherent claims.
a superior political economic system compared to liberalism and communism both of which are degenerate and unsustainable but inferior to distributism/syndicalism/epistocratic republicanism
If liberalism and communism can win wars, but fascism can't... 🤷
Or any other esoteric, theoretical whatever.
Superior in what way? All mentioned systems underperform liberal democracy