"IDEALISTS," THEIR DESPARACY, OBSESSION AND DEGENERATION
Regarding wannabe Fascists, and their so-called point of views that are contradictory to realities
Last time, I've been reading posts, writeups full of such over-romanticized sentiment made me think as if that they are purely driven by nostalgia than of reality, that these people, like their idols in the past, are rather tried enough to create an alternative yet too complicated enough to meet the demands of today and of the aspirations of tomorrow. That, according to them made them actively fight all for a principle of political, social and economic thought that embraces the extraordinary and vigorous pursuit of a national interest.
They tried enough to be "sincere" to their so-called ideals and aspirations, that in fact, carbon-copies of long time ago while trying to create "new", "modern" ideas all for the sake of currying the people's hearts and minds. In their point-of-view, these people, especially those who are trying to act like knights or heroes, are rather thinking too much and venting such sentiments that are too romantic than realistic as ever, that:
"The future belongs to those who dare the impossible... To instill fears in the heart and minds of our enemies."
Such sentiment grew much indeed as they tried to attract followers especially those who are desperate enough or those wanting to counter the "Red threat". These people, trying to "Dare the impossible"
But who are they anyway? Are they really Patriotic, realistic enough to face the impossible using mere sentiment and less analyisis about the society?
In regards to their beliefs and aspirations, they are too much emphasised in the word "Unity" and "Order" while trying to speak of "Change." Like the desperate Conservatives of long ago, of Adam Muller and Adam Spann, of the "Conservative Revolutionaries" like Oswald Sprengler, these people, in venting rage against the "Liberals", the "System", doesn't have a concrete, comprehensive, systematic idea of setting "Change" as they themselves acknowledge "Order" and dismantling it as "Unorthodox." Remember, Hitler and the Nazis called his action a "National Revolution", but is there a major change in that "Revolution?" There are still elites dominating and the soldiers running in their affairs too! All except for the "Night of the Long Knives" of course.
These people, at first, are quite believing, and even emphasising the idea of the Volksgemeinschaft, as they tried much to say that all people are united in a common goal that is "Nationalism." Of ceaseless service to the people regardless of class or background as they of. But does it mean that differences are being "vanished away" due to that unity? That struggles within are "stopped" over, that they worked in close collaboration with the state for the furtherance of national goals? Personally, I do believe in a Volksgemeinshcaft, but that "National Community" (the English term) as they say so is not limited in a mere "Unificatory stance" (as what these people do) but under the leadership of the working class who, from the start are the creators of the society, who till and forge for the homeland yet repressed by the ruling gentries and classes, call it a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", that even Otto Strasser acknowledged class struggle alongside wealth distribution as part of Anti-Capitalistic stance within National Socialism contrary to Hitler's.
But then,
In assesing ideas such as for a strong Volksgemeinschaft, it all rather be out of imagination, a mere idea than a product of social realities. Did change happened? Perhaps, but mostly through mere overhauls and reforms that seemed pleasing to the people's ear and thought, but then that kind of change are rather cosmetic than absolute, there are not even undergone a major dismantlement of the society that most of the members of the elite gentry remains!
Otherwise, that Volksgemeinschaft they use to speak upon, all the time for the sake of "Unity" and "Order" are like those of Mussolini. he stated that:
"[Fascism] affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men."
And given this premise, Fascists, and similar idealists conclude that the preservation of social hierarchy is in the interests of all classes, and therefore all classes should collaborate in its defense. Both the lower and the higher classes should accept their roles and perform their respective duties. That often combined with strong nationalism, the stability and prosperity of the nation-state, the Volksgemeinschaft was seen as the ultimate purpose of collaboration between classes.
But at the same time they'll also oppose it, why?
Given that the idea that inequality is natural and that social progress must be resisted is a distinctly reactionary and more conservative view, that more radical fascists such as the Pre-Franco Falangists and early Italian Fascists called for a social-revolution to overcome the old injustices which were holding back their respective nations from becoming truly great. They called for a "Social Revolution", while maintaining the "Volksgemeinschaft" at the same time? Social Revolutions aren't idealistic and romantic, but rather realistic and scientific, especially if it is out of digging deep the society through analysis, that still, resorted to the idea of Class Struggle as its basis for Revolutionary action-that Fascists and other similar stooges tend to deny with all the time.
Such contradictions these idealists tried to evade are never to be acknowledged by them. They spoke of National Liberation, Upliftment, of opposing the Plutocrats and the System, but did they analyze the entire system deeply? Scientifically? Or again coming from their desperate imagination or parroting from a certain point of view of others just to counter Scientific Socialism? Of Marxism-Leninism? One writeup even said that:
"We oppose all forms of Marxist utopianism on grounds that they deny the state, and are grossly limited by purely materialistic considerations with regards to the needs of the common man."
Marxist utopianism? Limited by purely materialistic considerations? Marxism can't be utopianism all despite such Idealists tend to banner themselves as Marxist-Leninists yet failed due to their unrealistic point of views and actions, another that Marxism is Realism, that the idea is coming to terms with the needs in which all to create progress for humanity as it pushes forward through class struggle and action against the rotten social order. It even unites all physical and moral needs, of all physical and spiritual wealth for the people and its well being (sorry for using Adam Muller).
Well...Since they are too idealistic in their move, stance regarding the society, of blaming Scientific socialism for the idea of Class Struggle, they are dumb enough that fighting against the landed gentry by the working class is also a form of struggle btween classes within the society. Yes, these self-proclaimed patriots so to speak are thinking not enough in analyzing the society, scientifically despite acknowledging the prescence of "plutocrats", "parasites" in the society they wished to change.
Sadly speaking that in thinking "Marxism-Leninism" with disgust, of equating it much with the mistakes given from the past, they tried enough to present themselves as "holier than thou" whilst recognizing, acknowledging the atrocities of their Right-wing allies such as landlords and military men pitting against the Revolutionaries and the affected, displaced civilians especially those fighting for peace, land and bread. They think everything contrary to their set of idals as false whilst theirs as true, but in regards to their analysis of the society, are they really analyzing deeply or merely seeing, then bragging or worse, parroting certain ideas and taken as if as theirs?
Secondly, in trying to "reject" such designations such as "Left", "Center" or "Right", of posing themselves as "Neither" or whatsoever they think of, are they really acting "Neither Left, Right, or Center" a la Mobutu Sese Seko? Mobutu is a staunch Anti-Communist yet recognizes Mao Zedong, while its fellow African leader Houphouët-Boigny of the Ivory Coast maintained an ardently Anti-Communist policy by severing relations with the USSR in 1969, of not recognizing China, and provinding assistance to groups such as UNITA during the Angolan conflict. Lon Nol, during his leadership as President of the "Khmer Republic" posed himself as an idealist with his own "Khmerism", ardently opposed the North Vietnamese to the extent of using history to jsutify pogroms against the Vietnamese community, of blaming them as an enemy to their so-called cause such as "Khmerism." They may personally reject such designations such as "Left", "Right", or "Center" while describing themselves as "Patriots" or any other designation "fit for themselves." Otherwise, those who are "Neither Left, Right, or Center" are rather acting like Franco, who is an opportunist during his regime in Spain, who supported Hitler and Mussolini whilst maintaining neutrality, only to support Eisenhower all for the goddamn sake of currying US support "Against Communism."
Such leaders, followers, with their idealism are rather be opportunistic whilst posing themselves as capable of facing the impossible such as "Red Radicals" or "Reactionaries." But actually, they would rather face such "lesser evils" such as the latter for the goddamn sake of destroying the greater one that is "Marxism-Leninism" or "Communism." And thus, it makes me doubtful about their own principle that, as if really capable of facing the impossible. In economics, will they really impose such programs capable of increasing productivity? Of ensuring social welfare greatly? Peron of Argentina tried much and somehow became successful as its leader opposing both "Left" and "Right" opportunists and careerist during his regime as President, but others? End up rather as propaganda, as toppings for repressive policies that an idealist think of as "right" and "justified."
And since they are obsessed with nostalgia and greatness, of much imbued with mere overimaginative idealism, what kind of future does these people trying to build upon to? Aren't they supposed to uplift people through their programs of actions out of their points of view? Their love of things nostalgic and using it as a driving force to change creates less benefits and more problems to face with, that literal implementation of an idea-concept without any transition may doom to fail regardless of its achievement. Otherwise, they are pushing the nation backwards rather than advancing, hastening degeneration of the society so to speak. That, despite their trying-hard attempts, the system they've served with "for the sake of the people," rotten to the core still, isn't been dismantled. It remained rotten thanks to their allies, that in their so-called principles, are their enemies. That makes Class Struggle, mass action justifiable and Revolution against them as necessary. For:
"There is nothing to be gained in assuming a conservative stance about it."
as what they say so.
