Orientations: Point 6

⇐ Point 5   Point 7 ⇒


There are several important issues brought in Point 6. That these are in dispute today is incredible, if, in fact, they are even noticed. Perhaps the professional politicians do know it, but are coy enough not to mention them publicly.

  • The first is the reduction of the political to the economical. This is even more pronounced in the USA elections, where the economy is supposed to outweigh every other issue. The net effect of this is that, because they are left out of the political discussion, lower political and social forces can continue unchecked.
  • The second is that there is no such thing as a “spontaneous” grassroots movement from below. We are led to believe that there are certain important issues and movements then arise to deal with them. The opposite is actually the case; movements fabricate issues to gain power and achieve their own ends.
  • The false ideal of “social justice” is still used to this day for political gain. It is quite effective, except for those who expect “justice”.
  • On a positive note, Evola proposes, as always, a hierarchical arrangement based on high and heroic ideals. To replace the parliamentary system of professional politicians, he proposes a form of corporativism. This is not, as often believe, the rule by corporations as understood in the West, particularly the USA. Rather, it refers to the representation of the various business sectors, e.g., health, energy, etc., by workers as well as owners. They would bring expertise in their fields to the political and spiritual hierarchy, unlike democratic politicians who typically have no expertise. Contra this, one could complain that these are “special interests” who already have too much influence. However, now it is done in secret, behind closed doors. That would not be the case in a corporative system which actually has a more balanced and diverse representation than current Western deliberative bodies. Furthermore, in such a system, economic factors alone would not have dominance.

Not without relation to that, our radicalism of the reconstruction requires that we do not compromise not only with every variety of Marxist or socialist ideology, but also with what in general can be called the hallucination or the demon of the economy. Here it is a question of the idea that in both individual and collective life, the economic factor is the important, real, and decisive one; that the concentration of every value and interest on the economic and productive plane is not the unprecedented aberration of modern Western man, but rather something normal, not a possible brute necessity, but something that must be desired and exalted. Both capitalism and marxism remain enclosed in this dark circle. We must break through this circle. As long as we know how to speak only of economic classes, work, salary, production, as long as we delude ourselves that true human progress and the true elevation of the individual are conditioned by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods and have therefore something to do with indigence or affluence, with the state of USA prosperity, or with that of utopian socialism, we always remain on the same level of what must be combated. This we must affirm: everything that is economy and economic interest as mere satisfaction of physical needs had, has, and always will have a subordinated function in normal humanity; that beyond this sphere an order of higher, political, spiritual and heroic values must be differentiated, an order that–as we already said—does not know and not even admits, proletarian or capitalists, and only depends on what things must be defined as worth living and dying for. A true hierarchy must be established, new dignities must be differentiated and, at the top, a higher function of command, of the imperium must dominate.

Thus, in such regards, many evil herbs that have taken root here and there are eradicated, sometimes even in our camp. What is, in fact, this talk of “State of work”, of “national socialism”, of “humanism of work” and similar ideas? What are these more or less stated requests for a regression of politics into the economy, almost as a resumption of those problematic tendencies toward an integral and, fundamentally, headless, corporatism that fortunately already found the way blocked in fascism? What is this consideration of the formula of “socialization” as a type of universal drug and this elevation of the “social idea” to the symbol of a new civilization that, who knows how, should be beyond both “East” and “West”?

These—it is necessary to recognize this—are the sides of a shadow present in not a few spirits, who only, for other reasons, find themselves on the same side as us. With that they think they are faithful to a revolutionary order, while they obey only stronger suggestions of them with which a degraded political environment is saturated. And among such suggestions the same “social question” returns. When will they finally take into account the truth, i.e., that Marxism did not arise because a real social question existed, but the social question rises—in endless cases—only because Marxism exists, that is to say, artificially, and yet in almost always insoluble terms, to the work of agitators, to the famous “awakeners of class consciousness”, on which Lenin expressed himself very clearly, when he refuted the spontaneous character of proletarian revolutionary movements?

It is starting from this premise that it would be necessary to act, in the first and foremost meaning of ideological anti-proletarianization, as the disinfection of the still healthy parts of the people from the socialist virus. Only then will the one or the other reform be able to be studied and actuated without danger, in compliance with true justice.

So, as the particular case, we will see, according to that spirit, the corporative idea can be again one of the bases of the reconstruction: corporativism not so much as a general system of state and almost bureaucratic composition that maintain the deleterious idea of opposed political arrangements of class systems, but rather as the need that in the very interior of the business that unity, that solidarity of differentiated forces be reconstructed, that the capitalist lie (with the subversive parasitic type of the speculator and the finance-capitalist) on one side, the Marxist agitation on the other, have jeopardized and shattered. It is necessary to bring the business to the form of an almost military unity, in which they compare the solidarity and the fidelity of associated working forces around it in the common enterprise to the spirit of responsibility, to the energy and the competence of the directors. The only true task is, however, the organic reconstruction of the business, and to realize it is not necessary to use formulas intended to adulate, for base propagandistic and electoral ends, the spirit of sedition of the strata inferior to the masses disguised as “social justice”. In general, the same style of active impersonality, dignity, solidarity in the production that is typical to the ancient professional and artisan corporations should be recovered. Syndicalism, with its “battle” and those genuine threats which it now offers us too many examples, is to be banished. But, let us repeat, much one must reach that point starting from the interior. The important thing is that against every from of resentment and social antagonism everyone knows how to recognize and love his own place, that conforms to his own nature, recognizing thus even the limits between which he can develop his possibilities and follow his own perfection: because an artisan who perfectly discharges his function is undoubtedly superior to a king who is unfit and not at the height of his dignity.

In particular, we can permit a system of expertise and corporative representation, to supplant the parliamentarianism of the parties; but we should keep in mind that the technical hierarchy, in their entirety, can signify nothing more than a level in the integral hierarchy: they concern the order of means, to be subordinated to the order of ends, to which only the properly political and spiritual part of the State corresponds. To speak instead of a “State of workers” or of production is to make the part equivalent to the whole, the same as reducing the human organism to its simply physical and vital functions. Nor can a similar obtuse and dark thing be our emblem, nor the “social” idea itself. The true antithesis facing both the “East” and the “West” is not the “social ideal”. It is instead the integral hierarchal idea. In respect to that, nothing uncertain is acceptable.


⇐ Point 5   Point 7 ⇒

3 thoughts on “Orientations: Point 6

  1. “The important thing is that against every from of resentment and social antagonism everyone knows how to recognize and love his own place, that conforms to his own nature, recognizing thus even the limits between which he can develop his possibilities and follow his own perfection: because an artisan who perfectly discharges his function is undoubtedly superior to a king who is unfit and not at the height of his dignity.”

    Great quote. Ledhin used to say “loving command, and proud obedience” were the watchwords of the organic Catholic order.

  2. Logres, that is one ugly hard-to-read web site.

    To consider the question about “why” to deal with such political/economic topics, particularly since it can only be done in a Platonic way with no chance of implementation. First is as an antidote to the many web sites that claim to be “radical traditionalists”, “influenced” by Evola, when they clearly have no such program as that envisioned by Evola, often run by people who “no longer know what normal is”.

    The hierarchy of spiritual values, then military/political, and lastly economic is the traditional social arrangement, described even by Hermetic authors. Can such an arrangement even be considered “in thought” at this time? Clearly, this arrangement has been the target of overthrow by all revolutionary movements. To this day, the ideal of religious authority, martial spirit, and cooperative economic activity is falsely considered “fascist”, and every vestige of it is attacked. For example, an attack on the remnants of spiritual authority is disguised as a women’s health issue. The warrior spirit is mitigated by egalitarian pressures in the armed services. And so on … why would there not be any value in considering such events from the standpoint of Tradition?

  3. Baron Ledhin proposed something along the lines of corporativism:
    http://www.phillysoc.org/Portland.htm

Please be relevant.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright © 2008-2020 Gornahoor Press — All Rights Reserved    WordPress theme: Gornahoor