Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 10:43:35 -0500
From: Ostrow/Kaneda <ostrow-AT-is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Who wields the fasces?


>Saul wrote:
>
>> In part Fascism  originally  has its formal roots in both
>> anarcho-syndicalism and Marxism replaces the concept of  class with that of
>> "the people"-- "the Nation."    Let us not forget the symbollism of the
>> fasci - a bundle of sticks bound together around a stronger core.  This
>> representing collective will -- power.  The general goals of Fascism is not
>> that different than that of Marxism.  The Unity of the Class/ People
>> realizing their manifest destiny/ historically determined  teleos of
>> overcoming class strife and gaining emancipation ( defining the object of
>> this latter goal is of prime importance -- for socialism  it was from
>> nature -- for fascism it is from the will of others0.  These differences
>> between socialism and fascism  first of all resides in their relation to
>> romanticism ( as a response to industrialization)  and metaphysics
>> (ontology in this case)  in determining the interriority  of the 19th-early
>> 20th century understanding of the  project of emancipation
>
>Explain this further if you would. I'm interested in your
>understanding of how fascism relates to romanticism.

gilligan.
To sketch it out in its most schematic:
Romanticism and  ( its project[ion]Aestheticism )  are responses/ an
expression of the alienation that developed in the period of transition
from rural to urban society. In the main reomanticism is a reaction to
Enlightenments belief in reason (civilization,) standardization (order) the
abandonment of nature (emancipation from need.) The Enlightenment sought to
place man above all -- usurp the positin of the ailing and soon to die god.
"MAN'S" objective state was to be treansformed by their own hand into that
of Subject.  The Romantics responding by claiming that "MAN" could not
overcome nnature because nature was in them ( here-in arose the terms and
conditions for the concept  of human nature.) If at that time logic
demanded a dialectical pairing  Romanticism's revolt of subjectivity (the
natural self)  played antithesis to the Enlightenments  Rational Self.
Both of these positions of course play an important role  in the formation
in our conception of the individual ( the un dividable,)  alienationation (
being made foreign to oneself) and our conception of the Self (
subjectivity.)  The most important of these was that rather than seeking
our completion in the repressive rituals of an objectively ordered and
reational society we had to seek it in the expression of our true inner
being..  This later notion became an important aspect of the nationalist
movemnts of the early 1800's as people sought to redefine themselves as no
longer Bavarian or Piedmont, etc but as German or Italian.  Logical
identity was to be made sub-ordinant to national identity -- some greater
inner being of race and place.  This lead to an aesthetization of both
everyday life ( art into life and the art of Life) and Politics. National
identity,  characterists and destiny filled the void created by both the
dying god and the patterns of agarian life. One must remember that
romanticism reflects a sense of loss that seeks its regress in power and
subjectivity (will).  For the 19th century mind set, that still dominated
the early part of the 20th century,  the natural  expression of this  state
of being was authoritarianism.  a self justified use of force and an
embrace of the irrational.  My own concern is that the subjectivity that is
presently  being formed in Western society seems to constitute a fertile
ground the re-ordering of society along the paternalistic and authoritarian
lines of fascist ideology.