The Case For National Capitalism Part 1: The Inorganic Nature Of Fascism

In this multi-part essay series I will demonstrate the superiority of Irregularian National Capitalism to similar competing radical right wing systems of social and political organization. It is my position that the systems of hypothesized Anarcho-Capitalism, historical National Socialism and prototypical Fascism embody within their frameworks strategic and systemic flaws that cannot be overcame in order form an adequate and sustainable buttress against globalist liberal democracy.

The problems of mass democracy need not be explained here. For an in depth guide to understanding the pitfalls of a system that represents a retrogression in regard to what came prior, read Dr. Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed. Needless to say however, western countries stand on the precipice of destruction at odds with elected officials who seek to sacrifice their cultures, identities and the vast wealth of their nations upon the alter of egalitarian multiculturalism.

Understandably, in a world where Conservative movements have conserved nothing, it has become necessary for dissident rightist elements to form a vanguard of political opposition in order to carry out a reactionary onslaught against everything to the left of them. Known as the Alternative Right, factions within the movement now fight for standing among a disaffected populace eager to hear radical alternatives to mainstream Conservatism. Historically, such reactionary alliances have culminated in the formation of Fascist regimes. Therefore it is pertinent to first discuss the pitfalls of Fascism within the context of American identity.

Editors note: the following is primarily adapted from a previous essay titled Fascism And Natural Order: A Brief Prototypical Critique.

My primary critique of Fascism consists of a cultural argument. Fascism as an ideal embodies the spirit of the people it grips that is contingent upon their unique identity and traditions. As such, it is an error to advocate for European-style Fascist models in the United States. This is because the American tradition rests primarily on the ideas of rugged individualism, Capitalism and an overarching rejection of centralized authority. If a legitimate Fascist movement were to promote adherence to an organic and traditional order in the United States, it would inevitably undermine itself.

This isn’t necessarily an argument against American Fascism however. Even adherents to modern Fascist ideology understand that the historical precedent for the sustainability of their system does not exist. Fascism, at most, should only be seen as an emergency response to Communism. I argue that some authoritarian measures may be necessary to revitalize American culture and institutions, but the objective of installing a Fascist regime should not be viewed as an end in itself, only a means of freeing the United States from globalist control.

What is Fascism? Dr. Paul Gottfried relates in his book Fascism: The Career of a Concept that this question has divided scholars “ever since Mussolini’s followers marched on Rome in October 1922.” Properly contextualized, Fascism, according to Gottfried, should be viewed as an Interwar European movement that develops most fully in Latin Catholic countries, and is characterized as reactionary, counterrevolutionary, collectivist, authoritarian, corporatist, nationalist, modernizing, and protectionist.

While it is not my intention to characterize Fascism as a leftist ideology as many libertarians vulgarly do, it is important to point out it’s historical overlap with the left. Gottfried’s book, along with the less rigorous Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg shows how Fascist regimes promoted many of the types of policies implemented in the United States in the 1920s and ’30s by Franklin Delano Roosevelt for example, who even praised and imitated Mussolini. While Goldberg, a Neo-Conservative, attempts to use the association to bludgeon his more progressive opponents while calming that they are the “real Fascists,” Gottfried concludes that Fascism is a formulation of the counterrevolutionary right that maintains the worldview of what properly defines a right wing movement: promotion of hierarchy and the acceptance of the inegalitarian nature of man.

As Hans Herman Hoppe points out in his essay A Realistic Libertarianism:

The difference between the Right and the Left, as Paul Gottfried has often noted, is a fundamental disagreement concerning an empirical question. The Right recognizes, as a matter of fact, the existence of individual human differences and diversities and accepts them as natural. . . The Right recognizes the existence of individual human differences not just with regard to the physical location and make-up of the human environment. . . [but] in the in the mental make-up of people, i.e., in their cognitive abilities, talents, psychological dispositions, and motivations. . . The Left on the other hand is convinced of the fundamental equality of man, that all men are “created equal.”

Though Fascism cannot be properly characterized as a left wing movement, it has invariably been shown to adopt leftist characteristics for its own purposes. Particularly, this process has included adapting revolutionary tactics and imbibing the idea of struggle. In this regard, right from the onset, Fascism aims not to preserve an existing social order, it seeks to construct one based on certain ideals not traditional to the societies it takes hold of. This fact forms the basis of my primary argument against Fascism. It is inorganic.

Economic objections to Fascism will be discussed in a later part of this series, but first, in order to understand the artificial nature of Fascism we need to examine Mussolini’s Italy. During the historical rise of European Fascism, strong centralized nation states were a recent phenomena. Italy for example, where the prototypical Fascist approach was carried out in the modern context, was not unified until 1871. In other words, it was at this time that disparate peoples living in different states across the Italian peninsula, who adhered to different traditions, had their identities subordinated to a political unit of an unfamiliar scope they yielded little influence over.

Indeed, Italy had been ruled by a strong centralized power before. It was first united under the Roman Empire and was later ruled by the Franks, a neglectful foreign power that took little interest in governing the territory properly, which ultimately led to an outcome that helps elucidate a critical point: when more or less left to their own devices, the different peoples of Italy organized themselves into small city states. As such, they did not see themselves in terms of the singular unified identity that had previously been foisted upon them.

Italy would remain decentralized for nearly one thousand years until proto-nationalist thinkers began emerging in opposition to Austrian rule following the French Revolution. These thinkers were eventually aided by Giuseppe Mazzini, a leading figure in the Italian revolutionary movement characterized by his ardent support for Republicanism and rejection of Enlightenment principles. Mazzini cannot be so easily categorized however, and perhaps can be more accurately described as a subversive Jacobin-style social engineer who would come to support democracy and political equality for women.

Eventually, after three Wars of Independence consequently aided in some cases by the French, who had undergone their own social transformation decades prior, the unification of Italy was complete with the capture of Rome and its designation as capital in 1871. Fast forward to the end of WWI and Italy found itself in a period of economic turmoil. During 1919 and 1920, which were known as “the two red years,” radical Socialist, Anarchist, and Unionist groups seized factories and agricultural operations, engaged in thousands of strikes, and established factory councils that planned production before they ultimately failed to engage in full scale revolution.

As a result, the left reaped the consequences of the rising Black Shirts, which eventually culminated with Mussolini’s march on Rome in 1922 that took control of the government. After seizing power, the Revolutionary Fascist Party became the National Fascist Party, which included a large contingent of ex-socialists and even a strong feminist wing that had been promised things like equal voting rights. One might expect Italian Fascists to attempt to revive the world that existed in their country before the French Revolution, but they were actually quite progressive, and rationalized that a forward looking approach to Nationalism would help bring the Italian people and their country into the modern world.

Part of this approach would include adherence to the post-unification revolutionary paradigm that neglected distinct regional and cultural identity in favor of imperial aims and a doctrine that would ultimately supplant tradition with spooky spiritual ideas about the state. Arguably, the only thing traditional about Mussolini’s Fascist regime was it’s use of ancient Roman aesthetic. Even where it might be argued that a reactionary or even conservative approach was taken in regard to traditional Italian institutions like the Catholic Church and Royal Monarchy, a brief inquiry reveals that any alliance with such grew mostly out of tactical or practical necessity.

The Fascist movement was actually substantially anti-clerical until the mid 1920s when Mussolini recognized the value of the Catholic Church’s influence on Italian society. In 1929, the Lateran Treaty was signed, which gave Vatican City status as a sovereign micro-state and provided for the reciprocal recognition of Italy as a legitimate state by the papacy. The agreement included territorial compensations, the introduction of Catholic curriculum in public schools, and the transfer of 50 Million British Pounds.

Likewise, Fascists initially denounced the Italian Monarchy in support of Republicanism until Mussolini strategically embraced the former in 1922 in order to garner establishment support in opposition to the existing liberal constitutional order. Italy’s military was loyal to the King (Victor Emmanuel III) making an overthrow attempt unwise and a move sure to undermine the Fascist regime’s historical continuity and legitimacy. Later however, Mussolini would drastically decrease the power of the King by creating a position that granted himself equal legal authority over the military, which more or less relegated the position of Monarch to that of a mere figurehead.

It is also said that Mussolini had private plans to eliminate the Monarchy altogether before naming himself the sole head of state of a new republic, but the outcome of WWII would ensure that never occurred. The prototypical example of Fascism in Italy, which would be adopted to varying degrees elsewhere in Europe, is instructive in the regard that it shows how the exultation of a purported “natural order” by modern adherents in actuality involved innovation after innovation by the Fascist regime against the country’s traditional hierarchical institutions. In the end, the Italian Fascist regime had subordinated unique regional cultural expressions to a progressive nationalist view that conceptualized what it meant to be an Italian under the auspices of a spiritual, and even religious idea that Mussolini called “the fascist conception of life.”

In other words, an alien idea unlike that which existed prior gripped the working people of Italy through the Fascist government. Just to be clear, the merits or tactical imperatives embodied by Fascism were not what was under consideration here. In this brief critique, the only question of pertinence is, did Italian Fascism promote adherence to a natural order? The cursory historical evidence provided unequivocally affirms, no. Likewise, the same can be said regarding the implementation of Fascism in almost every other historical context. For those seeking to allow for an organic natural order while preserving the unique cultural identities that exist in the United States, Fascism is not the answer.

Audio version:

  • Max Sand