Post by Niceto Alcalá-Zamora (Conrica) on Sept 8, 2011 22:25:06 GMT
The world-view put forth by the Spanish Falange proves that it is at its core, an anti-enlightenment creed; with all that that entails
Basic Points
If one reads the views published by what Falangists call 'el Aussente' ('the absent one') one can easily identify clear examples of a philosophy distinctly anti-enlightenment. A creed which revels in not just a rejection of a particular ethical structure, but more fundamentally; a rejection of the individual whose realisation is inherently entwined with enlightenment-driven philosophical discourses.
In Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera ('el aussente') own words, the Rousseau-inspired belief in popular sovereignty could only ever lead to a state where one could
[1]
Note that when he passed those words, his intention was not merely to comment on the worst aspects of laissez faire liberal capitalism. But more specifically, to argue that liberal values as a whole were to fault.
Jose Antonio, and the Falangisma he gave birth to, continue to use the language of solidarity to mask their attack on enlightenment concepts. Be under no illusions, men like Jose Antonio didn't accept the idea that people should, no an acceptable extent[2], be free to lead their own version of 'the good life'. No, men like Jose Antonio demanded the subjegation of the populace to the needs of the totalitarian state-organism.[3]
To illustrate this Falangist rejection of the enlightenment creed whereby individuals, and popular sovereignty are paramount, let me cite Jose Antonio's exact words once more,
[4]
Now of the various points to comment upon here, the most immediate is the main thrust of argument. Jose Antonio - founder of Falange Espanol - is maintaining that everyone, and everything is secondary to the 'universal' state. That meaning, individuals and their needs come second to the needs of 'the state'. That class injustice, that party-politics; all of that is to either be subservient to 'the state'; or entirely abolished (as with parliamentary, party-based democracy).
I put it to you that there is no other term for this creed than state-worship. Ironically, it is something the far-right is so very ready to accuse us leftwingers of! But they themselves hero-worship the sheer blunt power and imagery of 'state' and 'nation'.
Note that this also means any self-determination on the part of regional nationalists such as Basque nationalists is not just unacceptable, but actively unpatriotic. Jose Antonio and the Falange are on record, as the quotation above (no.4) illustrates, that independentist movements are unacceptable. And worryingly, this Falangist creed have no qualms about the utilisation of violence either[5] These falangists revelled at the prospect of violence to enforce their 'fatherland's unity'!
[6]
Thus, to sum up this short article, it is self-evident that the Falangist philosophy is one of violence, of super-imposed state worship. Beyond these banal anti-intellectual notions however, it is a creed desiring to abolish popular sovereignty - the Rousseaunian belief in the fundamental sovereignty of the people.
If anything can disqualify a movement, and its philosophy from being apart of the proud enlightenment legacy, it is surely a refusal to accept popular sovereignty? After all, without it, one effectively abolishes the right of each individual to lead their own version of the good life, free from harm (or the inflicting of harm) on or from others.
If anything can justify out solidarity against the forces of fascism, it is our belief in the enlightenment, and the subsequent philosophies which imbue its truest spirit.
[1] Selected Writings, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, edit Hugh Thomas, pg 51
[2] 'Acceptable extent' equating the harm principle, where anyone may be free to act as they will, provided they inflict no harm on others
[3] Selected Writings, ibid, pg 54
[4] ibid
[5] ibid, pg 56
[6] Jose Antonio, his speech at the founding of the Falange, at the Teatro Comedia, Madrid; Oct 29th, 1933
Basic Points
If one reads the views published by what Falangists call 'el Aussente' ('the absent one') one can easily identify clear examples of a philosophy distinctly anti-enlightenment. A creed which revels in not just a rejection of a particular ethical structure, but more fundamentally; a rejection of the individual whose realisation is inherently entwined with enlightenment-driven philosophical discourses.
In Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera ('el aussente') own words, the Rousseau-inspired belief in popular sovereignty could only ever lead to a state where one could
"die of hunger in the midst of the utmost liberal dignity"
Note that when he passed those words, his intention was not merely to comment on the worst aspects of laissez faire liberal capitalism. But more specifically, to argue that liberal values as a whole were to fault.
Jose Antonio, and the Falangisma he gave birth to, continue to use the language of solidarity to mask their attack on enlightenment concepts. Be under no illusions, men like Jose Antonio didn't accept the idea that people should, no an acceptable extent[2], be free to lead their own version of 'the good life'. No, men like Jose Antonio demanded the subjegation of the populace to the needs of the totalitarian state-organism.[3]
To illustrate this Falangist rejection of the enlightenment creed whereby individuals, and popular sovereignty are paramount, let me cite Jose Antonio's exact words once more,
"The nation is an absolute whole, harbouring all individuals and classes; the nation cannot be the domain of the strongest class or of the left, or of the best organised party. The nation is a transcendental synthesis, an indivisible synthesis with a finality of its own; and what we want to see of the movement of this day [Falange Espanol]; and of the state it will create, being the effective, the authoritarian, tool of what is an indisputable whole: that permanent, irrevocable unit we call fatherland and nation"
Now of the various points to comment upon here, the most immediate is the main thrust of argument. Jose Antonio - founder of Falange Espanol - is maintaining that everyone, and everything is secondary to the 'universal' state. That meaning, individuals and their needs come second to the needs of 'the state'. That class injustice, that party-politics; all of that is to either be subservient to 'the state'; or entirely abolished (as with parliamentary, party-based democracy).
I put it to you that there is no other term for this creed than state-worship. Ironically, it is something the far-right is so very ready to accuse us leftwingers of! But they themselves hero-worship the sheer blunt power and imagery of 'state' and 'nation'.
Note that this also means any self-determination on the part of regional nationalists such as Basque nationalists is not just unacceptable, but actively unpatriotic. Jose Antonio and the Falange are on record, as the quotation above (no.4) illustrates, that independentist movements are unacceptable. And worryingly, this Falangist creed have no qualms about the utilisation of violence either[5] These falangists revelled at the prospect of violence to enforce their 'fatherland's unity'!
"And we want, finally, that, if at any time these things can only be achieved through violence, we shall not stop short of violence"
Thus, to sum up this short article, it is self-evident that the Falangist philosophy is one of violence, of super-imposed state worship. Beyond these banal anti-intellectual notions however, it is a creed desiring to abolish popular sovereignty - the Rousseaunian belief in the fundamental sovereignty of the people.
If anything can disqualify a movement, and its philosophy from being apart of the proud enlightenment legacy, it is surely a refusal to accept popular sovereignty? After all, without it, one effectively abolishes the right of each individual to lead their own version of the good life, free from harm (or the inflicting of harm) on or from others.
If anything can justify out solidarity against the forces of fascism, it is our belief in the enlightenment, and the subsequent philosophies which imbue its truest spirit.
[1] Selected Writings, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, edit Hugh Thomas, pg 51
[2] 'Acceptable extent' equating the harm principle, where anyone may be free to act as they will, provided they inflict no harm on others
[3] Selected Writings, ibid, pg 54
[4] ibid
[5] ibid, pg 56
[6] Jose Antonio, his speech at the founding of the Falange, at the Teatro Comedia, Madrid; Oct 29th, 1933
