Establishing a modest nomenclature is good, especially when it is derived in a straightforward manner.
First a precision. What you call right wing in the sense of the French Revolution is currently designated as reactionary. Many reactionary ideas are also branded as fascistic because they were coopted by Mussolini and Hitler. For instance organising a pluralistic economy with separate realms for the commerce, competitive production (for consumer goods), socialised production (for the construction of houses), common goods, etc. In London and Paris, reactionary, fascistic sounding ideas are forbidden in polite society, even behind closed doors; from my experience.
Second a question. In the current state of affairs most of "grassroots" activism is falsely so. Many people have observed that the "caritative" or "philantropic" complex is in the hands of the same managerial class which selects people with ideas that are in line with their goals and the goals of the state : such people receive funds, visibility, and organisational help which draws other activists looking for change to these selected groups. I view such activist groups as part of the devitalised institutions of the mass society. Hence the question : is the current mass society a form of totalitarianism ?
Nice to hear from you in the comments section. Contributions are always appreciated. It seems to me there’s three main lines of thought in your comment. I’ll respond in reverse order, as I think that will allow me to be most economical in responding.
There is a risk of a syllogistic fallacy, here. Certainly, I’d expect all totalitarian societies to be mass societies. It certainly wouldn’t be true to say that all mass societies are totalitarian ones. Mass society is composed of a symbiosis – that spatialist hegemony wants us to think of as a dichotomy – between centralist sovereignty and deracinated, atomized individuals. So, while a totalitarian regime might be at one end of the spectrum, a Hoppe-like anarcho-capitalist regime (if such a thing were possible in any condition other than fleeting historical contingency) of atomized individuals would be at the other end of that spectrum.
And of course I agree that under the spatialist regime of managerial liberalism, what is attempted to be passed off as particularistic pluralism is usually an expression of artificial negativity and bureaucratic paternalism.
As to your proposal that what I call “right” is currently designated as reactionary, I’m not so convinced. A lot of people who openly embrace that designation – I’m thinking of the fans of Curtis Yarvin or Charles Haywood – enthusiastically invoke the virtue of what they anticipate as a coming Red Caesar. Such historical figures – from Cleisthenes to Gaius Julius himself, on through Napoleon to even Hitler – have never been rightwing in the pluralist, medieval corporatist sense in which I use that term. As we’ve seen with Mack Walker’s analysis of the German hometowns, and will see in a forthcoming post on Grossi’s analysis of European law under the fascists: the latter may have been adept at employing the rhetoric of gemeinschaft and tradition, but their actual policies were always directed at eradicating any pluralism or particularity which was not firmly in the grip of their regime.
So, I don’t see “reactionary” as a promising or valuable alternative to insisting (however much of a voice in the wilderness I may be) upon a recovery of the original meaning of the term “right.” Hope that addresses everything. Thanks again for your contribution to the comments.
Thank you for your thoughtful answer. One more question. Could you point me to a definition or description of artificial negativity ? I believe that I misunderstand the concept.
I've referenced it occasionally on this substack. I believe the first time was in the post at the URL listed below. There's also sources there for anyone who wanted to dig deeper into it.
Thank you Evolved Psyché
Establishing a modest nomenclature is good, especially when it is derived in a straightforward manner.
First a precision. What you call right wing in the sense of the French Revolution is currently designated as reactionary. Many reactionary ideas are also branded as fascistic because they were coopted by Mussolini and Hitler. For instance organising a pluralistic economy with separate realms for the commerce, competitive production (for consumer goods), socialised production (for the construction of houses), common goods, etc. In London and Paris, reactionary, fascistic sounding ideas are forbidden in polite society, even behind closed doors; from my experience.
Second a question. In the current state of affairs most of "grassroots" activism is falsely so. Many people have observed that the "caritative" or "philantropic" complex is in the hands of the same managerial class which selects people with ideas that are in line with their goals and the goals of the state : such people receive funds, visibility, and organisational help which draws other activists looking for change to these selected groups. I view such activist groups as part of the devitalised institutions of the mass society. Hence the question : is the current mass society a form of totalitarianism ?
Hello Archangel
Nice to hear from you in the comments section. Contributions are always appreciated. It seems to me there’s three main lines of thought in your comment. I’ll respond in reverse order, as I think that will allow me to be most economical in responding.
There is a risk of a syllogistic fallacy, here. Certainly, I’d expect all totalitarian societies to be mass societies. It certainly wouldn’t be true to say that all mass societies are totalitarian ones. Mass society is composed of a symbiosis – that spatialist hegemony wants us to think of as a dichotomy – between centralist sovereignty and deracinated, atomized individuals. So, while a totalitarian regime might be at one end of the spectrum, a Hoppe-like anarcho-capitalist regime (if such a thing were possible in any condition other than fleeting historical contingency) of atomized individuals would be at the other end of that spectrum.
And of course I agree that under the spatialist regime of managerial liberalism, what is attempted to be passed off as particularistic pluralism is usually an expression of artificial negativity and bureaucratic paternalism.
As to your proposal that what I call “right” is currently designated as reactionary, I’m not so convinced. A lot of people who openly embrace that designation – I’m thinking of the fans of Curtis Yarvin or Charles Haywood – enthusiastically invoke the virtue of what they anticipate as a coming Red Caesar. Such historical figures – from Cleisthenes to Gaius Julius himself, on through Napoleon to even Hitler – have never been rightwing in the pluralist, medieval corporatist sense in which I use that term. As we’ve seen with Mack Walker’s analysis of the German hometowns, and will see in a forthcoming post on Grossi’s analysis of European law under the fascists: the latter may have been adept at employing the rhetoric of gemeinschaft and tradition, but their actual policies were always directed at eradicating any pluralism or particularity which was not firmly in the grip of their regime.
So, I don’t see “reactionary” as a promising or valuable alternative to insisting (however much of a voice in the wilderness I may be) upon a recovery of the original meaning of the term “right.” Hope that addresses everything. Thanks again for your contribution to the comments.
Thank you for your thoughtful answer. One more question. Could you point me to a definition or description of artificial negativity ? I believe that I misunderstand the concept.
I've referenced it occasionally on this substack. I believe the first time was in the post at the URL listed below. There's also sources there for anyone who wanted to dig deeper into it.
https://thecirculationofelites.substack.com/p/managerial-liberalisms-clandestine
Cheers.
Great choices innovating nomenclature.