Fascism is Heroarchy

[CharlesPhipps]

I used to more unambiguously call myself an Anarchist, but it is exactly this attitude that it's metaphysically impossible for a State to ever do any good that has turned me off to a lot of Anarchist philosophy.

I mean, yes, being an anarchist is viewing the state as an inherent failure to begin with. The idea of being an anarchist is to remove the ability of any power over the individual while also finding the balance to figure out a way to protect the individual. Which may well be an impossible thread to needle but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong to note the genuine systemic problems of law enforcement as well as power structures in general.

Which plays into the "hero" matter that there is a constant tension between the public versus the state. Robin Hood before Spider-Man is the perfect example as a "hero of the people" is viewed as fundamentally opposed to the state (Sheriff, King).

I would ideally like no State, and I agree with Anarchist Skepticism of the Marxist notion that the State would just wither away on it's own once Class has been abolished. But I do think there are Government and even Kings who's actions have however flawed been an overall Net positive. From David to Cyrus to Marius to Constans and Valentinian I. I'm even an apologized for Oliver Cromwell and the Napoleons and have very nuanced thoughts on Stalin.

As far as ML Regimes that currently go however I only have any fondness for Cuba and Vietnam.

In real life, people can do both good and bad but historical figures very often are dependent on where you're standing due to human tribalism so any hero is often vilified by a more globalist approach.

For example: Napoleon killed tens of thousands of Europeans in wars of conquest that ended up being almost entirely reversed and was considered the greatest villain of Europe for centuries. However, people still think he was awesome because of his reforms and how badass he was.

However, he's also the dude who re-legalized slavery and most of the things he gets credit for was the better part of the Revolution he preserved.

Or TLDR, "History is a story and who the good guys and bad guys are who is doing the telling."

[MithrandirOlorin]

How "Bad Ass" Napoleon was was overrated, when I first starting reading about him I was shocked how many battle lost even early on, nothing compared to Alexander who never lost.

He preserved much of the Good of the Revolution because was a product of it, not the best outcome it could have had but way better then if Robespierre or the Directory had continued. Another good he did was help lead the way in Emancipating The Jews, something that remained in place even in the conquests eventually lost.

I actually consider Napoleon III a far more fascinating character, considered less successful then the first because he had great Military accomplishments but Domestically he was even more progressive.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Classical heroism is more divine oriented while modern heroism is subject to modernist standards instead. If a hero did something bad back in the day it was judged against the purpose of the action which would be good.

I think anti heroes aren’t really a distinction for classical, which isn’t much of a dilemma for consideration if heroism is in the scope of battle or warfare as classical heroism is.

Speaking as a guy who took a lot of mythology classes, who came up with this? I feel like there was an agenda there because it attempts to ignore the fact that heroes of Greek Mythology routinely met tragic and horrifying ends BECAUSE they were assholes.

One example being that Medea being cheated on and getting her revenge was actually the subject of "fix fic" (where she marries Achilles in the afterlife) centuries later because there was a general consensus she was treated shitilly by her husband.

Not sure what the issue is. I didn’t say justice doesn’t apply to them, but they probably wouldn’t be considered heroic if they did that in modern times based on modern conception of heroes.

[CmdrKing]

For example: Napoleon killed tens of thousands of Europeans in wars of conquest that ended up being almost entirely reversed and was considered the greatest villain of Europe for centuries. However, people still think he was awesome because of his reforms and how badass he was.

However, he's also the dude who re-legalized slavery and most of the things he gets credit for was the better part of the Revolution he preserved.

Or TLDR, "History is a story and who the good guys and bad guys are who is doing the telling."

Bit of a tangent, but perhaps relevant to the overall topic.

I think another contributing factor to this is the Revolution largely was a complete failure. The idealists and theorists among the revolutionaries either a) immediately failed the courage of their convictions or more often b) were driven out/killed by Robespierre and his people. As often happens in a violent revolution, as the dust settled it wasn't the people skilled in statecraft that took charge but those who had always been in the revolution to place themselves in the seats of power. So comparatively, Napoleon retaining some of the de jure aspects of the revolution that were only selectively applied even while snuffing out the original spirit of the revolution was much more stable while still being a step up from the days of the monarchy.

(None of which is meant to say Napoleon was Good, Actually, moreso just I can see how history regarded him the way it did beyond simple Great Man theory.)

Anyway, more relevantly I think there's a lot of overlap between the governments that emerge from revolutions and Fascism, and it has a lot to do with this sorta pattern where the winners of the ensuing chaos tend to be those that promise the most pain to the former rulers rather than those that are most driven to help the people. You see it with, say, Stalin and Mao most prominently. While not every such revolution ends up quite that way, and you could argue that the definition of Fascism should include the sort of usurpation of power Hitler managed through a mix of legitimate and corrupt means, it is something that's useful to think about in this context.

[MithrandirOlorin]

No The Revolution wasn't a complete failure, France never went back to be exactly how it was before. The foundations it laid were the basis of future Revolutions both in France and Elsewhere.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

A few people might consider him a hero, but modern standards are going to judge anything you did wrong in its own court of public opinion. It’s much more complex when the survival of your country isn’t the entire scope of conflict. After the industrial revolution nations are much more familiar with each other now. We can weigh principles of actions much more accordingly now.

[MithrandirOlorin]

Condemning the French Revolution is a fundamentally reactionary ideology, popularized by people who to discredit all Leftism because of the violence mostly committed by the Centrists.

[CmdrKing]

When your Revolution was so captured by power-hungry ghouls that the next leader was your top general who dispatched you en route to declaring himself Emperor, I can only describe it as a catastrophic failure. That Napoleon had enough respect for his subordinates to want to secure their rights and thus retained portions of the revolutionary constitution was a complete stoke of luck.

The point isn’t to denigrate the goals of revolutions but instead to learn from them. Some revolutions do not exhibit this pattern! But overwhelmingly they do in revolutions within historic empires.

One way to think of fascism is as the drive to empire appropriating revolutionary fervor and, in so doing, taking on the uglier aspects of national identity and turning it into a desire to exterminate that which does not suit the vision of a strong, imperial people. In that light, nationalist usurping an ongoing revolution and placing themselves at its head and ignoring the goals of revolution is an obvious danger, one that must be actively guarded against. Trust not Stalin, who speaks for The People but does not heed their will.

[Madner Kami]

Condemning the French Revolution is a fundamentally reactionary ideology, popularized by people who to discredit all Leftism because of the violence mostly committed by the Centrists.

Centrists? You're certainly making a joke there, right?

[MithrandirOlorin]

Condemning the French Revolution is a fundamentally reactionary ideology, popularized by people who to discredit all Leftism because of the violence mostly committed by the Centrists.

Centrists? You're certainly making a joke there, right?

I'm not, The Directory actually killed more people then the prior more Radical phases of The Terror.

And even those Radicals were not Radicals by a modern standard, they were the Atheist Free Market Liberals and then Robespierre who changed his mind what he believed every few weeks. The people who'd be Leftists by a modern Standard were mostly among the Girondins.