[_yt0l]

>It has little ideological substance

Fascism is an attempt to preserve tradition and meaning in an increasingly chaotic and senseless world. It creates order by demanding a return to organic hierarchical structures and by eliminating threats to a meaningful existence. Fascism is clearly incompatible with modern values which place the individual first. Individualism atomizes people rather than seeing them as part of a whole, and indeed today people lack the feeling of togetherness that is brought about by striving collectively for a higher cause. Some people can experience it fleetingly in the modern world—soldiers, for example—but it’s rare that a fire rages within anybody anymore. Everyone dedicates their lives working toward some cause and under some underlying pretense, but what is it that gives your life’s work meaning and to what end does your effort go? Now put yourself in the shoes of the teenagers who are so seduced by fascism or any other system that promises to give meaning to life. It’s not hard to imagine that in those turbulent formative years one would favor a way of life that, on one hand connects you to your past (culturally, geographically, spiritually), and on the other hand provides some hope that your efforts today are not going to be in vain—what meaning does your life’s work have if you expect the next generation to tear it down? You say fascism has little ideological substance. Its substance, to use your frame, is the preservation of meaning. Odds are, your ideology is rooted in modern norms that stand at odds with nature. They deprive the world of meaning. I would argue that that is worse than fascism.

[boapnuaput]

This is an interesting cryptofascist argument: The world has meaning, and denying that meaning is an artifice which leads to alienation and atomization.

A counterpoint: There is obviously no such thing as meaning in the traditional/religious/corporatist sense. Chomsky, Wittgenstein, Gödel, Tarski, etc. hammered this particular peg into the ground last century.[0] Additionally, the natural/artificial divide doesn't matter; there is no such thing as an artificial society.[1] Therefore this "return to organic hierarchical structures" is a fascist resurrection myth, and "eliminating threats to a meaningful existence" is fascist fear of the Other.[2]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski's_undefinability_theore... is a reasonable entrypoint to these concepts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto...

[antepodius]

Different societies can be more or less functional with respect to a given set of values.

And besides, if someone complains about something being artificial, I'm not sure what matters is the appeal to nature so much as complaining about the thing being rigid and insufficient.

The word 'fascist' in your post doesn't seem to mean much. I can replace it with 'bad' and it doesn't seem the change the meaning.

"this [...] is a bad resurrection myth, and [...] is a bad fear of the Other."