What Makes a State 'Organic'?

[Siegfried]

I wholeheartedly agree. Most states are artificially and arbitrarily constructed. They are non-organic entities.

Constantin

What characterizes an organic State, according to you?

[ogenoct]

What characterizes an organic State, according to you?

A state based on the bond of blood - a racial state.

Constantin

[Siegfried]

A state based on the bond of blood - a racial state.

Though I would agree that a State has to be monoracial in order to be organic (or ideal), I do not believe that is the sole feature. What about the relation between the masses and the leaders? The scope of authority? Form and character of the State's organs? Separation (or unity?) of Church and State? I honestly do not yet have clear answers (only vague ideas), but I do think these questions are important if we are to put forward an alternative to modern society.

[ogenoct]

Though I would agree that a State has to be monoracial in order to be organic (or ideal), I do not believe that is the sole feature. What about the relation between the masses and the leaders? The scope of authority? Form and character of the State's organs? I honestly do not yet have clear answers (only vague ideas), but I do think these questions are important if we are to put forward an alternative to modern society.

I believe that the leader of an ideal state should represent the archetype of the masses' aspirations. He should emphasize the commonality between the various members of the state, be it racial or political. A good example of such a state in practice is North Korea - a nation based on ethnic pride and socialist achievements.

Constantin

[Siegfried]

I believe that the leader of an ideal state should represent the archetype of the masses' aspirations. He should emphasize the commonality between the various members of the state, be it racial or political. A good example of such a state in practice is North Korea - a nation based on ethnic pride and socialist achievements.

Constantin

So you think a leader's authority is to be justified through the masses? An interesting viewpoint, though some would disagree with you. Nietzsche, for example, stated that the elite does not exist for the sake of the masses, but the masses for the sake of the elite. This idea is found in a somewhat altered form in Italian fascist doctrine; the nation does not create the State, but the State creates the nation, according to them. Put in a more Evolian way; a spiritual elite affirms itself over a mass of people, thereby bestowing form and meaning upon the masses. I find this latter view rather appealing, especially if these masses share an ethnoracial identity to ensure an organic foundation of the rising nation.

[Jack]

Unity of Religion and State (common outlook and god/s, with the elite being the leaders of the religion), unity of the masses and the elite in a common chain of command without resentment on behalf of the masses, national pride, fraternity.

[Moody]

To use the word 'organic' in relation to the State is metaphorical.
It means that the State is LIKE an organism [such as a human being].

The conception of the State as being like a human being is familiar from renaissance sources; the feet represent the slaves, hands the farmers, head the king etc., etc.,

This is all based on the essentially ancient theory that everything in the universe complies to such an Order - as above so below; and that the microcosm [i.e., a single organism] is mirrored in the macrocosm [i.e., the State].

From this perspective then, it is not so much that the Fascist State alone is organic, but rather that it represents a particular type of organism.
The multiracial liberal State is one kind of organism, the National Socialist State is another etc., etc.,

So then it comes down to the type of organism one wishes to compare one's State to!

Which organism?
This ...



Or this ...



Or maybe ...



Ah - this ..?

[FadeTheButcher]

What characterizes an organic State, according to you?

The question can only be answered by having some conception of what constitutes a non-organic state. I would associate a non-organic state with the hyper-individualism of late capitalist Anglo-Saxon societies and the condition of social anomie and alienation they produce. The freedom of the individual is the fundamental organising principle of such a (libertarian) polity. Indeed, the individual is held to exist prior to the community in non-organic states. Communities are simply voluntary political associations of individuals who exchange their natural liberties for civil liberties (e.g., the social contract theory). Since individuals themselves create communities to secure certain ends, they are free to dissolve such communities when it suits their purposes.

The organic state (and this a metaphor that should not be taken literally), on the other hand, would be organised along communitarian lines. Communitarians hold that communities exist prior to individuals and that the central organising principle of the polity should be the virtuous pursuit of the common good of the community (see Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue). Indeed, the individual does not exist prior to the community at all, he is born into the community and socialized into its customs. Communitarians agree with Aristotle that man is a social being. The individual does not even think by himself. Instead, thinking is something that people do together. The concepts the individual uses to understand the world (and even himself) are imparted to him by the culture which unites him with other members of his community (which is why such cultures should be preserved). Original thought is actually quite rare. These social bonds and traditions are like a sort of rich tapestry that is passed down from generation to generation. For communitarians, this is the souce of all meaning in life. So in summa, the defining trait of the organic state would be a very high degree of connectedness between its members and rootedness (Bodenständigkeit) in particular ways of life. The organic state privileges the common good of the community above the good of the lone individual. The inorganic state privileges the good of the individual above the common good of the community.

[Moody]

The question can only be answered by having some conception of what constitutes a non-organic state. I would associate a non-organic state with the hyper-individualism of late capitalist Anglo-Saxon societies and the condition of social anomie and alienation they produce.

But this hyper-individualism is rather an infection of the organism which is the state.
The Anglo-Saxon societies [UK and USA] are both organic in conception/ origin.
It is the THEORY of Individualism and the concomitant attack on tradition and race which is infecting these organisms.
When [if] they are finally destroyed by this infection, then they will be non-states, and therefore 'non-organic' only by that token.
However, I contend that the state qua state is an organic conception.
All states are organic.

The freedom of the individual is the fundamental organising principle of such a (libertarian) polity.

Again, I think it is rather a DISorganising principle.
It is a parasite as it NEEDS the organic body of the state in order to exist.

Indeed, the individual is held to exist prior to the community in non-organic states. Communities are simply voluntary political associations of individuals who exchange their natural liberties for civil liberties (e.g., the social contract theory). Since individuals themselves create communities to secure certain ends, they are free to dissolve such communities when it suits their purposes.

Yes, but this is just a theory with little to recommend it. It is a theory which comes late into the intellectual current of the state, in its decline.
Non-Organic Individualism is a SYMPTOM of decadence.