Horizon

I keep wondering how America rates internationally on the scales of xenophobia, racism, sexism and so on. I wonder if anyone's ever tried to compile any data on this.

From the summary: "...mutually-reinforcing ideological tenets of Fascism: militarism, imperialism, corporate statism, state-sponsored religion, male dominance, irrationalism, and mass propaganda."

Can anyone explain how the sentence makes less sense if you replace "Fascism" with either "Communism" or "Stalinism"?

It must be the bit about state-sponsored religion.

That's possible, though state-sponsored irreligion might just be nearly the same thing. I did gather that "male dominance" wasn't a part of the official Soviet ideology in the same way it was under various fascisms. Equality may not have gotten beyond tokenism, but tokenism is still a nod towards an ideal.

Seriously, though, it's easy enough to make fun of the Left for claims that we're in the aftermath of the Reichstag fire, but don't you see the same silly metaphor among the parts of the Right that think it's always Munich?

I did gather that "male dominance" wasn't a part of the official Soviet ideology in the same way it was under various fascisms. Equality may not have gotten beyond tokenism, but tokenism is still a nod towards an ideal.

Not that I'm an expert, but I doubt that any of the jewish people who moved to the USSR, lured by promises of a jewish homeland, would agree that tokenism is worth much. Just as an example.

And, well, the irreligion thing is a major stretch but I'm sure you know that.

But I do agree on the right-Munich point. Each side has their defining metaphors, you might say, which keep getting applied endlessly to whatever sitaution obtains at the moment. It is silly but seemingly unavoidable.

On the other hand, this argument doesn't seem nearly as silly as it should, or as it would have seemed a few years ago.

[T]he irreligion thing is a major stretch but I'm sure you know that.

To the extent that religion is different from irreligion, sure. But to the extent that enforcement of the same by a totalitarian government does violence to a person's conscience, I don't see much difference.

On the other hand, this argument doesn't seem nearly as silly as it should, or as it would have seemed a few years ago.

In a sense you're right, in that most of the things Lindsay lists give the rest of us the heebie-jeebies as well. But is the F-word really the most applicable here?

When I'm feeling paranoid, I worry that the US is heading towards a new Augustan Principate. I don't see any reason that the analogy of Italy in the 20s BC is less accurate than the analogy of Italy in the 1920s AD.

In a sense you're right, in that most of the things Lindsay lists give the rest of us the heebie-jeebies as well. But is the F-word really the most applicable here?

And that's the point as far as I'm concerned. There are many things that worry me about the way America is developing, but whatever it's developing into, it's not fascism. Raising the hoary specter of 1933 again - and again - and again - just undermines credibility.

Raising the hoary specter of 1933 again - and again - and again - just undermines credibility.

Right. And it is unnecessary. But it is as if in the act of comparing something to fascism one damns it. The label has its own power.

I think you can see some evidence of that in the way the author protests repeatedly that she does not believe that America is or will become fascist, and then goes on to strongly imply that she does.

Oh, and another thing I find a little strange, and something which links her rhetorical strategy a little bit to the likes of the ISO, is that she throws in epiphenomena as if they were essential, defining traits, in this case patriarchalism or whatever she calls it. She might as well throw in terrible architecture while she's at it.

This is similar to the signs I see from time to time linking the war in Iraq (or really anything the ISO doesn't like) to racism and sexism. Racism is a particularly useful one, because everyone hates it. "Are you against racism? Then you must agree with everything we say," being, of course, the implication.

Hmm. If you're going to actually define fascism as distinct from authoritarianism, aren't you stuck with epiphenomena?

I mean, the reason most Americans can't tell the difference between fascism and communism (other than the window dressing) is because we concentrate on what we assume daily experience would be like under each. The quest for authenticity and romantic agrarianism at the heart of fascism may be radically different from the scientistic rationalism of communism, but from where we sit, a murdered Kulak isn't in a better position than a murdered Gypsy.

Explicit, ideological patriarchy may be an epiphenomenon of fascism, but I think that despite that, it really is a defining trait. Not the only one, but at least it's a way to differentiate European fascism from — say — Maoism.

I'm sorry, Stalinism and fascism are not equivalent. One is a betrayal of the healthy dream of human brotherhood. The other is evil all through -- root and branch and thorn.

Stalinism ... is a betrayal of the healthy dream of human brotherhood.

Human brotherhood with class enemies, sure.

So the murdered Kulak can reassure himself that his death was in service to a rationalist utopian vision, rather than a romantic one?

I said "a betrayal," didn't I?

No need to jerk yr knees quite so hard these days -- there's hardly much chance left of finding Communists under the bed.

The apologias these days are more about dead or rapidly ageing communists than live and vigorous ones. It's the defense line of the Guthrie and the Seeger groupies - no matter how blind or stupid they might have been about the USSR, well, Their Heart Was in the Right Place, wasn't it?

But if you strip fascism of its proximate applications and results then it's also a betrayal, of the healthy dreams of family and community (no less healthy than brotherhood - sorry). It wasn't "evil all through" in its barest ideological framework; only in the superstructural additions to that framework, and of course their practical application. Which suggests that those irritating details of communism can't be so wished away so lightly either.

No need to jerk yr knees quite so hard these days

That's fair.

Alan makes a reasonable point about Fascism as a "betrayal of healthy dreams". I'd probably argue the other side and claim that each system was evil all the way through, however.

I know this argument has been made before, but it's unwise to gloss over the evils of non-Stalinist communism. Would you like to have been a seminarian in Barcelona? The same forces that yielded the egalitarian euphoria Orwell experienced had already been through a bloodthirsty phase.

As an aside, much the same argument went on in the 1980s and 1990s in France about the Revolution. The traditional line was that a healthy liberal revolution had become sadly derailed by war and financial crisis, setting off the tragic extremism of 1792 onwards. Young Turks in the academy, Francois Furet most famously, emerged who claimed that the extremism was implicit in the violent rhetoric of the very first days of the revolution; the Terror was a logical inevitability rather than a contingent error. Simon Schama's _Citizens_ is a popularized version of this thesis.

Well, my own sophomoric ramblings are drawn from Gulag Archipelago, in which Solzhenytsin makes the point that the Bolshevik Revolution was a tyrrany from the start, rather than a noble experiment tragically derailed by Stalin.

Solzhenitsyn is a brilliant witness to events he observed, but if you start trusting his political philosophy you can quickly find yourself in some unpleasant company. Wasn't he among other things calling for a return to the Tsars after the Wall came down?

It's the defense line of the Guthrie and the Seeger groupies - no matter how blind or stupid they might have been about the USSR, well, Their Heart Was in the Right Place, wasn't it?

"Defense line"? Seeger's and Guthrie's work is their defense. Guthrie was one of our great poets, and Seeger is a national treasure. Their hearts were in the right place. They were over-optimistic, maybe, but neither blind nor stupid. I don't see how you can call such obviously brilliant artists "stupid." That's obviously not true. The only actual harm they ever did was to accept the CP antiwar line in 1940. They did ample good to make up for it, both before and after. America would be far worse off without them.

If it helps, as I've said before, you may wish to reflect that Christianity is a doctrine calling for humility and good works that has a dismal historical record of cruel and sanguinary hypocrisy but that has also inspired many useful lives infused with actual humility and actual good works.

Of course I'd rather find something fresher to discuss but I'm tired of just letting sneers at the egalitarian tradition go unanswered.

But if you strip fascism of its proximate applications and results then it's also a betrayal, of the healthy dreams of family and community (no less healthy than brotherhood - sorry). It wasn't "evil all through" in its barest ideological framework; only in the superstructural additions to that framework, and of course their practical application. Which suggests that those irritating details of communism can't be so wished away so lightly either.

Been thinking about that since our last exchange, partly due to having recently watched the enjoyable but disturbing Tolkien/Jackson/Wagner/Shore Ring Cycle on DVD. I mean, that bit with the beacons calling for aid across the snowy peaks and the soaring music is all the way over the top, isn't it? And when you consider the implications of a story in which the enemy soldiers are not human...?

But are the ideas of family and community really what recruit people to fascism, except in the sense that an "Us" has to be idealized in order for it to be presented as in need of defense from the "Other"? Isn't it more fear of the unfamiliar or the uncontrolled, and a desire to cover fear with the appearance of strength, control, and uniformity? Isn't it fundamentally an ideology of people who are so frightened they can't emotionally afford empathy?

I don't see how you can call such obviously brilliant artists "stupid." That's obviously not true. The only actual harm they ever did was to accept the CP antiwar line in 1940.

Martha, you ask for an example of stupidity, deny its existence, and then provide a keystone example yourself. They did a volte face right in the middle of the most dangerous period of the Nazi threat because someone in another country THAT WAS ALLIED TO HITLER told them to, abandoning their anti-fascism because it no longer accorded with the party line of a state which was already providing ample evidence of its disgusting nature to those who would pay attention. If I can't convince you that that was stupid (and I would remind you that plenty of smart and decent contemporaries of Guthrie and Seeger didn't buy the argument for a second) then clearly you're treating them as untouchable icons rather than people.

For the record, I think that on the whole much of what they did and said was admirable (heck, I like folk music). But the free pass they get from the Left about what is arguably the key event of 20th Century history seems to me special pleading of a particularly corrupting type.

But are the ideas of family and community really what recruit people to fascism ...

Yes, yes, yes, yes. For God's sake, read something like Fritzsche's "Germans into Nazis". The electoral appeal of National Socialism was not kicking people into the dust. If you miss this point you are never going to understand fascism. I'm sorry to be so didactically emphatic about this, but it drives me nuts to see otherwise clever people obsess about fascism and complettely fail to understand its appeal.

Solzhenitsyn is a brilliant witness to events he observed, but if you start trusting his political philosophy you can quickly find yourself in some unpleasant company. Wasn't he among other things calling for a return to the Tsars after the Wall came down?

I don't think so, and if I remember correctly Solzhenitsyn particularly resents this misinterpretation of his politics because he blames the last Tsar for the tragedy of 1917. He was opposed to the canonization of Nicholas II by the Orthodox Church.

Thanks for the book recommendation, Alan. It's always been a mystery to me, and I'd assumed that the growth of fascism was a combination of hyperinflation radicalizing the middle classes, reaction to things like anti-clerical provokation, and the assumption of a false dichotomy between fascism and communism.

Whereas I'd always assumed it was cultural, political and financial insecurity, a resulting craving for order, and that weird contradictory harnessing of of youthful rebelliousness on the side of traditionalism and authority.

Alan A., want to explain a bit more about Fritzsche's position, then?

Alan A., want to explain a bit more about Fritzsche's position, then?

No, I don't think so. I've suggested Fritzsche's book to you before without success. If you want to understand his argument, get it and read it. It's short and well written.

Alan, if I find the book for sale I may indeed take a look but I don't have time to go borrow or buy it this minute simply to save you the trouble of completing a half-expressed argument.

How about you explain why you yourself think the attraction of fascism isn't founded on fear?

Martha, before we wander too far down this path, would you like to clarify if by "fear" you mean "unfounded fear", or just the normal kind?

Incidentally, would you be at all interested in the Fritzsche book for a reading group selection?

Unfounded fear. Paranoid uncertainty induced by unfounded fear of the designated Other of the moment. I'm extremely sorry if that wasn't already clear.

P.S. Seriously, I'd be extremely interested to read the Fritzsche sooner or later. I do wonder if it might lead to Godwin's Law trouble as an online discussion subject but if others are interested let's try it.

Thanks for clarifying "unfounded" before we got completely off track.

My own suspicion is that some attraction to fascism was based on fears of communism that were very well founded indeed, combined with an underevaluation of the strength of bourgeois democracy as an alternative. I tend to make the same judgement with regard to why Orwell was a socialist, by the way.

-------------------------

Well, Allen Allport has read it already, and both you and I are interested in it. Perhaps in a month or so we should put it on our reading lists.

One of these days I'm going to mention how I've put Godwin's Law to work as a filter for parenting advice websites.

Godwin's Law does not operate when the subject at hand is Nazis, folks ...

But there remains my household's "no Nazis before breakfast" rule.

But Godwin's Law does apply if the subject is parenting.

And, erm, apologies for misspelling your name, Alan.