Liberalism and Anti-Fascism

[Laika]

Whilst a strict use of the term "Fascism" is thankfully still excessive to describe what is currently going on, there has been a consistent upward trend in what could be generously described as "right-wing populism". This is most obvious in the Republican Presidential Primary and particuarly Trumps campign, but he is simply the most vocal and open in asserting these views.

What is particularly difficult about this brand of "right-wing populism" is that it uses the rhetoric of freedom and rights to conceal the true measure of it's bigotry. In debates concerning homphobia, sexism and racism, the "political correctness"of the left is contrasted with the "free expression" of the far right. Any form of what could be described as "hate speech" is defended as a legitimate if regrettable form of "freedom of speech" by an individual. Another example is how the concept of "freedom of religion" has been perverted to include the right to discriminate against minorities such as gays and women.

What is happening is that many of the anti-egliatarian senitments which reject the goals of "equality of outcome" as intrinsically coercive and unnatural are having a corrosive effect on the concept of equal rights. the success of this stratedgy is that the often tyrannical ambitions of the far right to assert their values as superior are instead wrapped in the language of individual liberty. They have the "freedom" to be fascist, whereas the far left is treated as an intrisincally totalitarian force of "cultural ,marxists" trying to subvert the "freedom and democracy" that protects the far rights ability to organise, propagate and disseminate their views.

I am not a fan of violence or extremism, because even if it could be justified and be more than simply a subjective morality built on power it is simply too irrational and arbitary a force to achieve "the common good".

However, the success of this group has been in that we now live in socieities that are increasingly indistinguishable for the "totalitarian" counter-parts. the methods of totalitarian manipulation and social control have become normal and accepted in nominally "free" societies. The rise of right-wing populism does no signal the beginning of a decline, but the full realisation of the latent totalitarian potentialities that already exist in western societies. Orwell's 1984 has stopped being a warning. The legal facade of democracy and liberty is largely all that remains as it is ideologically assulted from all sides. no matter how often the far right insists they are "upholding the constitution". no matter who wins in the US presiential election, the outcome will continue to be a slide towards the right. it's possible that even if by some miracle Bernie Sanders were able to win, he would face a level of institutional opposition at least comparable to Obama's eight years in office but almost certianly greater.

As FDR put it,

"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days."

it is now difficult to distinguish those sincere individuals who defend the rights of individuals from those who abuse them and appeal to liberty in name only. My question is:

1. when do we stop treating the far right as singular individuals whose abuse of rights is inconsequential to the overall stability of the system, to the "enemy within" who is thinly cloaked in offical protestations in good intent but whose goal is to utilise the freedoms which are protected in this society to assert their supremacy and remake society in their image?
2. What measures can or should be taken to respond to them, preferably whilst maintaining the freedoms we have for so long taken for granted?
3. Or is the complacency and blindness of liberalism and its tolerance for social inequalities make it potentially a natural ally of fascism and that the only effective response is to respond to fascism, not with appeasement of "tolerance", but in kind with coercion?

let the trolling begin.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

It would be great if the liberal politicians tried to answer this question: Why has the far right become so popular? Perhaps, the answer is their impotence. It's visible in the refugee crisis and terrorism. Multiculturalism didn't work in spite of the leftist governments' effort to sweep the problems under the rug. But it's not just this. Humans are territorial animals and we tend to tribalize things, see the world through us vs them paradigm. I don't know ins and outs of the American politics but the European Union is going through the crisis. The number of euro-skeptics is increasing, people became weary and disillusioned with the EU. Furthermore, the individual countries tend to think more about their own interests than the interest of the whole united Europe. Perhaps, this is something natural. Isn't unity of nations a myth anyway? Now the United Kingdom wants to leave the EU if their conditions aren't accepted, the middle Europe countries protest against welcoming the refugees with open arms. There is also one more thing. The right wing parties promise more during the elections. Sometimes, they try to keep the promises. In Poland, the right wing party is more considerate to poorer people than the liberal party.

The political correctness is infuriating. Unless one breaks the law, one should be able to express one's views however unpopular. Criminalizing the so-called hate speech is a move toward the authoritarian regime in the name of love and tolerance. And what the hell is hate speech? It's hard to define it so the potential for abuse is there. Promoting Fascism is already illegal. Classifying National Socialists as Fascists and delegalizing them will only move these people's activity into the underground where they will be hard to control and will radicalize even more.

 

[Laika]

It would be great if the liberal politicians tried to answer this question: Why has the far right become so popular? Perhaps, the answer is their impotence. It's visible in the refugee crisis and terrorism. Multiculturalism didn't work in spite of the leftist governments' effort to sweep the problems under the rug. But it's not just this. Humans are territorial animals and we tend to tribalize things, see the world through us vs them paradigm. I don't know ins and outs of the American politics but the European Union is going through the crisis. The number of euro-skeptics is increasing, people became weary and disillusioned with the EU. Furthermore, the individual countries tend to think more about their own interests than the interest of the whole united Europe. Perhaps, this is something natural. Isn't unity of nations a myth anyway? Now the United Kingdom wants to leave the EU if their conditions aren't accepted, the middle Europe countries protest against welcoming the refugees with open arms. There is also one more thing. The right wing parties promise more during the elections. Sometimes, they try to keep the promises. In Poland, the right wing party is more considerate to poorer people than the liberal party.

The political correctness is infuriating. Unless one breaks the law, one should be able to express one's views however unpopular. Criminalizing the so-called hate speech is a move toward the authoritarian regime in the name of love and tolerance. And what the hell is hate speech? It's hard to define it so the potential for abuse is there. Promoting Fascism is already illegal. Classifying National Socialists as Fascists and delegalizing them will only move these people's activity into the underground where they will be hard to control and will radicalize even more.

thanks for replying. perhaps my OP was a little provokative but none the less I am deeply concerned of the lack of clear opposition to the far-right, particuarly in the US. it just seems that we are trapped in a state of near paralysis insisting "it can't happen here" as the signals grow ever more alarming that something is very wrong. normally, it's the far-left who takes a decisive role in such opposition but it is now simply non-existent as an effective political force. the far-right is pushing against an open door.

I included FDR's quote as I know that my own fears mean that my ability to examine this subject are far from rational, and a fair amount of my arguments against the far right are really based on comparable prejudices. But I am at loss to really know what to do. Whilst insisting on the rule of law is fair enough, it is not a neutral instrument and works just as well serving fascists as liberals. the sense of inactivity and futility as the old monsters make their reappearence felt is deeply depressing. besides mu conscience, I'm having a hard time defending liberalism at all- as no-one seems to want to stand up and make a clear, idealistic position that the far right can and should be beaten back, whatever form it takes. we just seem to be drifting aimlessly to whereever the demagogues shout the loudest. Whilst liberal in appearance,the far right is really leading public opinion. I can't shake off a deep unease at where this is all going.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

I can relate to some extent. In my country the old left is dying and the new one just can't break through. The most popular left wing party is actually a post-communist party. Most of its members were active politicians during the communist regime. Now they embrace liberalism but people stopped buying it. They won a couple of elections and the large part of the society is tired and disappointed with them. Some new leftist parties appear but they don't have enough of funds or charisma not only to win the elections but at least get to the parliament. The political scene in Poland is dominated now by four parties. The two are new ones. The three are center parties. The one that is ruling now is right wing but they aren't Nationalists. Polish Nationalists are not that influential and though a few of them managed to make a political career they became much less radical afterwards.

 

[Laika]

In the UK, the three party system has broken down, with UKIP and the Greens getting more votes but not really any seats. The Scottish Nationalists have taken Scotland in the last election. The Conservatives seem to have having a crisis over whether to stay in the EU and Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn (who is sort of a hangover from left in the 1980's) and is sort of in "nervous breakdown" mode. The Liberal Democrats were annihilated because they went in Coalition with the Conservatives back in 2010. The 30 or so tiny Communist "Parties" still haven't got there act together even after 25 years of infighting and are mainly just following Corbyn because they haven't got anything better to do.

So its just a mess. I'll probably be voting Green in 2020 but its not really any conviction involved.

Its the US election thats really bothering me. Britain can go to hell and no-one would really care. America's too big to do that.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Right-wing populism is on the rise because of the failure and death of actual conservatism. The current Conservative Party in the UK is neither conservative nor a party.

With the death of conservatism, a huge gap has been created on the topic of immigration and other social issues, a gap that can easily be filled by right-wing populists like Trump and Marine Le Pen.

There are millions of disillusioned voters whose parties have abandoned them, the majority of Conservative voters for example would very much like to leave the EU, while the Conservative Party itself is pro-EU. This is a trend across Europe and in America too with the embrace of neoliberal globalism, with open borders so corporations can acquire more low-wage workers without considering the social and cultural ramifications. Wage compression is real, people are getting fed up that they're not being listened to.

The Left won the culture war, there's no doubt about that. Conservatism is dead, but don't be too surprised by what may rise in its place.

 

[Laika]

Right-wing populism is on the rise because of the failure and death of actual conservatism. The current Conservative Party in the UK is neither conservative nor a party.

With the death of conservatism, a huge gap has been created on the topic of immigration and other social issues, a gap that can easily be filled by right-wing populists like Trump and Marine Le Pen.

There are millions of disillusioned voters whose parties have abandoned them, the majority of Conservative voters for example would very much like to leave the EU, while the Conservative Party itself is pro-EU. This is a trend across Europe and in America too with the embrace of neoliberal globalism, with open borders so corporations can acquire more low-wage workers without considering the social and cultural ramifications. Wage compression is real, people are getting fed up that they're not being listened to.

The Left won the culture war, there's no doubt about that. Conservatism is dead, but don't be too surprised by what may rise in its place.

A really great point . it would be good to actually have conservatives who are worthy of the term. they can be quite smart and are willing to compromise whereas now...errr... they are sort of a beligerent minority. its the same with the left; they aren't really "left-wing" any more, so the problems to do with income inequality, reduced upward social mobility and oppurtunity and class politics have been ignored too. the left "won" the culture war but is gutted of any revolutionary social content; they are all trying to achieve equality within capitalism which is why it can often look like such a bad fit. its a really strange time as the labels tell us almost nothing about what these people will actually do with any power.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

They have the "freedom" to be fascist, whereas the far left

Why fascism isn't rightwing and why Hitler's regime was "leftist"

is treated as an intrisincally totalitarian force of "cultural ,marxists" trying to subvert the "freedom and democracy" that protects the far rights ability to organise, propagate and disseminate their views.

Although it is certainly true that Stalin's Soviet Russia, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany were all distinct, this doesn't mean that they did not share an ideological core and a socio-political philosophy. Hence studies such as

Adler, L. K., & Paterson, T. G. (1970). Red Fascism: The Merger of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in the American Image of Totalitarianism, 1930's-1950's. The American Historical Review, 1046-1064.

Corner, P. (Ed.). (2009). Popular opinion in totalitarian regimes: fascism, Nazism, communism. Oxford University Press.

Burleigh, M. (2000). National Socialism as a political religion. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 1(2), 1-26.

Ehret, U. (2007). Understanding the Popular Appeal of Fascism, National Socialism and Soviet Communism: The Revival of Totalitarianism Theory and Political Religion. History Compass, 5(4), 1236-1267.

Geyer, M., & Fitzpatrick, S. (Eds.). (2009). Beyond totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism compared. Cambridge University Press.

Gregor, A. J. (2008). Marxism, fascism, and totalitarianism: chapters in the intellectual history of radicalism. Stanford University Press.

Kallis, A. (2002). Fascist ideology: territory and expansionism in Italy and Germany, 1922-1945. Routledge.

Kellogg, M. (2005). The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917–1945. Cambridge University Press.

von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, E. (1974). Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse. Arlington House.

Luebbert, G. M. (1991). Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy: Social Classes and the Political Origins of Regimes in Interwar Europe. Oxford University Press.

Maier, H. (2006). Political Religions and their Images: Soviet communism, Italian Fascism and German National Socialism. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 7(3), 267-281.

Orlow, D. (2009). The lure of fascism in western Europe: German Nazis, Dutch and French fascists, 1933-1939. Macmillan.

Rabinbach, A. G. (1974). Toward a Marxist Theory of Fascism and National Socialism: A Report on Developments in West Germany. New German Critique, (3), 127-153.

Rousso, H., & Golsan, R. J. (Eds.). (2004). Stalinism and nazism: history and memory compared. University of Nebraska Press.

Shenfield, S. (2001). Russian fascism: traditions, tendencies, movements. ME Sharpe.

Unger, A. L. (1974). The Totalitarian Party: Party and People in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia (International Studies). Cambridge University Press.

...and you get the idea. I'm curious as to how you are defining the ideologies in question such that they are fit into the categories you describe. For example, the Nazis were a socialist "people's" party that preached the same kind of utopian radical leftist "the people are the state" ideology that Soviet Russia did, was simply more advanced in their social policies based on the then widely accepted and promoted "science" of eugencis (by "policies" I mean the atrocity that was the Holocaust), and had none of the pomp or historical basis for the original fascist state (Italy, whose dictator despised Hitler) but had more in common with communist totalitarianism. Moreover, if we trace the history of the various socio-political philosophies that made up the totalitarian nations of the 30s and 40s and subsequently their transmission to the East, we find a common source originating from the French Revolution, concepts like Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, Marxist-like dichotomies between the workers and the bourgeoisie, and above all the conception that the people and nation are one (which inevitably meant dictatorship and totalitarian regime).

The right-wing is typically associated with conservatism, and from a philosophical and historical standpoint we find it idealized either in the promotion of monarchy and the belief that people are either base or flawed, or in the early US desire to construct a federal government bound by chains to prevent anything like a strong, nation-state regime. What we don't find among conservative writers from Hobbes to Hayek to whatever TV personality is churning out trash books and worse new coverage thanks to Fox News is anything like a belief in a worker's party and nation of the people where the state has maximal control.

 

[Laika]

Why fascism isn't rightwing and why Hitler's regime was "leftist"

Although it is certainly true that Stalin's Soviet Russia, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany were all distinct, this doesn't mean that they did not share an ideological core and a socio-political philosophy. Hence studies such as

Adler, L. K., & Paterson, T. G. (1970). Red Fascism: The Merger of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in the American Image of Totalitarianism, 1930's-1950's. The American Historical Review, 1046-1064.

Corner, P. (Ed.). (2009). Popular opinion in totalitarian regimes: fascism, Nazism, communism. Oxford University Press.

Burleigh, M. (2000). National Socialism as a political religion. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 1(2), 1-26.

Ehret, U. (2007). Understanding the Popular Appeal of Fascism, National Socialism and Soviet Communism: The Revival of Totalitarianism Theory and Political Religion. History Compass, 5(4), 1236-1267.

Geyer, M., & Fitzpatrick, S. (Eds.). (2009). Beyond totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism compared. Cambridge University Press.

Gregor, A. J. (2008). Marxism, fascism, and totalitarianism: chapters in the intellectual history of radicalism. Stanford University Press.

Kallis, A. (2002). Fascist ideology: territory and expansionism in Italy and Germany, 1922-1945. Routledge.

Kellogg, M. (2005). The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917–1945. Cambridge University Press.

von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, E. (1974). Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse. Arlington House.

Luebbert, G. M. (1991). Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy: Social Classes and the Political Origins of Regimes in Interwar Europe. Oxford University Press.

Maier, H. (2006). Political Religions and their Images: Soviet communism, Italian Fascism and German National Socialism. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 7(3), 267-281.

Orlow, D. (2009). The lure of fascism in western Europe: German Nazis, Dutch and French fascists, 1933-1939. Macmillan.

Rabinbach, A. G. (1974). Toward a Marxist Theory of Fascism and National Socialism: A Report on Developments in West Germany. New German Critique, (3), 127-153.

Rousso, H., & Golsan, R. J. (Eds.). (2004). Stalinism and nazism: history and memory compared. University of Nebraska Press.

Shenfield, S. (2001). Russian fascism: traditions, tendencies, movements. ME Sharpe.

Unger, A. L. (1974). The Totalitarian Party: Party and People in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia (International Studies). Cambridge University Press.

...and you get the idea. I'm curious as to how you are defining the ideologies in question such that they are fit into the categories you describe. For example, the Nazis were a socialist "people's" party that preached the same kind of utopian radical leftist "the people are the state" ideology that Soviet Russia did, was simply more advanced in their social policies based on the then widely accepted and promoted "science" of eugencis (by "policies" I mean the atrocity that was the Holocaust), and had none of the pomp or historical basis for the original fascist state (Italy, whose dictator despised Hitler) but had more in common with communist totalitarianism. Moreover, if we trace the history of the various socio-political philosophies that made up the totalitarian nations of the 30s and 40s and subsequently their transmission to the East, we find a common source originating from the French Revolution, concepts like Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, Marxist-like dichotomies between the workers and the bourgeoisie, and above all the conception that the people and nation are one (which inevitably meant dictatorship and totalitarian regime).

The right-wing is typically associated with conservatism, and from a philosophical and historical standpoint we find it idealized either in the promotion of monarchy and the belief that people are either base or flawed, or in the early US desire to construct a federal government bound by chains to prevent anything like a strong, nation-state regime. What we don't find among conservative writers from Hobbes to Hayek to whatever TV personality is churning out trash books and worse new coverage thanks to Fox News is anything like a belief in a worker's party and nation of the people where the state has maximal control.

I feel acute pain as I read this. This may be a long answer, so my apologies.

the origin of the term "totalitarianism" comes from Fascist Italy, where it was used to describe Mussolini's Ideal State. "The Doctorine of Fascism" was written by Gionvanni Gentile, who was a Fascist philosopher to fill the gap of a "fascist" theory. He borrowed from Hegel's concept of the state, which views the state in highly religious terms and specifically Anti-Marxist.

The applicability of the term "Totalitarianism" to Communism therefore does not logically follow. It describes the ideal concept of the enemy of Communism. Communist Ideology is MASSIVELY more complex than either Fascism or National Socialism. On the latter, Fascism and National Socialism represent distinct ideologies, as National Socialism is essentially a form of biological determinism.

The meaning of "totalitarianism" evolved however. Whilst not as relevant, there were some echoes of it in earlier criticisms of marxism theories in which the state takes on a role as an independent entity, without relation to the economic basis of society. This was most forcfully expressed in James Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution" (1941) which also had a significant influence on George Orwell's 1984, particuarly the division of the world into three super-states, one in the US, one in europe and one in asia. When Burnhan wrote it, he thought the superstates would be the US, Nazi Germany and Japan as it is in world war II. Orwell changed this to the US, Russia and China.

However the "mainstream" usage of the term comes from the Libertarian Right, notably Fredrich Hayke's "The Road to Serfdom" in which he describes how socialism "naturally" becomes a totalitarian state. To make this work, you have to ignore the existence of sustained periods of democratic socialism in the west and treat them instead as the "enemy within".

Hayek's definition represents a major overhaul in how we define the political spectrum. The French Revolution defined "right" and "left" by whether its adherents supported Social Inequality ("right") and were defending the Monarchy, or supported Social Equality ("left") and were Jacobins. However, the "libertarian" redefinition means that the "right" are supporters of highly idealised conceptions of free markets, with limited governments if not being anarchist capitalist system, where as "everything" that has a state is left-wing. So you get Democratic Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Nationalism Socialism all smeared into the same catagory. You also, nowdays, get "Islam" included. The value of Totalitarianism as a concept is purely in terms of propaganda and not in terms of it's accuracy or it's relationship to how the concept was originally defined. It is Cold War propaganda tactic.

Historians in using the concept have largely swallowed, unthinkingly, this definition of Totalitarianism and accepted the conclusion that all forms of Socialism are totalitarian and therefore that it is just a "pipe dream". What is more, when you try to understand either Communists, Nazis or Fascists from their own perspective, based on their ideologies, you get very different conceptions of what that ideal state is. These differences are not simply minor ones but had practical implications.

"Totalitarianism" as a scare word is used to equate any form of socialism with death and "freedom" with life. It represents an "Ayn Rand" approach to politics where only selfishness is a life-affirming position and any form of collectivism or self-sacrifice is harmful to the individual, not matter how small. So, even if we were to swallow this garbage, and look at the atrocities that took place; The Nazis killed Jews based on racial distinctions, The Communism killed "kualks" (or "rich peasants"). The differences in social catagories that are being killed means that Nazi atrocities fit the definition of genocide, whereas the overwhelming majority of communist killings do not. There is a debate over whether it should be terms "classicide" or "sociocide" because of the role social class plays in defining who should be killed.

Another aspect of this is that the Nazis believed that they should kill Jews because of intrinsic racial qualities. There goal was extermination. There was never any hesitation about it. Communists, whilst still mass murderers, did not believe that their enemies were intrinsically so. So they were more open to use methods of a less coercive nature to achieve their goals. The Nazis, believing that the Jews were intrinsically opposed to the Aryan Race, would kill Jews in Gas Chambers. However, the Communist definition of their social enemies meant that they were killed in mass executions, as it didn't have much to do with a single identifying trait. it boiled down to whoever opposed the government or who was suspected of doing so. You can't round that group of people up and gas them.

The final piece of that the West was directly responsible for similar acts of mass murder, war crimes, genocide, support for Fascist regiemes and right-wing military dictatorships, religious fundamentalists, (and Pol Pot after the Khmur Rogue) etc. Yet, the "power" of the definition in opposing "freedom" with totalitarianism, means that no matter how overwhelming the evidence is, liberalism gets a free pass. The American history of genocide, slavery, or the nuclear bombing of hisorshima and nagasaki, etc are simply white washed in a way that would be called "holocaust denial" or "genocide denial" if any adherent of the other ideologies even tried it. Instead, these deaths are treated as terrible "abborations" which bear no reflection on the liberal system of government as it actually existed whereas ANY crime on the part of Communists, Nazis, Fascist, is considered an "innate" qualitity of their ideology.

In other words, Totalitarianism is little better than an accusation of witchcraft or satanism, in which the intrinsically good free world may use any methods at their disposal to kill the "enemies of freedom and democracy" without it ever affecting the question of the justice of their cause. its a propaganda term so the west can kill its enemies without ever questioning the justice of doing so.

If genocide is wrong for communists and nazis, it's wrong when liberals do it. If liberals can do it, why can't Nazis? there is a whole much bigger, deeper and darker debate than "capitalism good, everyone else bad". I reject the use of "totalitarianism" as a way to create moral eqivilents between people who wanted to exterminate each other. it represents a form of projection on to communism, nazism and fascism without any burden of proof or a necessity to understand their ideologies from the inside. It is a concept which is imposed on these groups regardless as to what they say, do or believe. In practice, they are very different.

 

[buddhist]

IMO ...

Leftist belief = everyone is inherently good, and groups should be viewed and handled in light of this "fact";
Rightist belief = everyone is inherently bad, and groups should be viewed and handled in light of this "fact";
Libertarian belief = Each person is an individual mix of good and bad. There is no "group" to impose a common standard upon. Each individual is free to explore their own lives, but would be punished if they measurably trespass on the freedoms of another.

 

[LuisDantas]

when do we stop treating the far right as singular individuals whose abuse of rights is inconsequential to the overall stability of the system, to the "enemy within" who is thinly cloaked in offical protestations in good intent but whose goal is to utilise the freedoms which are protected in this society to assert their supremacy and remake society in their image?

Since at least some time ago. Perhaps ever.

What measures can or should be taken to respond to them, preferably whilst maintaining the freedoms we have for so long taken for granted?

The main worry are not the politicians themselves, who are all but entirely irrelevant. Politics will always attract dangerous nutballs, by its very nature. Attempting to curb them in their natural element is both a waste and dangerously inefficient.

Instead, we all should work at monitoring the political lifeblood and making certain that it is kept free of extremism, as a personal responsibility of all people.

The quickest-acting tools for that are individual actions, perhaps even specifically viral memes. The most effective of those involve ridicule, open and vocal challenge of the worst and most misguided expectations, transparence of the existence and level of indignation.

We should become used to mention casually and often to whoever wants to hear how immoral it is that actual politicians or candidates are proposing a literal wall against foreigners, tax protection for those already far too rich and powerful, religious discrimination as an official immigration policy, faceless bombings as a supposed peacemaking measure.

People must learn the need and the usefulness of actual shame as a deterrent to extremism.

If we do, the dangerous candidates will still appear, but they will not be received so readily as to become viable all the way up to the Presidency and higher posts of the other Powers.

Or is the complacency and blindness of liberalism and its tolerance for social inequalities make it potentially a natural ally of fascism and that the only effective response is to respond to fascism, not with appeasement of "tolerance", but in kind with coercion?

Social coercion, with all the grief and internal tension that it implies (but also the political awareness)?

Sure. I don't think there is any other real way.

We have largely counted on the wisdom of politicians to spare us that grief. I don't think that was ever a good idea, and it sure does not seem to work at all within living memory.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

the origin of the term "totalitarianism" comes from Fascist Italy, where it was used to describe Mussolini's Ideal State.

4
Interesting, considering that term doesn't date back to Mussolini (who despised Hitler), but to Carter.

who was a Fascist philosopher to fill the gap of a "fascist" theory.

I cited several studies on the origins of fascism and of the term. You assume the nature of the lexeme and then apply it based upon said assumption.

He borrowed from Hegel's concept of the state

Not really. He borrowed from what Hegel did, and this is irrelevant anyway.

which views the state in highly religious terms and specifically Anti-Marxist

.
1) Are you seriously trying to make a case out the "religion" of Hegel?
2) Marx borrowed extrensively from Christian ideology,.whence comes his teleological socioeconomic theory and conception of a secular eschaton.

The applicability of the term "Totalitarianism" to Communism therefore does not logically follow.

It follows from history, language, politics, etc. You might try addressing the sources I cited any my thread, and I have more I can offer to demonstrate the connection between fascism and socialism (and how the distictions, such as they existed, were contrived for political reasons among like parties and ideologies. Hence the "national social german workers party".

Communist Ideology is MASSIVELY more complex than either Fascism or National Socialism.

It's actually pathetically simpler, because it was developed during a period of simplistic economic dynamics. Marx's "proletariat" and factories are pathetically outmoded. The theory attests to a bygone age.

Hayek's definition represents a major overhaul in how we define the political spectrum.

Kudos for knowing of Hayek's works! Of course, you would then know he is wholly apposed to anything remotely resembling socialism or communism.

The French Revolution defined "right" and "left"

...initially spatially.

 

[Laika]

This is going to be long. bear with me.

4
Interesting, considering that term doesn't date back to Mussolini (who despised Hitler), but to Carter.

If you mean President Jimmy Carter, Wikipedia demonstrates that is not the case, including usage by Winston Churchill and George Orwell. the meaning of the term does date back to Italian Fascism, or "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" as Mussolini put it.

The source I supplied (The Doctorine of Fascism) also uses the Term as well (dated 1932). (See subtitle, "The Fascist Totalitarian vision of the Future" if you don't believe me.)

I cited several studies on the origins of fascism and of the term. You assume the nature of the lexeme and then apply it based upon said assumption.

I care little about the books you've cited, only whether you have read them. I do have knowledge on this subject, which I am more than willing to demonstrate in the course of a debate.

Not really. He borrowed from what Hegel did, and this is irrelevant anyway.

It is releveant when Hegel's conception of the state is one that takes precdence over the rights of the individual (the common denominator between Fascist, Nazi and Communist systems which means they can be characterised as "totalitarian" ) and importantly that Hegel's Idealism conflicts with Marxism's Materialism, giving Italian Fascism its "religious" (and anti-marxist) character.

"The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State. Instead of directing the game and guiding the material and moral progress of the community, the liberal State restricts its activities to recording results. The Fascist State is wide awake and has a will of its own. For this reason it can be described as " ethical "."

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

1) Are you seriously trying to make a case out the "religion" of Hegel?

If you read the primary sources...

"SPIRITUAL VIEW OF LIFE

Thus many of the practical expressions of Fascism such as party organization, system of education, and discipline can only be understood when considered in relation to its general attitude toward life. A spiritual attitude (3). Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country; individuals and generations bound together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission which suppressing the instinct for life closed in a brief circle of pleasure, builds up a higher life, founded on duty, a life free from the limitations of time and space, in which the individual, by self-sacrifice, the renunciation of self-interest, by death itself, can achieve that purely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists. The conception is therefore a spiritual one, arising from the general reaction of the century against the materialistic positivism of the XIXth century. Anti-positivistic but positive; neither skeptical nor agnostic; neither pessimistic nor supinely optimistic as are, generally speaking, the doctrines (all negative) which place the center of life outside man; whereas, by the exercise of his free will, man can and must create his own world. Fascism wants man to be active and to engage in action with all his energies; it wants him to be manfully aware of the difficulties besetting him and ready to face them. It conceives of life as a struggle in which it behooves a man to win for himself a really worthy place, first of all by fitting himself (physically, morally, intellectually) to become the implement required for winning it. As for the individual, so for the nation, and so for mankind (4). Hence the high value of culture in all its forms (artistic, religious, scientific) (5) and the outstanding importance of education. Hence also the essential value of work, by which man subjugates nature and creates the human world (economic, political, ethical, and intellectual). This positive conception of life is obviously an ethical one. It invests the whole field of reality as well as the human activities which master it. No action is exempt from moral judgment; no activity can be despoiled of the value which a moral purpose confers on all things. Therefore life, as conceived of by the Fascist, is serious, austere, and religious; all its manifestations are poised in a world sustained by moral forces and subject to spiritual responsibilities. The Fascist disdains an “easy" life (6). The Fascist conception of life is a religious one (7), in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the individual and raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. "Those who perceive nothing beyond opportunistic considerations in the religious policy of the Fascist regime fail to realize that Fascism is not only a system of government but also and above all a system of thought."

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

2) Marx borrowed extrensively from Christian ideology,.whence comes his teleological socioeconomic theory and conception of a secular eschaton.

Marx's early writings were heavily influnced by Ludwig Feuerbach's work The Essence of Christianity in which Feuerbach stated that man created god and not the other way round. Marx, who was a Left Heglliean like Feuerbach, was engaged in debates regarding the philosophy of religion as part of Hegel's philosophy. These debates on religion and politics marked the split between the "right" hegellians representing a more conservative interpretation that defended Prussian Autocracy, and the "left" hegellians who were much more radical, republican and (often) liberal. it was his radical materialist position which means that it is atheist.

the similarities between Marxism and religion are superficial at best, as it doesn't deal with the content of the ideology itself. The one exception is the "God-builders" who were members of the Russian Social Democratic Party (in the Bolshevik faction) entertianed the idea that Socialism could not simply negate religion but had to replace it. Lenin denounced their position as incompatable with Marxist materialist philosophy. Whilst "god-building" was a re-occurring theme in Communist history, particuarly in the early 1920's during the Russian Revolutions utopian phase, the basic ideas were not accepted as an "orthodox" interpretation of Marxism within the Communist Party because they used Lenin's philosophical writings as the standard to determine what was and wasn't "marxism".

 

[Laika]

It follows from history, language, politics, etc. You might try addressing the sources I cited any my thread, and I have more I can offer to demonstrate the connection between fascism and socialism (and how the distictions, such as they existed, were contrived for political reasons among like parties and ideologies. Hence the "national social german workers party".

I am more than comfortable to refute any points you make in depth. I want you to show me that you actually understand what they say. In my reply, I have adeqately dealt with the concept of Totalitarianism over it's historical transformations from ideal of the fascist state, to libertarian criticism and finnally to rhetorical use in the Cold War to demonise Communism as a "evil empire". this is "enough" to show that the writing of "history, language, politics, etc" is largely an act of historical revisionism, reflecting that there is no single objective account of the history and that ideologies play a powerful role in shaping our definition of reality. The Cold War was not simply a conflict over ideas, but also in writing the account of what history was- reflecting strongly divergent views of its ultimate outcome.


The Nazis used the definition of "Socialism" to in a very different sense to the one used by Marxian Socialists. Nazis used Socialism to refer to the "Volk" as the national community defined by their membership of the aryan race, whereas Marxist socialists, regardless as to whether they were Social Democrats or Communists used it to refer to Socialism on the basis of a shared Social Class, namely a "worker's and peasants state". They may have used the same word, even if it doesn't have the same meaning.


The Democratic People's Republic of Korea for example, considers itself a "democracy" because the Korean Workers Party is a mass party with millions of members involved directly in the system of government. They do not believe that "democracy" is defined by having multiple parties to chose from, only that the people are involved with the government. They would reject the view of competiting Parties as a "bourgeois democracy" of a parliamentary few representing the capitalist ruling class opposed to their "socialist democracy" of the whole people.

It's actually pathetically simpler, because it was developed during a period of simplistic economic dynamics. Marx's "proletariat" and factories are pathetically outmoded. The theory attests to a bygone age.

That conclusion was already reached in 1899 by Eduard Bernstein in "The Preconditions of Socialism" which is the intellectual origins for the split between Social Democracy and Communism in World War I with the collapse of the Second International. Bernstein challanged Marx's Analysis in Capital of the "Historical Tendencies of Capitalist Accumulation" instead arguing that Capitalism was showing signs of revival rather than of decay. The same basic themes have been repeated since then as evidence that Marxism is "outmoded" even when the USSR was in existence. To take an example, the idea that post-modern societies have evolved beyond the "industrial" working class is simply another attempt to ignore that the Marxist definition of proletariat is not related to any particualar phase of capitalist development but to the division of labour between those who own capital and those who are employed to produce with it.


The "simplistic" economic dynamics of Marxist economics originates from the Labour Theory of Value, which was rejected because it asserted a "natural" predisposition that ownership of the means of production should go to the producer. As the Capitalist class nominally owns the means of production, but hires labour to produce it products, consequently the larger the scale of production the less involved capitalists were in the production process. For political reasons, the "marginal revolution" in economics in the late 19th century sought to replace the notion that value originates from the worker as the producer, with instead attributing the value of the commodities with the consumer. This of course meant that the social relations of capitalism can be viewed in a wholly abstract form of "individual actors" without reference to the division of labour as a source of social class and class antagonism over the distribution of the wealth of society. It also allowed economists to make better mathamatical models so they could immitate the methods used in physics regardless as it is accuracy, so they could credit themselves as "scientific".


The "pathetically simpler" theories of Marxist philosophy, led Lenin to discuss the revolution in Physics at the beginning of the Twenieth century and to attempt to develop a new definition of matter that dealt with discoveries concerning the nature of energy to avoid the conclusion that "matter had dissapeared". It was these theories, set out in his work of Materialism and empirio-criticism (1909) which laid the foundations for discussions in Soviet Physics during the 1950's, when Soviet Scientists were trying to decide which cosmological theory as to the origin of the universe fitted most closely with Lenin's earlier philosophical conclusions. They much prefered the Steady State theory of the Universe to the big Bang because the latter had been endorsed by the Catholic Church as compatable with Old earth creationism in 1951. These controversies represent a part of Marxism's efforts to establish a philosophical "worldview" in which all areas of human knowledge would be subject to the same set of "scientific" laws of nature, in the Marxist philosophy of "dialectical materialism".


The idea that Marxism is a "worldview" is a particuarly "russian" invention from Georgi Plekanhov in the late 19th century, who drew this conclusion based on viewing "materialism" as a form of "substance monism" that is applicable to all substances and therefore is universal. Western forms of Marxism did not accept this view, believing that Marxism applied only to the social sciences.

Kudos for knowing of Hayek's works! Of course, you would then know he is wholly apposed to anything remotely resembling socialism or communism.

Having READ the Road to Serfdom, Yes, I am familar with some of his ideas. The First part of his book deals with Democratic Socialism and makes a convincing case It is not of course original because he is borrowing Neo-Marxist ideas that say that economics determine politics, thereby limiting the possible configuation of what societies can and cannot exist. However, his attempts to link German Social Democracy with National Socialism are laughably inaccurate and built on an excuritatingly selective reading of history, assuming we even accept it's validity.


His handling of "The End of Truth" in a chapter is particuarly fascinating because of it's Orwellian implications about how propaganda changes the role of language and truth to have "collective" meanings rather than ones that are immediately percieved by an individual. Some aspects of Marxism, in thinknig that ideology demonstrate social consciousness rather than individual consciousness do actually agree with that view.

...initially spatially.

If you mean that right and left are a reference to the National Convention in the French Revolution, then yes.

von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, E. (1974). Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse. Arlington House.

De sade's philosophy is an intresting prescedent, although the term "socialism" wasn't coined until the 19th century and anarchism, socialism and communism were terms used interchangably for most of that time. it didn't have it's current meaning associated with reformist, democratic or evolutionary forms until after the Russian revolution in 1917. He was a proto-socialist who criticised the hyporisy of the aristocracy, as well as become a member of the French National Convention. he's someone I would like to read if I get the time to do so.


I hope I have sufficiently demonstrated that my knowedge on this subject is not simply "assumed" but is indepth enough to challange mainstream positions by a re-examining the evidence. If there is a personal reason for my challange to the concept of totalitarianism being offensive (as there are people on RF who had relatives who were purged by Stalin) I am more than happy to discuss it if you wish to. I am not seeking to diminish the cruelty of the regimes or their abuses, only try to find concepts that more accurately reflect them. my contention is that Totalitarianism is inadequate and inaccurate to do so.

 

[Sunstone]

IMO ...

Leftist belief = everyone is inherently good, and groups should be viewed and handled in light of this "fact";
Rightist belief = everyone is inherently bad, and groups should be viewed and handled in light of this "fact";
Libertarian belief = Each person is an individual mix of good and bad. There is no "group" to impose a common standard upon. Each individual is free to explore their own lives, but would be punished if they measurably trespass on the freedoms of another.

I think your characterizations are too simplistic to be useful except as propaganda for Libertarianism.

 

[Sunstone]

Laika, Chris Hedges has an interesting thesis. In a nutshell, he argues that Liberalism is largely powerless and defunct in the US because the radical movements to the Left of it have been all but eliminated. Put differently, Liberalism's power and effectiveness historically depended on there being "dangerous radicals" to its Left who genuinely threatened the establishment.

Liberals where then able to convincingly promote their relatively modest reforms as means of defusing the radicals and thus saving the establishment.

But when, over the course of the twentieth century the radical threat to the establishment was all but eliminated, the establishment no longer needed the Liberals to defuse it.

That reduced the Liberals to virtual irrelevance, which grossly weakened their attractiveness to the white working class (since they could no longer get much done for them). It also simultaneously freed the establishment to swing far right. And the white working class, now feeling betrayed by the ineffectual Liberals, swung far right with them.

It's worth emphasizing that true Conservatism was another casualty of the swing to the far right. So, as it happens, today the US has neither an effective Liberal party, nor an effective Conservative party.

Which, of course, both explains why there are no genuinely "Moderate" (i.e. Conservative) Republicans running for the presidency this year, and why Sanders' strength in the polls, etc is perhaps at least somewhat misleading, for even if he wins, there is no creditable threat to his Left that he can point to in order to scare the Far Right into supporting his reforms (and there are no Conservatives left to support his reforms, either). His one hope is that he can keep millions of ordinary voters politically mobilized after the election and willing to pressure corporate Democrats and the Far Right as, more or less, surrogate radicals.

 

[LuisDantas]

That would go a long way towards explaining the current degree of political apathy.

 

[Laika]

Laika, Chris Hedges has an interesting thesis. In a nutshell, he argues that Liberalism is largely powerless and defunct in the US because the radical movements to the Left of it have been all but eliminated. Put differently, Liberalism's power and effectiveness historically depended on there being "dangerous radicals" to its Left who genuinely threatened the establishment.

Liberals where then able to convincingly promote their relatively modest reforms as means of defusing the radicals and thus saving the establishment.

But when, over the course of the twentieth century the radical threat to the establishment was all but eliminated, the establishment no longer needed the Liberals to defuse it.

That reduced the Liberals to virtual irrelevance, which grossly weakened their attractiveness to the white working class (since they could no longer get much done for them). It also simultaneously freed the establishment to swing far right. And the white working class, now feeling betrayed by the ineffectual Liberals, swung far right with them.

It's worth emphasizing that true Conservatism was another casualty of the swing to the far right. So, as it happens, today the US has neither an effective Liberal party, nor an effective Conservative party.

Which, of course, both explains why there are no genuinely "Moderate" (i.e. Conservative) Republicans running for the presidency this year, and why Sanders' strength in the polls, etc is perhaps at least somewhat misleading, for even if he wins, there is no creditable threat to his Left that he can point to in order to scare the Far Right into supporting his reforms (and there are no Conservatives left to support his reforms, either). His one hope is that he can keep millions of ordinary voters politically mobilized after the election and willing to pressure corporate Democrats and the Far Right as, more or less, surrogate radicals.

I am sort of worried that that might be true. Whilst I have alot of problems with liberalism, I still prefer it over any other system and admire the ideals it set out to achieve. The testament to that is we can at least sit here and disagree without the threat of state sanctioned violence against anyone for slight deviations from the "party line". The Far Left are very impressive when get into action, but there is a deep cynicism and a cruelty in it too.

I'd like Sanders to win because I'm not sure how else we are going to fix the system as it stands. But I'm rather worried that the like of Trump could win in November too. As far as I can tell, any Republican victory in the US at this point would not simply be a national, but a global disaster. I have thought capitalism future is doubtful but it never occured to me it be quite so soon. I would be more than happy to hear clear liberal, conservative or democratic socialist voices from the centre as we badly need advocates of the current system that is based on substance and not just rhetoric.

 

[buddhist]

I think your characterizations are too simplistic to be useful except as propaganda for Libertarianism.

Leftists and rightists also engage in characterizations for their respective propagandism.

 

[Sunstone]

Leftists and rightists also engage in characterizations for their respective propagandism.

The tu quoque fallacy only fools some people.