|
Part of the problem with the label 'fascist' is that there are competing definitions of the term, competing understandings of what went wrong, and different manifestations related to the fascist movement in Italy, Germany, Spain, and other countries around WWII.
I.e., it might be better to consider the range of understandings of Fascism, more in depth... particularly...
Among conservatives who wished to understand the nature of fascism adn fight the likes of the Nazi's:
Some (William F. Buckley), following Voegelin, would see Fascism as part of a modern variant of Gnosticism that wasn't happy with seeking transcendental escapes and building metaphysical systems, but that wished to "Immanentize the Christian Eschaton" in various ways, ranging from liberalism to positivism to freudianism to marxism to fascism, each manifestation being a way to force a vision into existence in spite of reality, allowing the consequences to be what they may, in the name of the utopy or social engineering, as an alternative to the real limits that frustrate us in reality, creating yet more chaos, which is then pointed out as a reason to continue to impose the system/vision/worldvies in place of reality, without concern for facts. There is a bit to this analysis that does in fact apply to the millenialists/Left Behind folkes, theocrats on the religious right (particularly the extremely conservative covenant theology/presbyterian/dominionist/calvinist types, and the Christian Nation types who determine foreign policy on end-times prophey)... this is based on applying some insights of ancient political science of Plato and Aristotle to the modern world, considering differences in the modern world according to an analysis of modern political/psychological experience.
Others (Allan Bloom, author of Closing of the American Mind), following Leo Straus, would see Fascism in terms of Tyranny, a result of an erosion of the culture of the West through relativism and the sort of radical skepticism that doesn't even seek to understand reality or truth anymore, again, a line of criticism that can certainly apply to the current regime, through reference to the tendencies towards the tyranny found in both Oligarchy and Democracy (profiteering, corruption, and mob demagoguery and scapegoating, appealing to divisiveness of this faction or that of the people), through pointing out the corrosive effect of the sort of moral relativism/situational ethics that excuses torture, that is not firm about the morality of human rights, that undermines the traditions of the constitution and bill of rights, that is so closed to the idea of finding truth and understanding the real world that facts about lies regarding yellow cake in Nigeria, and the failure to find WMD in Iraq, is trivialized by people who could care less about facts, etc. There are contradictions in the Straussianism of the neo-cons, but it would be for an informed opponent to call them on it. Their looking for hidden messages in Arabs through relying on spies and intelligence agencies has lead to reckless assumptions, if they were sincere, or exposed 'noble lies' if they were not sincere, and either way, the point of such intelligence is either to get it right or not to get caught in a lie, for someone with this sort of view. Again their view builds on on Plato and Aristotles political philosophy, combined with their own esoteric reading of a hidden layer in their philosophy, and a criticism of later philosophers like Machiavelli, all with an eye to hidden meanings covered for the sake of social responsibility, in the case of ancient philosophers. The allegation of social irresponsibility on the part of the neo-cons, is a particularly vulnerable spot, as it hits at great hypocrisy on their own principle.
As can be seen, the basic insights of these thinkers, offer grounds for severely criticizing the Bush administration, though it would help, if one used such insights, that one also considered whatever may apply on the left, as well, to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, or at least one would wish to indicate how on the grounds of these and other considerations, it is the current Bush Administration that is particularly harming America and is the most crucial concern, and faced with the Bush Administration's own bizaare mixture of political features, Democrats may be much more open to re-evaluating their weaknesses.
On the non-liberal Left:
A rigidly economic analysis, as found on the Left in Trotskyite circles, is rather limited in that the features of hostility to unions and communists, the alliance between lower 'middle-class' (lesser borgiousie/professional classes/small business people in economic crisis) with the 'bad asses' (lumpen-proletariate) or 'FU boys', can be read into all kinds of movements/parties/regimes, and the implied answer of radical class consciousness in unions, does not adequately address the potentials of working class people in general being far too authoritarian, pragmatic, selfish, etc., to be interested in non-authoritarian, sane, workable, reasonable solutions i.e., working with democrats. An appeal to the real interests of working class people, of people who have lost hope in being able to be working class, and in small busines owners and various professional working people, to more sanity and alliance against the real abusers/the corrupt, big business abuses, big government interference/oppression/authoritarianism that effects private life, can make a big impact, and it is this aspect of the analysis that seems especially useful, in breaking some out of the 'enchantment' of authoritarians and demagogues. The principles of solidarity among movements/struggles, and the analysis of demagoguery, from this sort of theory, is extremely helpful, too, especially as it relates to broader solidarity, and how there is no real useful solidarity possible with bigots/authoritarians or the sort of conspiracists that feed demagoguery and bigotry.
Among the Social Sciences:
The concepts of the 'true believer', the "Protean Self" by Lifton which goes into a concept of the Fundamentalist Self versus the Protean Self, the literature on sociopaths and narcissists such as "The Sociopath Next Door", seem to be among the more helpful stuff in dealing with some of the psychology/sociology.
I would add Voegelin's Sience, Politics, and Gnosticism, and other works, here, despite their inaccurate use of the term Gnostic and other problems (the axe he grinds against liberalism and the apparent blind spot to problems with conservatism, the categorical error of using the term Gnostic in this way, though what he is describing certainly has its insights, the way ancient Gnosticism is distorted or contradicted by the modern phenomena he describes, makes the use of the term Gnostic for it, inappropriate, but that shouldn't prevent some insight from reading it if you keep in mind that he uses 'gnostic' in his own way, etc.), as this work does deal with the paradoxes and inner conflicts that manifest in a desire for certainty and the building of systems and imposing dreams by force on reality in a way that destroys order, instead of the uncertainty and humility of faith that involves not being entirely sure and not necessarily having a whole system/set of answers. It relates to the Protean Self, in certain ways.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
