Mainstream capitalist ideology is responsible for and compatible with a high degree of anti-fascism. This has very little to do with 'fascism,' that might not even be present, and more to do with the role of fascism in the self-vindicating mythology of modern liberal democracy.
It belongs to liberalism, or that part of capitalism which merely wishes for 'class-collaborationism' and to safeguard capitalism by ensuring mutual consent of its members. It necessarily serves to 'dilute' or oppose radical political trends that partake of it, or dilute the 'negativity' and 'hate' in a movement, such as to preserve the given social coherence. Positive sentiment and relations are encouraged in the present, a barricade against radical opposition to the present system of relations. Hence, if the movement against 'fascism ' is to be characterised, it is in these terms. However, it can often merely chase shadows, as, like a capitalist corporation that is forced relentlessly to produce new content even without a spur, it tends to 'manufacture' fascism even when it isn't there in order to maintain its empty sense of relevance and urgency. This is because it is selling a product, one that aims to dilute or undermine radical opposition to the system and which hence has to be kept going compulsively after some perceived 'fascism.' Nonetheless, this merely furthers its liberal nature, and gives it no other real basis.
In any case, what about 'fascist' movements? Fascism was not always a simply 'racist' movement. 'Racism' at the time characterised many nations. Further, the desire for a 'racial' nation is not one unique to whites - it is also a property of Judaism, known also for its racial warfare and belief in a 'chosen people,' and exists in many forms. Hence, racial nationalism is not by itself fascist. Fascism is an ill-defined term in some ways restricted to a 'concrete movement' or period, and hence is often reduced to something simplistic like 'racism.' It would be difficult to have a coherent movement against it. 'Anti-fascism' lives on because the capitalist establishment has declared Nazism the ultimate embodiment of its own fears, and so-called 'revolutionaries' have risen to the task of opposing what the system tells them is most evil. Of course, the system also considers revolution to be evil - but then, modern anarcho-communists don't really care about revolution, so long as transsexual people are given the appropriate gender pronoun and nobody seriously criticises Israel.
However, the spectre of 'fascism' nonetheless represents a force resistant to 'liberal democracy' and 'anarcho-communism,' a vision of nation with a sense of direction that unifies it. If one makes a dichotomy of anarchist and 'non-socialist' fascist, there is no room left for the Marxist or for socialism; the socialist aim of a guided society is wholly attributed to the 'non-socialist' fascist, or in any case is ignored structurally. Hence, such 'anarchism' is highly reactionary, in the end, and it is ultimately just a variant of liberalism. The more that liberalism is allowed to proclaim its ultimate emptiness and lack of direction as if this is substantial and benevolent, the more is conceded. The leftist panic over Trump, to which the obvious corollary was supporting Clinton, is one example of 'anti-fascist' panic being obviously used to undermine radicals and incorporate them into liberalism. Nonetheless, fascism is mainstream capitalism's very own vision of the devil, and opposition to it is nothing notably striking - further, this opposition generally cites the same reasons as the capitalist establishment. Mainstream capitalism is responsible for and compatible with a high degree of anti-fascism. This has very little to do with 'fascism,' that might not even be present, and more to do with the role of fascism in the self-vindicating mythology of modern liberal democracy.
Hence, caution is advised around this subject, for, 'the worst product of fascism is anti-fascism.'
I agree that fascism cn be amorphous, a point you've made before. The rest is good, true that anti-fascist stuff can involve a lot of problems and ideology!
ReplyDeleteYeah it gets too much of a free pass from the left...
DeleteI also think it's nice that this blog notices that the alt-right isn't synonymous with 'fascism'! Also the socialist heritage of the far-right... Excellent post...
DeleteOccasionally when I'm bored I scroll through the reddit front page, and sometimes I see posts from the subreddit r/LateStageCapitalism. There was one recently that was an explanation of Popper's view that a 'tolerant' society was justified in using 'intolerant' means to fight against advocates of 'intolerance', and another attempting to critique white nationalism and related nationalist groupings on the basis of the threat they pose to civil society. Of course, one of the principle enemies of the open, civil society advocated by Popper and all liberals is Marxism, yet this tends to go completely unnoticed, even by apparent 'anti-capitalists'.
ReplyDeleteI remember a few years back when I first started getting into politics, the BNP was gaining some political ground, and so opposing them was all the rage politically. At the time it seemed like the whole of the British left was caught in some kind of 'anti-Nazi' hysteria. We even had the wonderful spectacle of the SWP calling on the British state to censor Nick Griffin's appearance on question time. Yet not even a few months later they almost seemed to evaporate from the political scene. So much for the fascist danger.
I feel like anti-fascism is pretty closely tied with activism. Anti-fascists get a sense of gratification from having 'achieved' something when they're successful in their confrontation with whatever tiny grouplet they're confronting. This has a diverting effect since it's easy for them to continue producing such achievements by focusing on a relatively small fish, and especially one which is already swimming upstream, whereas if they tried focusing their efforts on the flow of the stream itself they would have to confront their own impotence.
Thank you for the excellent comment, Zanthorus. I'll mention it in a post, as it probably deserves.
DeleteAs far as 'activism,' while activism can occur without clear commitment, you're correct that it can be connected to a kind of 'active-ism' - people want to see 'results' and 'action,' and hence a spectacle, and as a result these things are sold to them in cheap ways. Hence, an emphasis on 'getting something now,' in the De Leonite phrase - De Leon, of course, also made a connection between politics of 'activism' alongside anti-electoralism and 'getting something now,' although undeveloped and slightly misleading. This 'active-ism' is often evident in the category of 'activity' itself, as socialists use it - or of activity as a 'separate realm' generally. Hence, you have a general point. However, on a more general note, 'activism' where a form of action is inherently valuable reduces to theory - it is only carried out for its theoretical validity, and is reducible to the theoretical advocacy of it. The action has no existence apart from theory, and derives from it, if it is carried out in this way. Hence, for 'activism' separate from theory, the emphasis has to be on 'results' - which hence leads to this manufacturing of a spectacle. However, as 'results' are contingent, this ultimately reduces to passivity, and is far from revolutionary, coherent or substantive.
With 'anti-fascism,' this sense of gratification is also tied up with the 'activist' eschewing or emptying of political viewpoints - you also ally with the more 'active' bourgeois forces, against a 'pantomime villain' that they also find most evil. Hence, this seems like a 'generally' good action, as even most capitalism recognises this struggle. Of course, even fascism itself is perhaps too noble for such a movement to comprehend or align with. A movement without clear commitments, or a 'tolerant' or even 'multicultural' one, is still unable to align with strict and substantial movements. We sort of experienced this ourselves on places like RM, where things which had content were criticised for this in favour of a crass formalism, which reduced to: let the bourgeois and its apologists determine how we operate. Hence, the 'arguments' you refer to in the first paragraph are specious, and merely sophistic promotion of what is in actuality a limitation: that even such an apparent 'openness' is actually a 'closing' to, well, anything with determination. Hence, likewise, the critique of Hegel is empty drama - 'look at how EVIL this guy was, and the disturbing implications of' - rather than having a theoretical nature.
(2/3)
DeleteI notice that your post 'Das Begriff,' which touches nicely on some themes that we often discussed back in the day (Socrates' relevance, class and relations, etc.), has been given a somewhat short shrift. Clearly people are following Artesian's precept and ignoring theoretical material in favour of offence over things on Libcom. The replies so far have been slightly cursory, and possibly ignored most of the work - Noa's is minimal, per usual, while the other one ignores the analysis of Socrates and similar to have a go at him. That user, mhou, as with his 'critique' of De Leon from earlier, seems generally to side with some vaguely described 'masses' against people who dare to take notable viewpoints. They are quick to criticise 'socialists,' or those who are apparently advanced and understand the situation, for daring to act on this perspective. I quite like how their response aligns with the things you criticise here, as even in your first paragraph. Their response is slightly vulgar-Marxist, ignoring your discussion in favour of reducing Socrates to one work, however this is merely a guise for reformism and liberalism generally. I wouldn't really be surprised, or take much note of it. Somewhat difficult seeing these good posts often 'overlooked,' precisely in the name of activism.
To be fair, let's not forget the leftist celebration and passive encouragement of the lionisation of Jo Cox, an imperialist at that. Even over at Libcom, with apparent animosity to the state, the excessive attention paid here was rarely criticsed to avoid 'offence.' Along with this, Zionism was defended stringently - I mean, racial states and so on are quite okay when it's Jews. It's rather peculiar. The culture of 'offence' buttresses activism, of course, by eschewing theoretical content.
Socrates expressed, in his time, an advanced perspective that gave the rule of Reason an explicit and developed form in society. This is, as you note, something ultimately socialistic. They accompanied other notable martyrs of the time, such as Jesus. Of course, a Socrates is someone advanced beyond most, and to kill him is to presume too much. As he likely noted, the democratic authorities had little basis for the authority to do this, outside of people-pleasing (not regarding the fundamental qualities such as Reason lying within these): hence, it was an ultimately specious decision. According to the relevant records, he rightly noted that history at the time required the spur of a coherent central power (as with the Roman Imperium, which displaced a broken 'republic' that in any case the people themselves dissented against: a general reductio of the project), not the multiplicity and people-pleasing of democracy. Further, he criticised capitalistic tendencies and money-centricity, as well as 'oligarchy.' Hence, his viewpoint is ultimately quite coherent, even given that the criticism of capitalistic tendencies is more absolute because it is not restricted to an analogical framework. More notably, however, in them the theoretical framework and its demands are much further developed than in 'activist' socialism. They are hence of much more interest to thinking creatures. In some ways, they might seem to roughly analyse what the theoretical implies for society and such necessarily, which is clearly important.
(3/3)
DeleteHowever, Socrates was limited in some ways. In their portrayal, the fundamental elements were essentially the same, just problematically ordered or tempered. However, Reason is still a 'volatile' element: if the others are predominant in a person, 'Reason' as such does not exist. Hence, the whole thing is ultimately reducible to 'Reason,' not a relation between separate moments. The whole schema rests on the situation of 'Reason,' hence this conditions the whole situation. Hence, all you have is the situation of Reason, or the whole thing becomes reducible to this. The others are hence, in the rule of Reason, reducible to aspects of Reason.
In a sense, the strictly theoretical was always closer to the socialistic than 'activism' or 'populism' can ever be. In a way, by eschewing the theoretical, activism' is led towards antagonism towards elements of Socrates which also implies antagonism to elements of fascism that we noted - in favour of the stable bourgeois society. Hence, this development of 'activism' is not unexpected. Disgruntled leftists have railed against a capitalistic apathy, stagnancy, false 'two-Party' system, etc., for years, and yet the left is quite content to prop up precisely this order and rage at dissident elements. To desire social change and a clear dynamic is to desire a 'fulcrum' or centre of power, preferably one person - as only a single person is capable of thoughts, ideas and views. Anything else is idle and empty, as a general structure. Hence, ultimately leftists chase their tails, wishing to theorise or have a cause while trying (somehow) not to theorise. To theorise 'against' theory is self-defeating, somewhat silly, and sophistic.
The statement that 'economics' reveals itself to be no more than 'class struggle' is both peculiarly metaphysical (the essence of economy is somehow some 'class struggle' that exists in abstraction), and bizarre: the 'economic' is here a foundation, of course, as you noted. It is not, however, an independent part of human existence.
(We figure we should give you some positive or constructive feedback on your post there. Someone has to.)
A unique yet deep view of this!
ReplyDeleteAlthough your point is different, it was well-described and clear. I found this post after it was linked to elsewhere, and enjoyed it. Would you say that liberalism at present feels hostility?
ReplyDelete