Follow-up: FA Socrates and social organisation, or, Wehrmacht our way to Wembley

We'd like to draw attention to this excellent comment by Socratic fascist and commenter Zanthorus:

Occasionally 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'.

I 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.

 We gave the following response to these points:

"As 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."

-

I also added this on Socrates, who is vaguely relevant. Zanthorus had a post elsewhere involving Socrates recently, which was immediately received with criticism as too 'conceptual' or with criticism of Socrates. We have placed it here for the moment, so that you may view it at ease: https://pastebin.com/L1S84jA9. Anyway, my comment:

"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.

"However, 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."

-

As it happens, the next post shall allow commenters a chance to get a post about their comments. Good luck. Others may also be featured as a consolation.