Sunday, March 3, 2013
A Post-Script to my Recent Post on Fascism and Socialism
By Tom Kando
As I re-read my post “Are Fascism and Socialism the same?”, I realize an important omission, which I now wish to remedy.
I almost entirely forgot to mention what may be the single most important difference between Fascism and Socialism:
Fascism wants to return to the past, which it glorifies, whereas Socialism is geared to the future, sometimes a utopian future. Mussolini wanted to build a second Roman Empire. Hitler, a great admirer of Wagner, glorified Teutonic mythology. Fascism is in some ways a perversion of German Romanticism - a longing for a return to nature, to tribalism and to the noble savage. Fascism is anti-modern and anti-science. It appeals to emotion. Its aim is to destroy modern society and to return to a glorious (and mythical) past, when men were real men (warriors, and the like) and women were true damsels (or at least breeders). Fascism is, literally, reactionary: It is a reaction against modernity.
Socialism, on the other hand, embraces modernity. It claims (with some hubris) to be scientific. Marxism is sometimes called “scientific socialism.” Socialism appeals to reason. It is not romantic. Socialism believes in the possibility of building a better future society (which may be naively utopian). In the age-old nature-nurture controversy, it is on the side of nurture, believing in man’s improvability (through education).
Thus, when it comes to this last item on my list of contrasts between Fascism and Socialism, once again the right-wingers who accuse their opponents most recklessly of “fascism” are THEMSELVES the ones who exhibit this fascistoid tendency the most: Folks like the Tea Party and other right-wing gun-toting flag wavers wish to restore America's alleged past glory days. To them, it’s all about going BACK, “taking the country BACK,” remaking America the way it WAS. After all, the very word “conservative” means attachment to the past, does it not? leave comment here
4 comments:
"Fascism is in some ways a perversion of German Romanticism "
Well said!
Tom- Again I think you are over-simplifying. Just how does Socialism appeal to reason? A lot of the socialist writing, beginning with the dialectic, requires one to make a leap of faith about the progression of events. In addition, socialism often (certainly in the exposition in Marxism - as it was implemented in China and Russia) is incredibly romantic. How does the idea of 100 flowers blooming relate to science or not to romantic notions? What was the great leap forward or any of the Soviet five year plans but romantic and unscientific?
Finally, you again defame the Tea Party people. The notion that you operate governmental systems within a boundary of established rules is not "going back" but playing within the rules. Conservative indeed can interpreted as going back but it can also be related to proper management of resources (Conservation - Stewardship) Constitutional stewardship, which is what the Tea Party people are trying to achieve is not going back but also not destroying a system that has worked pretty well for generations of Americans.
Both of these columns were among your best, Tom. Your essays are forceful, clear, and right on! Ann
Thanks for your comments.
I prefer Steve’s and Ann’s to Jonathan’s. I prefer to be flattered and agreed with than to be criticized. Alas, it is the greasy wheel that gets the oil:
Right now, I don’t have time to do justice to Jonathan’s comments. However, here are a few random counter arguments:
1. I myself already suggested that when Marxists call themselves “scientific socialists,” they are guilty of hubris.
2. I support the Socialism of Tony Blair and Francois Hollande, not Mao Tse Tung.
3. For the rest, I am confident that most experts in the history of political thought would support my analysis, not Jonathan’s. The ideas outlined in my brief post are not really that novel.
You can find them in the writings of Richard Hofstadter, Don Martindale, William Kornhauser and innumerable others.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!