It’s Not Socialism We Need to Worry About
One of the things I find interesting is that many critics of President Obama claim that he is a socialist. Any regulation of the free market ends up being a socialist plot. Any friendships and associations he has which can link him to socialists proves he is also a socialist. Indeed, guilt by association is one of the basic tactics used to create a conspiracy theory whereby he is seen as some sort of vast socialist plot to destroy the United States.
All the same time, we see his critics are often advocating policies which come directly out of the Soviet Union. Migration is a problem: build a strong border (with a fence or a wall). Someone appears suspect? Ask them to carry papers wherever they go to prove they are good, loyal citizens of the state. State security trumps personal liberty. The right ideology is necessary; if you don’t follow it, you are a traitor to the state. The Minutemen, the Oath Keepers, and the American Enterprise Institute will be there to make sure of your orthodoxy.
Ok. We don’t only see such behavior in communist countries; right race, right ideology, right security were all the concerns of the fascist state as well. It is interesting to note that the way Hitler was able to hypnotize the nation was through his constant radio broadcasts of his ideology. It universalized his world view. Those hearing it all the time soon were seduced — they believed without question, the same way we see the ideologues getting their audience to believe without question today. And there was one thing which united all fascists: their hatred for communism.
Despite the insinuation of many, President Obama is not a socialist. When socialists deny his association with them, it is not because he is involved as an undercover agent of some great socialist plot. It is because President Obama follows and accepts the directives of a regulated free market — he follows one form of capitalism, but capitalism nonetheless. Not all of his critics are fascists. Just because there is a similarity between their tactics and the fascist does not mean they are fascist themselves. Indeed. I don’t see them as being fascists in the proper sense, but rather, following the kind of thought which led to the rise of fascism. Carl Schmitt is very representative of their thought.
If one reads Carl Schmitt, one can easily see the similarity of thought between modern conservatives and the legal theory which led to fascism. In Schmitt, we find a big, strong sovereign state at war with its enemies. War is never an issue of justice, but state survival. The state, because it must survive, can and must do whatever is necessary in order to survive and have victory over her enemies. The sovereign alone defines what is to be done without question. If one questions the sovereign, they become the enemy of the state – internal enemies must be dealt with just as much as external ones. The rule of law must not be questioned — the rule of law is the will of the sovereign. Law must be strictly enforced to make order out of chaos and to keep everyone safe.
One of the few differences between Schmitt and the neo-Schmittians is in how they describe war. The neo-Schmittians tend to understand some pretense has to be given to justify war. For Schmitt, there is no such thing as a just war; war is a thing of necessity as enemies come across each other and seek to preserve their own sovereign way of life. For the Neo-Schmittian, war now has to be justified, but its justifications lie in the dictates of the sovereign. Both agree the sovereign decides when war is necessary and the sovereign is right, just the second thinks that the sovereign must explain his reasoning (not because one can question it, but because knowing it will help in the execution of the war itself).
It is interesting that many who have advocated such strong state sovereignty are also the ones who have had the harshest words against President Obama. He is seen as a challenge to their ideology. What are they to make with a sovereign whose ideas go against their own? Some have tried to find a way to say he is not really sovereign (hence the birther movement). Others try to look at what he is doing that is advocating their ideology and promote that side of his reign (such as his continued execution of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a strong-arm tactic against Iran). But I think in the future, he could be used as the exception which proves the rule. He can be used as the sovereign who showed us why we need a strong sovereign with a strong emphasis on rules and the authoritarian state to keep us safe and secure. But this can only happen if the neo-Schmittians are allowed to continue unquestioned, and they end up getting unquestionable power.
In Arizona, we see a test case for the United States. Even if the new immigration law is overturned, we can see how many people have risen in its support. They have raised up the idol of absolute state sovereignty. We must topple it now before its priests set up a sacrificial system geared to keep it in power.
Comments are closed.
First, your whole theory is baseless and it would be nice if you actually understood history.
Do you even realize what NAZI stands for? Well its got Socialist in it.
And that was socialist fascism which led to Hitler.
Who countrols our public schools? liberals
Who is teaching the global warming hysteria mantra? liberals
Who controls our society with restricting just when and how it okay to speak religiously in our society? Liberals and/or secularists?
Who has led generations to be dependent on the government just so they have a voting classs? Liberals or Democrats.
Who has schools doing tributes/songs without questions for our Dear Leader just like in the times of Hitler?
The public schools-liberal ideolgy.
Who mesmerized his voters with the chant “hope” and “change” much like Hitler did before the concentration camps? Barack Obama and the liberal Democrats.
Who owns the minds of 85% of the TV airwaves via CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC? The LEFT-liberals-Democrats.
Should we call fascism adult citizens being forced carry drivers licenses or State ID’s?
The Arizona law is merely enforcing the law on a state level that isn’t currently being enforced by our federal authorities. There is not racial profiling in this law. The law was even changed to make sure that there is not racial profiling. The illegal immigrant must be stopped or detained for committing another unlawful act before being questioned as to whether the person has entered without the proper documentation.
You just don’t like the fact that this one law will actually be enforced.
Actually Obama believes in cronyism and his ideology is a combination of crony capitalism, socialism and communism. But, basically he loves power, thrives on it, hates criticism of any sort and loves BIG government and its having as much power and control over the citizens as possible. But, liberals love big governemnt because they love big government having control over peoples’ thoughts and actions much like Hitler did. Big government is what led to Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
Teresa
I only let in your comment this one time so people can see the kind of blind ideology which is going on at this moment. You prove my point. Thanks!
Do you even realize what NAZI stands for? Well its got Socialist in it.
Teresa,
Do you realize what IRA (the terrorist organization) stands for? Well its got Republican in it.
We can also talk about the conservative, Catholic back Christian Socailists in Bavaria.
I suppose your comment is simply an ill-informed quip, but you should spend some time considering the heroism of Willy Brandt and Kurt Schumacher.
That does not work, Kurt. That is an absurd equivocation. There is no parallel between the two sets of terms. Socialism is a philosophy – it is more or less the same everywhere. The word refers to that philosophy, which was the Nazi philosophy. The word “Republican” in the IRA’s name is not a parallel to the word’s use by the Republican party in the U.S. It is a homonym.
“Socialist” is a philosophy, so anyone who uses it means the same thing, but “Republican” is not a political philosophy which unites all those who use the word? Strange. Again, poor reasoning leads to a poor defense.
Karl, can you at least acknowledge that members of the mainstream left encourage the socialist moniker, and seem to get a kick out of taunting their opponents with it?
I recall a weekly magazine after Obama’s inauguration proclaiming on its front cover: “We are All Socialists Now.”
If the left is now hypersensitive to that word being used against them, it’s thought-leaders ought to reflect a little on their tendencies toward spite, arrogance, envy, impulsiveness, immaturity, and bad judgment. Indeed, these are the cardinal character traits of the left. The label “socialist” simply obfuscates their real sins, and therefore I’m in agreement it ought not be applied.
Jeff
Who is “Karl?
Nonetheless, this accusation of Obama the socialist has gone on since before he was elected, and was repudiated during that time as well. It is not that “the left is now hypersensitive,” it is that accuracy is important. So much which is claims to be socialist by certain parties has nothing to do with socialism. And my response is itself not “of the left.” The use of labels such as this is very telling.
Teresa, please define “liberal”.
http://vox-nova.com/2009/06/09/american-socialism-a-long-and-detailed-post/
Jeff
Who is “Karl?”
You know what, I should have known better. Please disregard my comment. It was sincere. Unlike your response.
The socialists I’ve spoken with, real people, claim Obama is not a socialist. They’d be thrilled to death if we did have a socialist as president. The biggest tell-tale sign they said is that Obama never speaks in the terms of class struggle. He in fact likes to use himself as an example of a person that can rise above class.
Kevin–
How is the “Republican” in IRA different from the “Republican” of the GOP? Both usages of the word refer to the aspirations of a set of partisans to live in a free and autonomous “republic.” Granted, the GOP is concerned with protecting and preserving a republic already achieved, while the IRA has been involved in a struggle to establish a republic free of British domination, but there the distinction in usage ends, I would think.
If anything, the problem with Obama is that he’s just another neoliberal, corporatist tool. His healthcare reform package amounted to a big wet French kiss for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. And the financial industry reform bill he’s pushing is a wet noodle that even the chair of Goldman Sachs is on board with. No restoration of Glass-Steagall. No Volker Rule. No busting up the six big banks whose combined assets now total 63% of GDP. The notion that Obama is a socialist is laughable and ignorant, more drivel from the First United Church of Rush, Hannitized.
Mark
You know, I agree with much of what you say. That is what has made it difficult, he is indeed a follower of the liberal tradition, though he does so with some sensibility of the social narrative and an understanding to help bring about change. But when he talked about how his health care reform law accomplished what people were trying to get for the past century, I was like, no it is not.
His healthcare reform package amounted to a big wet French kiss for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
Right. There is a slight bit of aid to some people who need it with the bill, and it does put some restrictions on the insurance industry that were needed, but for the most part, this was a big boost to the corporate empire. There is need for much more, much real reform. But I do think the little he got through, with the kind of rhetoric placed upon it, shows why he only got this much through — but I also think he wouldn’t go for the full reform which is needed.
Thank you, Henry for putting Teresa’s comment up.
Theresa: I think you’ve done a very good job of listing your reactions concisely. I’m inclined to argue with you on each point, but to argue is, itself, pointless.
What I think is more interesting is to let each of your statements, and my reactive desire to argue, be a probe into myself and who I think that I am: What goes on within me when someone challenges or denies my basic truths, truths that in many ways are central to my identity as an American born to German immigrants who experienced the Nazi disaster first-hand, a Catholic, an occasional visitor to friends and relations who lived in “real” Communist countries and suffered grievously, a person committed to experiencing God, not just talking at or around God.
It is tempting to “educate” you, Teresa, about what life under Socialist, Nazi, and Communist systems is/was really like, but I realize that would serve nothing but my own ego.
More relevant to me is the realities of my life under the US “system.” I worry because my children, unless they find jobs with solid medical benefit programs, won’t have adequate health care for their very serious chronic illnesses. And they are not alone in this: Most of their friends do not have “full” medical coverage. Homeless people I pass on my way to work every day do not have full access to medical care. I’ve always had medical insurance and the truth is, I and all my children would have died long ago without modern medicine. Sadly I can report first hand that witnessing my child’s death is the most painful of all life experiences I know. The thought that another of my children or one of yours yours might die early because they were uninsured and denied medical treatment scares me much more than paying higher taxes, having to learn Spanish or defending my faith from secularism.
Frank
You are welcome. I also had an initial reaction of responding to each thing, point after point, but I realized, as you did, there would be little value to doing so. In part, because I find the talking points so far off from reality that I don’t think showing reality would change anything. But I also thought it is important because it does reveal exactly the sentiment which is fermenting in the United States, and the kind which needs to be honestly dealt with on a wider scale (not by individual refutation on comments boxes where, the next day, the same person response the same way even after you gave your best effort).
Socialism is a philosophy – it is more or less the same everywhere.
This is just pure ignorance of both history and philosophy. Try telling the Fabian Socialists that they shared the same philosophy as Russian Bolsheviks; or the wartime British Labour Party that they shared the same philosophy as Adolf Hitler; or a Scandanavian Social Democrat that he shares a philosophy with a Syrian Baathist. There are almost as many socialisms as there are socialists. Socialism is a monolith only in the imaginations of uneducated quacks like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.
The mob howls before the palace gates, “Hateful tyrant, we demand that you assume more despotic powers”; and the tyrant thunders from the balcony, “Vile rebels, do you dare to suggest that my powers should be extended?” There seems to be a little misunderstanding somewhere.–G. K. Chesterton, The New Jerusalem
My recollection is that the Soviets built walls along their borders to keep people from leaving, not to prevent people from coming in.
“If one reads Carl Schmitt, one can easily see the similarity of thought between modern conservatives and the legal theory which led to fascism.”
All I can say is “WOW.”
I would clarify my statement to be “modern American conservatives” that is, those in America who call themselves conservative, especially the neo-conservative tradition. This is not too surprising, and indeed, recognized, with Strauss being a connecting link (but not the only such link):
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/12974-neo-consfundies-feddies-a-con-artists-bush-to-obama-inbox-x-reply-boyle-francis-to-killeacle-show-details-1613-0-minutes-ago-neo-cons-fundies-feddies-and-con-artists-bush-to-obama.html
If you have the time to read his works on politics, Schmitt is interesting, and worth the read, if for no other reason, to see how this perspective can and does lead to acceptance of all kinds of evil in the name of sovereignty. His ideology was centered upon the friend/foe distinction, the kind of dualism readily apparent in modern political debates.
Jeff, Teresa and Kurt, Mark Gordon knows that Obama is a Burkean “conservative,” and Mark Gordon is right. The intellectual founders of Christian “conservatism,” Burke and Newman, would not be able to recognise you as fellow faction-members. Why? Because you are nationalists, ideologues and proto-fascists. We true “conservatives” are NONE of those things because we are REALISTS, and seek to “conserve” without ever resorting to coercion or violent revolution (from the Right or from Mark Gordon’ Left).
A key thing to look for in persons susceptible to the totalitarian urge is a hatred of bureaucracy. Bureaucracies, it is true, are inefficient sometimes; they sometimes waste time and/or money. But, that said, they are a crucial buffer between the ambition for power and the lust for wealth of political professionals and their plutocratic private sector allies, and the less aggressive wants and needs of the ordinary people.
If government is made smaller through the elimination of thousands of ordinary people–”bureaucrats”–who carry out the day-to-day business of government by interfacing with the electorate, the amount of power held and wielded by the State will decrease not one jot. Rather, all of that power will now be concentrated in the hands of small groups of individuals, linked by class, by alma maters, by inter-marriage, and by values; and these men will be able to enact their will without restraint. In the place of the “lazy” bureaucrat, one will find the highly energetic policeman in charge of daily life.
For all of its frustrating inefficiencies, the civil service is not evil; it is not an adversary of the people; it is not intrinsically powerful.
But power really does corrupt.
Oh, and, by the way, Henry, if Carl Schmitt can be said to be a founder of the “neoconservative” movement in modern politics (and, therefore, in no sense a “Burkean” “conservative”), can we not say that Lincoln was the first “neo-conservative” President (and, therefore, a radical “State-worshipper”)?
Digby, I would say Schmitt goes much further than Lincoln, because Schmitt really deals with the “friend/foe” “us/them” dualism, while Lincoln used the state power in part to try to keep the state together. If one reads how neo-conservative Catholics defend the Iraq War, it would be difficult to see how it differs from Schmitt’s understanding of war and its place for the state. Indeed, the Iraq War is further connected to the New American Century which also links to Schmitt’s understanding of the necessity of war as long as there are states (and he didn’t think there could be one united state for the whole world, leading of course, to nationalistic interests).
His Concept of the Political is a very interesting read. Certainly he is influenced by Maistre (who I like), but there is more Hobbes, more will to power, and more dualism than Maistre, which I think helps lead him to an end beyond Maistre (for Schmitt wanted separation of Church and State, and thought the Church, unless it became a State, could have no moral authority in political decisions, including resolutions of war).
It’s not socialism we need to worry about. It’s some of the people who write comments on blogs!
David
Yes, I know — I’m a real terror ;)
No, Digby, we can’t say that. Lincoln was interested in preserving the Union, not the “state” in the sense that you’re using it. That said, Lincoln did in at least one instance, abuse the power of the state in defense of his preservation of the Union. You can fault him for that, if you like.
I think calling the pretty neo-liberal Obama a “Socialist” is mostly about the right trying to move the Overton window rightward.
Yes, Matt, and to judge from how health care reform shook down, the right is doing a hugely effective job of it.
Agreed, Rodak; a large part of the blame can be placed on the team he’s put around himself – especially Rahm Immanuel.
The left’s only hope is that Rahm is kicked to the curb (maybe in the wake of the 2010 mid-terms?) and we get someone like Howard Dean on the Obama team.
If you want your heart broken some time, read FDR’s first or second inaugural addresses, and then compare and contrast with the current Democratic Party. It’s enough to make you weep.
Yes, but, Rodak and Henry, I’m one of those “unreconstructed” neo-Agrarians from the South who, though deeply opposed to slavery and the racism of my native region, believe that the “War of Northern Agression” was not necessary for the purpose of ending slavery–and believe that chattel slavery, in fact, morphed for almost a hundred years into something worse–the plutocracy-enforced “Jim Crow” system of the post-Civil War South.
For us, Lincoln is among the worst of the Presidential usurpers of Constitutional prerogatives by the “unitary executive”–a forerunner of the “torture Presidency” of Dubya.
Jim Crow, as ugly as it was, doesn’t come close to race slavery as an outrage and an insult to human dignity. To pretend otherwise is to expose something that might best be kept tied up and locked in a closet at home.
Socialism is a living, breathing, world wide political movement represented by the Socialist International.
Taking about Socialism independent of the Socialist International is like talking about Catholicism independent of the Catholic Church.
http://socialistinternational.org/
Talking about Socialism independent of the Socialist International is like talking about Catholicism independent of the Catholic Church.
No. Talking about Socialism independent of the Socialist International is like talking about Christianity independent of the Catholic Church.
Talking about socialism is like talking about Christianity: both seek to work for the common good, but Christianity has the grace to achieve it (hence the Church).
Socialists wish it were an international movement. Socialism was gaining some real momentum early in the last century–then WWI broke out and “international socialism” quickly disassembled itself into its constituent–nationalist–parts. It’s never been as strong, globally since. To imagine that there’a a coordinated international socialism today is laughable. For all our big talk, we’re still a tribal animal.
digbydolben,
From the content of your other comments here, I would have never pegged you as an “unreconstructed” (!!) “neo-Agrarian.” Fascinating the range of viewpoints here. (And I mean that sincerely).
Wow, this is one of the scariest things I’ve read in a while. Why do you refer to BO as a “sovereign”? And to his presidency as his “reign”? These are weird choices to make in discussing the president of a constitutional republic in which the executive branch is equal to the legislative and judicial branches. You do understand our form of government, right? He’s not king, and he’s not got (thank God) absolute (i.e. sovereign) power.
Your comment about how we need authoritarian rule to keep us safe and secure is equally alarming. Did you mean this post to be satirical, perhaps? Or are you honestly positing that we should toss our constitution out the window and make BO a king with absolute, totalitarian control . . . or maybe not king but Fuhrer?
WJ, I’m a “feudalist,” but that is a term that is better understood within the context of European “conservatism” than American, “liberal conservatism.”
This means that, within the British tradition, I could only align with the “wet Tory” element of the Conservative Party and it means that I often DO support what Europeans call “Christian Democracy,” i.e. a form of “socialism” that Americans call “paternalistic” and which I call “socially conscious.” I DO NOT believe that businessmen or commerce should dictate public policy. And it has NOTHING to do with my “sexual politics,” which are–as I’m sure you’ll recall–quite “liberal.”
Chesterton and Belloc would have understood what I mean by all this, and so, probably would Newman have, but American “neo-conservatives” and their populist demagogic leaders wouldn’t have a clue. Also, the composers of “social justice” documents in the Vatican would understand where I’m coming from, even though I decry their elitism and unwillingness to be accountable to lay Catholics.
Rodak, the “Jim Crow” system of the American South was based on a brutal commercial and agricultural relationship that broke apart the only bond that Afro-Americans had previously had with white people–the ones the slaves had with their “masters.”
If you knew anything about the American South you’d know that, until very recently, the only Southerners who were comfortable around black folk were the upper classes, the descendants of their former owners. All the Civil War effected for the Afro-American population of the South was to substitute a more impersonal form of slavery for a more personal one, and that actually worsened relations between poor whites and Southern blacks, for reasons having to do with the economic development and industrialization of the region.
People of my political persuasion (and that of my ancestors, the “Copperhead Democrats”) have believed that slavery was doomed, that the Civil War was unnecessary and that the culture of the entire American nation would have benefited had the South been allowed to secede and then do what many of us consider would have been economically necessary, once she had fallen into the orbit of the Imperial British mercantile system: come back, begging to be re-admitted, having learnt the error of her anti-democratic, hierarchic, militarist and racist ways.
The cultural and political consequences of the unnecessary and sinfully violent American Civil War were that the evil culture of the American South actually prevailed and, for over one hundred years–perhaps until the election of Obama–infected the entire nation with racism and the peculiarly American Protestant form of class-consciousness which is devoid of a sense of inherited responsibility and acknowledges only the legitimacy of success.
Technically, it is probably not strictly correct to refer to the President of the United States as a “sovereign.” He is a “head of state,” which makes him more like a “sovereign” than most modern democratic leaders, which are usually only a “head of government.” If the term “sovereign” can be correctly applied to any part of the U.S. government, it is probably to the Congress as a whole. But, that quibble aside, I think we all know what H Karlson meant.
R
Interestingly enough, when I read defenses of the Iraq War, the role of the President basically was made that of the unquestionable sovereign, which is why many neo-conservative Catholics said that Bush had the right to declare war, and it was just, because the decision of its justness lay with him as the head of United States, and not with the Pope. This is exactly one of the aspects of sovereignty to Schmitt (including the Church has no say in declaring the morality of the war itself), and why I found it interesting and important to see that the neo-conservative understanding, at least in the issue of war, is closer to such theories of leadership. He first wrote of such ideas during the Weimar Republic, but it is understandable why such aspects of his thought became popular under Hitler. But I think you are right in saying traditionally, United States would have seen this power associated with Congress, but the move away from Congress is rather clear in recent history.
The guilt by association applied to the word “socialism” because the Nazi Party was actually called the “National Socialist German Workers Party” is specious. First of all, the term “National” modifies the meaning of the term “Socialist” significantly. The word “Socialist,” in the context of the word “National,” means something like “Corporatist.” “Corporatism” was the system developed by Mussolini, also called Fascism, and studied by Hitler. Thus, “National Socialist” is to be understood as a technical term meaning “Corporatist” or “Fascist.” It does not have much in common with “socialism” in general.
The comparison of this specious association with the term “Republican” in “Irish Republican Army” is, therefore, very apt. When used in the United States, the term “republican” means, more or less, “pertaining to representative democracy,” in opposition to “pertaining to direct democracy.” When used in Ireland, the term “Republican” means association with the Irish Republic, as opposed to association with the British Monarchy.
Thus, as it is specious to associate the Republican Party with a terrorist organization (which nobody actually did), it is also specious to associate socialism with Nazism. It is unfortunate that this actually needed to be said.
Digbydolben:
(I know this comment is straying from the topic.)
I think you stated the real geopolitical risk if the North permitted Southern secession. The South would have quickly fallen under Imperial British mercantilist domination. This would have brought the United States and the British Empire into direct confrontation in North America. This peril to our independence was that we had already fought two wars over.
For anyone interested, http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/3/0/8/pages253088/p253088-1.php is an interesting discussion on the issue of Presidential sovereignty, tying it to Presidential authority over nuclear arms, but also discussing that authority in relationship between Schmitt and John Yoo. I’ve only skimmed a couple pages, so I do not know if I will agree with what is in it, but it is interesting and should provide an external source showing the connection between Schmitt and contemporary debates over Presidential authority.
Hmm. You seem to demonstrate little understanding of Obama, socialism, fascism, or anything else for that matter. Perhaps that is why this post is a total mess.
Yoy write: “Ok. We don’t only see such behavior in communist countries; right race, right ideology, right security were all the concerns of the fascist state as well. It is interesting to note that the way Hitler was able to hypnotize the nation was through his constant radio broadcasts of his ideology. It universalized his world view. Those hearing it all the time soon were seduced — they believed without question, the same way we see the ideologues getting their audience to believe without question today. And there was one thing which united all fascists: their hatred for communism.”
Clearly you are attempting to draw an equivalency between the American Right and Fascism. That is very funny and very wrong on various fronts.
First, Hitler was a Nazi, a National SOCIALIST. This movement was somewhat similar to Fascism which was a political theory started by a similarly-minded Benito Mussolini in Italy. The “Doctrine of Fascism” was written in 1932 by Giovanni Gentile (although often credited to Mussolini). I suggest you read it. It is complete idiocy, but maybe after READING IT, you might have a clue about which you speak in this post.
Fascism, is an offshoot of Hegel (like Marxism) and incorporates the same national identity as individual mentality that oppresses individual liberty (Marx modified Hegel slightly making social class the historic individual, although the oppression of the individual clearly remains). In other words, Fascism is the bastard cousin of socialism– not an anti-thesis of it. Yes, Fascists and National Socialists did not like Communists. But inter-Left conflicts have been some of the bloodiest incidents since WWII. Look at the “Cultural Revolution” in China during which Mao killed millions while battling Peng Dehuai (a Communist) for political control.
The American Right has precious little to do with Fascism– or any other Hegellian form of political theory– other than “Fascist” is an insult hurled about by ignorant people who use it as a synonym for “police state.”
You write: “It is interesting that many who have advocated such strong state sovereignty are also the ones who have had the harshest words against President Obama. He is seen as a challenge to their ideology. What are they to make with a sovereign whose ideas go against their own?”
This, once again, demonstrates your ignorance of your ideological foe. You confuse political power with strong state power and fail to differentiate between the two concepts. Yes, it would take a great deal of political power to undue various Left institutions currently within the federal government (such as nationalized welfare, federally controlled health care, etc.). Political power is necessary for any political measure. This is really obvious and simple. But this political power need not come from the implementation of state run programs– thus perhaps you can see the difference between political power and strong state power. Political power is the means, “strong state power” is one possible result of this means.
You seem to labor under the idea that the American Right would like to institute strong state power to forward their own agendas (as Leftist Fascists did). While there is a danger of that as people succumb to their own version of “Hope and Change,” i.e. rebuilding America according to their own ideolgocial beliefs, this is ideologically at cross-purposes to Classical Liberal values espoused by “New Conservatives.” Compare this to the absolute necessity of centralizing power necessary for the Left implement its big government policies– a centralizing that you openly endorse and champion in your essay.
So let me see, Obama isn’t a socialist. Okay… He isn’t a socialist simply because he keeps socialist friends– oh, and put a Marxist named Van Jones in his administration, while Anita Dunn waxes admiringly about Mao. Fair enough. Yet, in his book “Dreams of my Father” Obama talks rather admiringly about Marxism and Marxists. Hmm. And his administration’s domestic stances involve big government ideas such as centralizing health care– in which Obama had wanted to include a public option. Oh, and Obama stated himself that single-payer was the ideal health care system.
So even though Obama appoints socialists and Marxists to positions within his administration, even though he talks admiringly about Marxism and Marxists, and even though his grand policies fall under the big tent of socialism (such as socialized medicine) he’s not a socialist. So he associates, talks, and enacts socialism, but he’s no socialist. Got it. Makes total sense. Really.
Whether Obama is a Socialist, or simply playing one on TV when the right audience is tuned in, makes no difference really. But you’re uplifting of Obama as a “sovereign” is pretty amusing. Should we all bow when we see him now?
That the American neo-conservative right, under Bush, advocated policies of questionable wars, and justified actions such as torture, under the dominion of sovereignty, indicates that indeed, this ideology us evident with the neo-conservative tradition. The connection between fascism and the corporation is also very important to remember. Really, you repeat many things others have said already — in error, such as the Nazis were socialists.
President Obama is neither a socialist nor “playing one on TV.” I have pointed out how neo-conservative views of the President relate to the views of Schmitt on sovereignty, which lead to the President as being the sovereign (as long as one is President). The authority put to the President (and staff) under Bush show this theory of sovereignty was being used. President Obama is thus in that position; I call him sovereign only in relation to Bush and his team’s positioning of the President in that state, and that I suspect if the neo-conservatives get power again, they will continue to work with what Bush produced, and so they will have to accept Obama as also holding that position.
It is always telling when people have to end up with “guilt by association” claims to suggest President Obama is a socialist. That kind of reasoning has been consistently repudiated on Vox Nova.
The concept of the “Imperial Presidency” gained currency during the Nixon Administration. It was about the concentration of power in the Executive Branch, though the attempt to add golden epaulettes to the uniforms of the White House guards was probably what most people remember the most.
Vice President Cheney observed that the office of Vice President in the United States is the equivalent of the office of Prime Minister in parliamentary governments. This observation offended some people, because they thought that it exaggerated the role of Vice President, and that it implied that the President was a monarch of some sort. There is some logic in what Cheney said. The Vice President is, in some respects, analogous to a Prime Minister, in his relation to the legislature.
In the middle of all this panic about Socialism, one of the important features of Fascism that has been forgotten is the power of the Corporation over the political process that exists in all historical instances of Fascism. So many people are frightened about “Government” making decisions that affect their lives. Why are so few frightened about corporations doing exactly the same thing to them?
We are about to see the truth played out between corportism/gov’t and mom’n'pop capitalism, ‘way down yonder in New Orleans. It ain’t gonna be pretty.
Bottom line: there aren’t any White Knights in the quest for wealth and power. They are all in the service not of Hegel et al., but of the Prince of This World. There is your sovereign, y’all ideologues–left, right, and otherwise.
HK, read his comment again, he did not say that Nazis were socialist . . . he said (correctly) that fascism is an off-shoot (“bastard cousin”) of socialism. That’s historical and ideological fact. Fascism is not the only ideology that wages wars (questionable or otherwise), nor that condones and/or justifies torture in wartime. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find any country under any government in the entire history of mankind that did not wage war and torture prisoners of war. The only link that can possibly be made between fascism and American conservativism is “the corporation,” yet you clearly don’t understand this, either. Or are you suggesting that American capitalism is the same as fascism? That’s patently false both on its face and at its foundation. Geez, even the unsatisfactory Wikipedia entry on fascism would clarify some things for you, give it a read.
Obama is certainly a socialist, and while there is merit to the connections and associations he’s had throughout his life and the appointments he’s made as president, the “guilt by association” straw man ignores the other facts that support this. It’s no accident that the president recently said (as in last week) that at a certain point you’ve made enough money or that he told good old Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around. Or that his ideal is a single-payer healthcare system. Or that he’s centralized, taken over, the student loan industry, that he’s using the banking crisis to go after all large banks, even those not involved in the failure, simply because they’re “big.”
One thing you have right is that Bush was moving toward a more socialist agenda, too. That’s one reason that America elected a democrat-led Congress in 2006 and gave dems supermajorities in 2008 . . . in response to the irresponsible spending and expansion of government and entitlements under Bush. But BO ignored the reason for the change, I guess thinking we wanted more (as his progressive buddies tried to spin the Scott Brown victory . . .we didn’t have enough socialism, so we elected Brown, a republican). Big government, spreading the wealth around (when you’ve made “enough,” to be determined by the government, of course), and shrinking liberty and power of the individual . . . gee, that doesn’t sound socialist to you? It sure does to me.
Oh, and if this post is any measure of what goes on here at Vox Nova, I can assure you that you have repudiated nothing. To do so, you’d have to know what you are talking about.
Oh, I’m repeating the “error” that the Nazis were not National Socialists? Perhaps you should enlighten us all as to what they were then… Fascists? Considering that National Socialism is the translated title of their political movement… Oh and Volkswagen (people’s car) was the name of the company they started to provide everyone with a car, etc. Perhaps you can tell us how Nazis were ideologically equivalent to President Eisenhower or JFK or something…
Would you care to tell us about that very important connection between Fascism and the corporation? How about if I do? It can found here (a link provided by a blogger at the exceedingly conservative Huffington Post): http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
“Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the ‘national interest’—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.”
Gee, that sounds just like Ronald Reagan there, doesn’t it? Especially that squashing of entrepreneurship and all…
You do not understand Fascism. Don’t pretend that you do. You do not seem to grasp the shared ideological family tree that Fascism, Socialism, and Communism all share. You do not address this because you do not understand it. You use the word carelessly. Once again you simply suggest that anything in opposition to your views is simply Fascist. It is not. In America, Fascism is a leftist ideology. That is because (like Marxism and watered down Socialism) it’s ideological roots are in Hegel, it repudiates the value of the individual and the rights to liberty for the sake of the “greater good,” and it champions a strong central government with power over the individual in order “to get things done.”
You seem to believe that both sides of a political spectrum equals strong central government with Hegellian roots, and a disdian for individual rights. And a rainbow (light spectrum) starts at red and ends in red, right?
The far Right is anarchy, not Fascism. A political spectrum should move from strong central authority to no central authority. That is the way a political spectrum should move.
About Bush and Neo-Coservativism:
1) Bush is a Neo-Conservative. Not a New Conservative. They are not the same. None of these views have anything to do with Hegel or Mussolini.
2) Bush was responding to a terrorist attack on American soil that killed thousands.
3) Bush was often roundly criticized by people on the Right during his administration.
4) I said that there is always the temptation to use power to get things done, and many give into such temptations. To do so, is anti-thetical toward the American Right’s championing of individual rights. Bush did so. And your point is…?
In your little Bush tirade you talk about how Bush “started questionable” wars (off topic so I won’t get into that here– if you want to do that later, I’m game). You speak as if he was operating in a void, a world without terrorist attacks, without the First Gulf War and a cease fire that was routinely broken by Hussein and which Clinton routine ignored for eight years. You speak as though Bush was simply pushing an ideology for its own sake. This is disingenuine. And you know this.
Obama, however, is pushing a political agenda– an unpopular one. His health care bill was something that nobody wanted and was not precipitated by any crisis except the one that his PR people attempted to push during the campign to pass the various forms of this bill. Jobs is the issue during a recession. Not health care.
Obama has:
1) Written about his admiration for Marxist and Marxism.
2) Placed in his administration a Marxist (Van Jones) and a woman (Anita Dunn) who publicly championed Mao during a commencement speech. Placing people in positions of political power is not guilt by association.
3) Championed laws that impinge on the rights of individuals for the “greater good” and centralize authority within the central government. Laws such as the new health care law which requires individuals to possess government approved health plans.
4) Has publicly stated that single-payer is the ideal form of health care.
So let’s see here, Obama publicly espouses Socialism, appoints Marxists and people who have, at the very least, publicly lauded Marxists, and has pushed policies and signed laws that move invest the central government with greater authority over the day-to-day life of the American population. You know, all that doesn’t sound to me to be just “guilt by association” that has been “repudiated on Vox Nova.”
So Obama’s not a socialist because… oh right, because you say that he isn’t… Oh, I understand. Completely.
And don’t use Schmitt to reflect as evidence on my views. You know nothing about me nor my beliefs– as amply demonstrate. But why don’t you address what I actually bring up… just a suggestion.
Fuzi and Yukio,
I let your comments through; people will get a laugh at them just like I did. Probably the line which gave me the biggest laugh is from Yukio:
The far Right is anarchy, not Fascism
Once again, when one says something like that, all one can do is laugh. I didn’t know de Maistre was an anarchist, and Bakunin was a rightist. And les ligues d’extrême droite must have been joking when they said they wanted more executive power as a means of combating communism. And L’Action Française must have been seeking an end to government authority, not a return to monarchy.
But don’t worry, Fuzi, you gave me some laughs too:
It’s no accident that the president recently said (as in last week) that at a certain point you’ve made enough money or that he told good old Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around
I’m scratching my head. Where’s the socialism? Nice one!
If “Socialism” means workers ownership of the means of production, not State ownership and control, I will support it with all my heart (which is what it originally means anyway). If it means abolition of exploitation of labor by capital (abolition of ABSOLUTE private property), not abolition of private property based on labor, I will support it with all my heart. If it means the priority of labor over capital, I will support it with all my heart.
Seriously, this word could mean a lot of thing from both the left and right. I don’t get why people uses the word to criticize or praise it without even defining what it is. Many xenophobes just define it as “government intrusion to the economy”, which is basically ridiculous since most modern States intervenes heavily in the economy. In State Capitalism, the state intervenes in the economy in behalf of the Capitalist (Corporate Protectionism, Global Corporate subsidy – socializing the cost privatizing the profit, State Corporate privileges such as Corporate personhood, etc), would you call that socialism? You cannot pick and choose.
Rodak just spoke the truth–something I think we all should agree on, to the extent we’re less ideological than we are Christian.
Digby:
This is way off Henry’s original post,… I wonder if you’ve seen the movie CSA: Confederate States of America? That movie presents a very different post-Civil War alternate history than what you imagine.
Does Catholic social teaching fall under socialism?
Digby, never thought of the civil war in the light that you stated. Very interesting. Thanks.
Excellent comments to read and absorb.
Mark Gordon, I “fear” that I agree with you:)
Fuzi and Yukio, I hope you continue to engage on this site.
Henry, it takes time and openness to “see” what your statements actually describe. Patience is a virtue and through this patience you will be appreciated.
Likewise for the other impressive commenters and their wealth of knowledge.
Digby, your passion and intelligence makes me :).
Nagby is using the modern libertarian definition of the political spectrum. This definition distorts the relation between Socialism and Fascism by maximizing their similarities and minimizing their differences. One could almost say that the libertarian political spectrum is an “advertisement” for libertarianism, in that it is contrived to make libertarianism appear the natural choice.
Karlson is using the classical definition of the political spectrum. The term “right,” historically, refers to the seating arrangement in the French legislature, where the monarchists would be seated on the right, and the republicans on the left. Since the classical definition has long association with related theological discussion, and since the libertarian definition is “sterile” in comparison on this point, it is reasonable to give preference to the classical definition here. It is certainly not reasonable to assume that the only possible definition is the newly contrived libertarian one.
What is interesting is that Schmitt sort of serves as the link between the classical right and American neo-conservative thought. As one who finds the traditional right to be more appealing (though needing some revision based upon development of social doctrine), it is interesting to see how the modern neo-conservative tradition takes what I would think is the worst part of the classical right and uses it to justify itself.
All traditions and systems will claim they are bringing liberty — what that liberty is will change depending upon the commentator. The neo-conservative is “small government” in relation to economics, but it is clearly “big government” in issues of security (and moral issues are challenged as an issue of social security). Indeed, though it gives “liberty” on a particular level, I would argue it is only because such liberty does not seem, as of yet, to challenge its authority that it is allowed. We have seen how security trumps such liberty since 9-11. I do think people who say the one who has ultimate military authority is the sovereign in our system is right, and this comes out of Schmitt, the link between the classical right and the modern neo-conservative. In this way, when we see Congress has mostly abdicated its position to give the President authority over war is important, but not central: it is the President’s authority over our ultimate power, our nuclear arms, which makes him the one who ends up as being sovereign. And it is for this reason why the corporation, which appears to be a challenge to his authority, has not yet been treated as such: since it still doesn’t have that ultimate power nor challenges it.
If this is the case, and sovereignty ends up being an issue of pure power, if we see that might makes right in our present system, then it is clear that classical theories of the right are no longer in play. Their theories at least saw moral limits to state authority and that such authority is not linked merely to military power.
Anyone whose political and economic interests are not limited to contemporary issues might have observed that the medieval religious-social-economic order, what is called “Christendom,” would be exposed to many of the same criticisms that are directed at “Socialism” today. For one thing, the State extensively intervened in the Market in order to preserve traditional social relations. The Market, in Christendom, operated within a social order. The social order, in modern times, operates within the Market.
R. Rockliff, I don’t agree with much of what Patrick Buchanan advocates, but one thing I think he’s right about is that BOTH World Wars were “unnecessary,” and that Britain was, in the case of the first, especially, just as much the precipitator as Germany.
Now, consider this: if a third war had been fought by the United States of America, in order to secure the re-entry of a chastened South into the Union, do you think it likely that the United States would then have entered World War I on behalf of the British Empire, whether or not the South had successfully reunited with the North? I doubt it.
The American-enforced “unconditional surrender” of the Central Powers to the equally unjust Allies CAUSED World War II, and, in my opinion–after living for two years among the dreadfully demoralized, decadent and fearful Europeans–I believe that it ended Western Christian Civilization. And the genocidal American Civil War, with its “scorched earth” tactics and “unconditional surrender” as policies, contributed directly to the holocausts of the Twentieth Century.
Keep on laughing Karlson. I’m laughing right back at you.
Point 1) A political spectrum is dependent on the specific country at a specific time. Thus a conservative in the USSR of 1957 would not be equal in thought/ideology to a conservative in Spain in 1933, nor to a conservative American in 1946; nor would a progressive in Italy in 1236 AD be equivalent to an American progressive of 1903. Since the advent of Marx, the Socialist Left would be similar in many countries’ political spectrums because of a shared Marxist background (which I notice you refuse to address), the relative term “conservative” is absolutely dependent on the country in which the spectrum is based. This is very simple. Bringing up superfluous French examples for your argument is laughable. It, once again, demonstrates that you do not understand of what you speak. But keep on laughing by all means. I mean ignorance is bliss, right?
Point 2) Within the American political spectrum, the engine that makes the most sense in moving along its arc from Left to Right is the amount of central governmental authority exerted on an individual. Thus, far Left Marxism would exert the maximum force on an individual while a complete lack of central authority is known as anarchy. Simply because revolutionaries adopted the title “anarchist” as a way of breaking down existing authority into anarchy in order to institute a Socialist government or bring about some other radical change, does not change the fact that the term “anarchy” refers to no central authority.
Too bad you do not understand this.
I would suggest that you answer my points as I did in my second comment, but by doing so you would probably just bring up another non-sensical French example that has nothing to do with anything within this conversation, so what would be the point?
Here’s some facts for you. You don’t understand Hegel. You don’t understand Marx. You don’t understand (and likely have never heard of) Gentile. You do not understand how these men are ideologically related to one another. You don’t understand political spectrums. You don’t understand the term “fascism.” You don’t understand your political opponents’ ideologies. You do not understand the geographic relativity of the term “conservative.” You demonstrate this by (among other things) mis-characterizing your opponents’ viewpoints, bringing up meaningless examples from France as evidence (France’s politics are not the same as the America’s– that’s a real shocker ain’t it?), and by ignoring certain parts of my comments on the subject.
Oh and your “laughing” at me is little more than a pathetic attempt to belittle an opponent when you’ve nothing got nothing left but egotism and faith. It’s obvious.
So keep on laughing there Karlson. Really. I mean it. Oh wait, no! I’m sorry! You’ve really hurt my feelings there… Boo Hoo! Boo Hoo!
Let’s see if you allow this one through. Moderation is a sign of intellectual cowardice, by the way…
Let’s see if you allow this one through. Moderation is a sign of intellectual cowardice, by the way…
Not necessarily — there are many good reasons to moderate, without it having to do anything with “intellectual cowardice.” But once again, I let through your little ramble — because, again, it really will allow some laughs. You make all kinds of accusations and imputations and then talk about not understanding “opponents.”
The “German Democratic Republic” wasn’t Democratic. Nor was it Communal. The bigshots didn’t have to stand in line. The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) was nationalist and German, it was neither socialist nor for workers. Nazis imprisoned and killed Social Democrats. (so did Communists). The Holy Inquisition wasn’t holy(but quite inquisitive) and so forth. Labels, schmabels. Tell me what someone does, not what it’s called.
Healthcare being tied to the person, not her job, is, by the way, the standard in the entire Western world. But, much like other intelligent things, like the metric system or 5 weeks vacation being mandated by law, it’s apparently Stalinist.
All this labeling is rather pointless. It’s a question of power and how it’s used. Democracy isn’t good per se. Monarchy isn’t bad per se. Whether power is private or public is secondary. Neither is per se virtuous or sinister. A corporation can be more powerful than a government (heck, some had the American military and CIA do their bidding. Eg, United Fruit Company. That would be the perfect name for the GOP by the way. Since UFC is now Chiquita (sounds much cuter eh?), the GOP could switch acronyms).
At what point does a huge corporation cease to be private ? A rather artificial (and fairly recent) distinction to begin with. Power is the important aspect. People have a tendency to screw each other over, and in areas where life depends on it – healthcare – it’s in the interest of a profit-driven corporation to provide less rather than more service. Privately run prisons have less interest in inmate welfare than in conviction rates.
Any form of society features some degree of coercion. If you think corporations can’t coerce, well, then you must be new here. Governments are elected (although the 2-party-system in the US is a duopoly that’s almost impenetrable), so at least there’s some degree of accountability. I’m all for free enterprise – but crony corporations getting taxpayer-paid gigs isn’t that. Privatization of conquered lands benefits foreign corporations (and sometimes domestic gangsters, like in Russia), not small business owners. It just sounds grrrreat. Big bad government gone, in moves big bad Halliburton. Foreign corporations often didn’t and often still don’t pay anything to the countries they conquered. The profits are “exported”. (The US didn’t hire Iraqis for years). In a way, Halliburton became part of the big GOP government – it’s just that the profits don’t benefit the public (the 30 pieces of silver rad-trad Catholic former head of Blackwater/Xe Erik Price got for helping turn Iraq into potters field were probably offshored).
Where government is needed is in situations where one party is clearly weaker. Unions, collective bargaining came through the blood, sweat and tears of countless women and men. (that unions can in turn be awful is a given).
When German speakers talk about Sozialpolitik, they mean aiming for a balance of enterprise and protection of regular people. Sozial doesn’t mean socialist. Socialist doesn’t mean Communist. In Austria, there’s the term Sozialpartnerschaft (Social partnership), referring to a pretty amicable relationship between business and unions. Strikes are basically unheard of. This started in WWII, when Socialists and Christian Centrists found themselves in concentration camps together. Its countless flaws notwithstanding, the European Union is an astonishing achievement. With significant Catholic influence at its founding.
Life is frequently too complex for black/white. The USA and EUrope aren’t fundamentally different (except for the looney bin rapture crowd), it’s in the emphases that we find the dissimilarities. In the USA, the scales are heavily tilted in favor of the rich, in Europe less no (but still, of course). Oh, and, you won’t find 50 foot Austrian flags flying at gas stations. (or people’s homes, for that matter. They tend to be aware of their whereabouts)
(that’s Erik Prince, not Price. A true Freudian slip)
If Yukio Nagby thinks Obama is a “socialist,” let him try to explain why the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are, under him, more “privatized” than they were under Bush:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/no_one_cares_20100503/
Would that Obama WERE, in this case, more of a “socialist” than he actually is!
Without getting into a discussion about the rights and wrongs of the PIRA, I don’t suppose anyone here has seen this, but Eire Nua from 1971 (this is the old Provos, before they turned left – which is why Adams and McGuinness hate it) is a fascinating document and found widespread appeal across the political divide. It proposed a distributist and generically Christian federal state for Ireland – it is perhaps my ideal constitution.
http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/en-1971-go.pdf
some history on the document:
http://url.ie/61y3
http://url.ie/61y5
It is rather depressing to see how widespread the “Fascism is for Left-Wingers” meme has become since the publication of Jonah Goldberg’s mendacious and intellectually vapid “scholarly” monograph Liberal Fascism a few years back. Nearly every error made (or, probably, lie told) by Goldberg in that book is repeated in the above thread, by people pretending to a historical knowledge they don’t possess, having quaffed their history straight from Goldberg’s sewage.
Or perhaps the situation is more depressing, and these people are all just watching Glenn Beck. I dunno.
Gerald N. thanks for the excellent info. I hope it is absorbed by those who disagree. However, if one’s identity is tied up in being “right” or “left” it is very difficult to admit one’s mistake.