I’ve organized the above points into a straight-forward outline below:
- Communism: aggressively ideological, anti-propertarian internationalist socialism.
- Communism is intensely – arguably, cripplingly – committed to an ideological structure. This commitment has, in the past, rendered communism a rolling catastrophe whenever it has achieved real political power. This is because past visions – such as Stalinism or Maoism – have demanded that facts fit ideology rather than adjust ideology to adapt to facts. This demand has expressed itself in the form of brutally repressive police states that brook no deviation from the State’s cant, and led to “economic plans” that have left millions dead of starvation.
- Nevertheless, communism is springing from a legitimate criticism of the dominant forms of order in the world. Laborers and the working classes have, as a matter of indisputable fact, been savagely and universally oppressed by those in power. So there is a genuine ideal of a better world at work here, however horrifyingly it has ultimately translated itself into real world action. Perhaps that is a key to actually working with and for communism, by keeping it as a minor party in a parliamentarian system with no real hope at power. It would then function as a gadfly, and could serve as a check on the pretensions and pomposity of others.
- Communism is thoroughly internationalist in character; the heroes of its story are the workers of the world. As such, it is philosophically opposed to all forms of parochial closures that set aside some groups as “outsiders,” as “them.” In other words, racism, sexism, and the like are nominally opposed in all of their forms. Again, how this gets expressed in actual practice is typically short of the ideal.
- Fascism: a non-ideological, nationalist/racist program for achieving hegemonic domination and power built upon a populist base whipped up by fantasies of a cult of victimhood.
- Fascism is simply born evil at the start. As Robert O. Paxton has pointed out, Fascism has no ideology, no underlying philosophy. It is exclusively a program for seizing unfettered power. This is why it inevitably aligns itself with capital and against labor, because capital is where the power is held (which labor and communism are trying to take back to themselves.)
- Fascism is nationalist and racist to its core. This is necessarily the case, since its populist base is energized and ginned up with vicious lies about how they are being threatened and oppressed by some group of outsiders: blacks, Jews, Muslims, migrant workers, and so on. This cult of victimhood is one of the keys to Fascism’s hold on power, as it unites its core group of mass supporters in a fantasy of dangerous outsiders while keeping them blind to the fact that their liberties are being trampled in their populist stampede to hand over all power to a political cabal that is pulling the Fascist strings.
Good article, Gary.
LikeLike
Thanks. I’ve been struggling for a while (without much success) to come up with a compact characterization of communism. (Since I’ve been working off of Paxton’s discussions, doing the same for Fascism was relatively straight forward.) So this was a useful exercise for me.
LikeLike
Two remarks/questions:
1. This make me wonder why one couldn’t try out some communist-like method of thinking that would soften up a bit on the “ideological dogmatism” aspect. What if we take that anti-propriety, anti-exploitation and socialism should be understood more as generalized guiding principles (just as you say about “anything outside hard mathematical science”) than as mathematically exacting dogmas – for example if economic planning shows itself to be inefficient, you can cede some control to markets, but you have to also make sure that workers’ rights are not negotiatible – i.e. the actual “hard” part is the underlying *moral* element, just as with other kinds of human rights, while the “soft”/negotiable parts are the means (planners, antiproprietarianism, etc.), and built sets of political movements on that?
2. Regarding the whole question of “mathematically exacting” stuff – the problem I wonder about here is what about when it comes to how people always claim they are chronically “misunderstood” and “strawmanned” in political back and forth? How can this acrimony be resolved? If there is a *fundamental* and *inherent*, if not even *desirable* fluidity in these terms, to what extent can one claim the concept of a “straw man” or “misunderstanding” is even a coherent one to begin with? Are there straw men, or do the words have a life of their own, creating different impressions in different minds that neither can proprietize (heh! back to 1 again! :D)? Or something else altogether? Of course, presumably it isn’t *totally* incoherent, i.e. if you say “fuck socialism” and I interpret that as “drive a car over a log”, it is quite reasonable I’d think, to say my interpretation is false, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a certain degree of proximity, below which such certainty breaks down.
LikeLike
Sorry I was so slow responding. My first guess is that the softened form is what we call “democratic socialism”, something akin to what Sweden practiced (before their own right wing extremists took back control.)
LikeLike
Pingback: I F*cking Told You So | THE QUANTUM of EXPLANATION