A recent interaction on social media reminded me of the widespread – and commonly enough, absolutely willful – ignorance of basic political distinctions that are rampant among so many people in the U.S. In particular, I was rather aggressively informed by an individual whose education ended somewhere in the 4th grade (regardless of how much time they actually spent in school) that communism and fascism were identical. Now, one need not be an especially enlightened thinker to recognize what galactically infantile nonsense on stilts such a clownish identification obviously is, but I thought I would use the moment to challenge myself to generate shoestring characterizations of both that, while undoubtedly insufficient by an expert’s criteria, might still serve as a useful thumbnail sketch for those of us who are not experts.

First, let me state what is implicit in the above: I am not an expert. Social/political philosophy is not any of my areas of scholarly expertise. However, I do have a Ph.D. in philosophy, so I am at once a fairly educated and articulate human being, and I’ve had a better than average exposure to such ideas. So scratching out such rough and ready comparative characterizations is nominally well within my reach. The trick that makes it entertaining for me (and possibly useful for others) is creating such formulations in a short and handy way that provides an adequate indication of each position.
Second, a word of caution: as Aristotle pointed out over 2300 years ago, requiring scientific precision of non-scientific topics is manifestly foolish. The shorter form of this caveat can be summarized as, “definitions are dumb.” Unless you are working in one of the mathematical disciplines (in which group I also include such things as computer programming, theoretical physics, formal logic, and such) then anything presented as a definition is never more than a guiding heuristic, not a rigidly absolute rule. Many people seem not to understand this (or deliberately ignore it in the hope of scoring “points), especially when dealing with matters of politics. Hence, any person demanding rigorous definition of, say, either communism or fascism is either guilty of ignorance, disingenuousness, or both. Hence my insistence that what follows are “guidelines,” “characterizations,” “sketches,” and the like. So let us begin.
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