(Continued from Part I of the same title.)
And now comes an interesting comment on a momentous historical phenomenon. I am referring to fascism in its relation to capitalism. The following paragraph is yet again quoted from the Wikipedia:
---"Fascism calls for the extensive regulation of corporations and industry in order to serve the nation. It often involves anti-capitalist rhetoric, but whether fascism is indeed opposed to capitalism is disputed. Marxists in particular argue that fascism is a form of government instituted to protect capitalism (sic!!!) during a period of crisis or revolution."
Once again, definitions, definitions, definitions! How can fascism be ‘pro-capitalist,’ I wonder, when it must necessarily imply a powerful, controlling State, which is, of course, anathema to the very idea of capitalism? In fact, all totalitarian regimes tend to be socialistic by their inherent logic, and whatever capitalism they are said to be “protecting” must be “state capitalism,” that is, not really capitalism at all.
Now, this is how Webster’s Dictionary defines “fascism”:
“A system of government (a “system of government,” and not an "economic system," which only points to the need of our further examination of the concept of capitalism [sic!] as a… political system!) characterized by a rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition (unions, other, especially leftist parties, or minority groups, etc.), the retention of private ownership of the means of production under the centralized government control, belligerent nationalism and racism, glorification of war, etc. first instituted in Italy in 1922. Also, the political philosophy and movement based on such doctrines and policies.”
The very first thing that comes to mind in this definition is that it is hardly a general definition of the term itself, but rather a description of a historical phenomenon, as it happened in Italy under the dictatorship of Mussolini. I strongly doubt that such deliberate particularization of a general term will do much service in the quest for the understanding of what fascism really is. Characteristically, historians often talk about the so-called German fascism, which is, of course, also known under the name of national-socialism, calling the general understanding of fascism into serious question. By the same token, there have also been numerous attempts to represent Soviet Communism as a form of fascism, confusing the nature of the beast even further.
(Perhaps, we would be better served by consulting the authentic philosopher of fascism, Giovanni Gentile, in this matter, rather than any of the modern reference sources? I will be definitely doing this in my entry La Dottrina Del Fascismo, to be posted later.)
The solution to the philosophical dilemma here is either to reduce the term fascism to the semantic status of a historism (in which case we are most regrettably losing the crucial link between historical fascism and, say, our modern-day phenomenon of neo-fascism, which is by no means to be relegated to a passive status), or, much better still, to redefine fascism extratemporally, so-to-speak, that is, philosophically, especially examining its theoretical connection to totalitarianism, which is also in desperate need of being adequately defined. (In my Collective Guilt And Glory section, I have dwelled on this incredibly important concept of totalitarianism in great detail.)
...The next ideology considered by Wikipedia, in its coverage of anti-capitalism, is Conservatism:
"There are also strands of conservatism uncomfortable with liberal capitalism..." “...Particularly in continental Europe many conservatives have been uncomfortable with the negative impacts of unfettered capitalism, and the egoistic, hedonistic individualism it nurtures, on culture and traditions. Conservative opposition to the French revolution, the Enlightenment and the development of individualistic liberalism, as a political theory and as institutionalized social practices, sought to retain traditional social hierarchies, practices and institutions. There is also conservative protectionist opposition to certain types of international capitalism.”
(It is necessary to remind the reader that liberal capitalism is laissez-faire capitalism. There may occur a very unfortunate confusion if we fail to see that political conservatism and economic liberalism usually go hand-in-hand in today’s America, and, conversely, that political liberalism is normally associated with socialistic economic aspirations, thus standing in direct opposition to the core principles of liberal capitalism! Keep in mind, though, that the next passage, referring to the discomfort of certain conservatives with unfettered capitalism, talks about Europe, where there is no longer in existence the kind of “pure capitalism,” which, allegedly, but not too credibly, still exists in the United States.)
Now, Conservatism is defined by our constant and consistent reference guide, the Webster’s Dictionary, as “the practice of preserving what is established and a disposition to oppose change in established institutions and methods.”)
Frankly, I would imagine all authentic conservatives of the capitalist persuasion to rally to the defense of the classic industrious "Protestant" type of capitalism, some time ago extolled by Max Weber, against its modern-day nemesis financial capitalism, which has embodied every proverbial vice of capitalism, with none of its redeeming Weberian values whatsoever. However, the startling surge of neo-conservatism in America, not so long ago, and still going strong, despite the global financial crisis of 2008 directly caused by its zealous promotion of Globalism, undermining American capitalist productivity in favor of financial speculation, is giving a new twist to the word “conservative.” I suspect that in calling themselves “neo-conservatives,” the American neocons adopted Lenin’s celebrated method of playing with words, when he called his miniscule band of supporters “Bolsheviks,” “the Majority,” when nothing could be further from the truth.
Finally, Wikipedia’s reference to religious objections to capitalism sounds fairly naïve, and even simplistic, in the light of the much broader treatment it receives in my approach to Capitalism & Christianity, but I am nevertheless dutifully quoting it here, at least for the sake of good manners and completeness:
“Some religions criticize, or outright reject, capitalism: Judaism and Islam forbid usury (lending money at a high interest), an important aspect of capitalism.” (For the record, classical Judaism forbids usury of Jews to Jews, but does not forbid usury to the Gentiles.) "Christianity traditionally forbids usury (wrong again; this is not accurate, as can be seen from my entry Christian Usury Of The Elect, originating with Calvin!), but some modern groups of Christianity have overtime abandoned identifying all forms of lending at interest as usury. Many denominations of modern origins have dropped the prohibition altogether. More recently, Christianity has become the source of many other criticisms of capitalism, particularly of its materialistic aspects. The first socialists drew many of their principles from Christian values (see Christian Socialism and also the Social Gospel Movement), against the “bourgeois values” of profiteering, greed, selfishness, and hoarding. Many Christians do not oppose capitalism entirely, but support a mixed economy, in order to ensure decent labor standards and relations, as well as economic justice. Nevertheless, there are also many Protestant denominations (particularly in the United States) who are reconciled, or ardently in favor of capitalism, particularly in opposition to secular socialism (whatever that means!).
Perhaps, I was too rash, after all, to dismiss this last passage in Wikipedia’s dissertation on anti-Capitalism as something so naïve and simplistic as not to merit a serious consideration. The notable reference to the ardent endorsement of capitalism by certain "Protestant denominations (particularly in the United States)", points to a distinctive American type of morally and religiously dysfunctional endorsement of the Capitalist morality, mostly by certain American Evangelicals. Is this a case of dual morality? I think it is rather a case of extreme hypocrisy, paying lip service to Christianity in abstracto, while at the same time throwing the actual Christian ethics under the bus.
And now comes an interesting comment on a momentous historical phenomenon. I am referring to fascism in its relation to capitalism. The following paragraph is yet again quoted from the Wikipedia:
---"Fascism calls for the extensive regulation of corporations and industry in order to serve the nation. It often involves anti-capitalist rhetoric, but whether fascism is indeed opposed to capitalism is disputed. Marxists in particular argue that fascism is a form of government instituted to protect capitalism (sic!!!) during a period of crisis or revolution."
Once again, definitions, definitions, definitions! How can fascism be ‘pro-capitalist,’ I wonder, when it must necessarily imply a powerful, controlling State, which is, of course, anathema to the very idea of capitalism? In fact, all totalitarian regimes tend to be socialistic by their inherent logic, and whatever capitalism they are said to be “protecting” must be “state capitalism,” that is, not really capitalism at all.
Now, this is how Webster’s Dictionary defines “fascism”:
“A system of government (a “system of government,” and not an "economic system," which only points to the need of our further examination of the concept of capitalism [sic!] as a… political system!) characterized by a rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition (unions, other, especially leftist parties, or minority groups, etc.), the retention of private ownership of the means of production under the centralized government control, belligerent nationalism and racism, glorification of war, etc. first instituted in Italy in 1922. Also, the political philosophy and movement based on such doctrines and policies.”
The very first thing that comes to mind in this definition is that it is hardly a general definition of the term itself, but rather a description of a historical phenomenon, as it happened in Italy under the dictatorship of Mussolini. I strongly doubt that such deliberate particularization of a general term will do much service in the quest for the understanding of what fascism really is. Characteristically, historians often talk about the so-called German fascism, which is, of course, also known under the name of national-socialism, calling the general understanding of fascism into serious question. By the same token, there have also been numerous attempts to represent Soviet Communism as a form of fascism, confusing the nature of the beast even further.
(Perhaps, we would be better served by consulting the authentic philosopher of fascism, Giovanni Gentile, in this matter, rather than any of the modern reference sources? I will be definitely doing this in my entry La Dottrina Del Fascismo, to be posted later.)
The solution to the philosophical dilemma here is either to reduce the term fascism to the semantic status of a historism (in which case we are most regrettably losing the crucial link between historical fascism and, say, our modern-day phenomenon of neo-fascism, which is by no means to be relegated to a passive status), or, much better still, to redefine fascism extratemporally, so-to-speak, that is, philosophically, especially examining its theoretical connection to totalitarianism, which is also in desperate need of being adequately defined. (In my Collective Guilt And Glory section, I have dwelled on this incredibly important concept of totalitarianism in great detail.)
...The next ideology considered by Wikipedia, in its coverage of anti-capitalism, is Conservatism:
"There are also strands of conservatism uncomfortable with liberal capitalism..." “...Particularly in continental Europe many conservatives have been uncomfortable with the negative impacts of unfettered capitalism, and the egoistic, hedonistic individualism it nurtures, on culture and traditions. Conservative opposition to the French revolution, the Enlightenment and the development of individualistic liberalism, as a political theory and as institutionalized social practices, sought to retain traditional social hierarchies, practices and institutions. There is also conservative protectionist opposition to certain types of international capitalism.”
(It is necessary to remind the reader that liberal capitalism is laissez-faire capitalism. There may occur a very unfortunate confusion if we fail to see that political conservatism and economic liberalism usually go hand-in-hand in today’s America, and, conversely, that political liberalism is normally associated with socialistic economic aspirations, thus standing in direct opposition to the core principles of liberal capitalism! Keep in mind, though, that the next passage, referring to the discomfort of certain conservatives with unfettered capitalism, talks about Europe, where there is no longer in existence the kind of “pure capitalism,” which, allegedly, but not too credibly, still exists in the United States.)
Now, Conservatism is defined by our constant and consistent reference guide, the Webster’s Dictionary, as “the practice of preserving what is established and a disposition to oppose change in established institutions and methods.”)
Frankly, I would imagine all authentic conservatives of the capitalist persuasion to rally to the defense of the classic industrious "Protestant" type of capitalism, some time ago extolled by Max Weber, against its modern-day nemesis financial capitalism, which has embodied every proverbial vice of capitalism, with none of its redeeming Weberian values whatsoever. However, the startling surge of neo-conservatism in America, not so long ago, and still going strong, despite the global financial crisis of 2008 directly caused by its zealous promotion of Globalism, undermining American capitalist productivity in favor of financial speculation, is giving a new twist to the word “conservative.” I suspect that in calling themselves “neo-conservatives,” the American neocons adopted Lenin’s celebrated method of playing with words, when he called his miniscule band of supporters “Bolsheviks,” “the Majority,” when nothing could be further from the truth.
Finally, Wikipedia’s reference to religious objections to capitalism sounds fairly naïve, and even simplistic, in the light of the much broader treatment it receives in my approach to Capitalism & Christianity, but I am nevertheless dutifully quoting it here, at least for the sake of good manners and completeness:
“Some religions criticize, or outright reject, capitalism: Judaism and Islam forbid usury (lending money at a high interest), an important aspect of capitalism.” (For the record, classical Judaism forbids usury of Jews to Jews, but does not forbid usury to the Gentiles.) "Christianity traditionally forbids usury (wrong again; this is not accurate, as can be seen from my entry Christian Usury Of The Elect, originating with Calvin!), but some modern groups of Christianity have overtime abandoned identifying all forms of lending at interest as usury. Many denominations of modern origins have dropped the prohibition altogether. More recently, Christianity has become the source of many other criticisms of capitalism, particularly of its materialistic aspects. The first socialists drew many of their principles from Christian values (see Christian Socialism and also the Social Gospel Movement), against the “bourgeois values” of profiteering, greed, selfishness, and hoarding. Many Christians do not oppose capitalism entirely, but support a mixed economy, in order to ensure decent labor standards and relations, as well as economic justice. Nevertheless, there are also many Protestant denominations (particularly in the United States) who are reconciled, or ardently in favor of capitalism, particularly in opposition to secular socialism (whatever that means!).
Perhaps, I was too rash, after all, to dismiss this last passage in Wikipedia’s dissertation on anti-Capitalism as something so naïve and simplistic as not to merit a serious consideration. The notable reference to the ardent endorsement of capitalism by certain "Protestant denominations (particularly in the United States)", points to a distinctive American type of morally and religiously dysfunctional endorsement of the Capitalist morality, mostly by certain American Evangelicals. Is this a case of dual morality? I think it is rather a case of extreme hypocrisy, paying lip service to Christianity in abstracto, while at the same time throwing the actual Christian ethics under the bus.
No comments:
Post a Comment