12 comments

  1. Somehow, this doesn’t surprise me at all. It actually somewhat reminds me of Humberto Fontova’s treatment of Che Gueverra , as a leftist with decidedly unleftist views on, ahem, certain issues. Now all those “national communist” yahoos I keep running into on Facebook are really starting to make sense. But, in all fairness, the radical left and right have always had odd crossovers, such as Yockey’s attempts at breaking bread with eastern european communist regimes, and in the bizarre outlook of italy’s “nazi maoist” Claudio Mutti. Even today, both the postmodern academic left and the Benoist-ite radical right derive their impetus from the same anti-modern, anti-enlightenment sources. (I’ve noticed the former’s attacks on traditional morality and objectivity can be easily traced back to fascist sources.) Can you think of any other parralells, and reasons for those parralells?

  2. Fascism as Mussolini conceived of it was similar to the revolutionary nationalism developed by many Third World Marxists during anti-colonial struggles. Mussolini was a former Marxist who espoused a revised class theory that defined the struggle as taking place primarily between the poor nations of Central Europe and the wealthier Atlantic or Western European nations, rather than on an international level between proles and the bourgeoisie. You find a lot of similar ideas in Leninist or neo-Leninist theories of imperialism, particularly those developed by Maoists. For instance, the Maoist International Movement defines the working classes in the affluent countries as a “labor aristocracy.” Also, think of the non-Marxist Third World nationalists whose ideas overlap with classical fascists in certain respects: Qadaffi, Saddam Hussein, Nasser, Khomeini, etc.

    Incidentally, Ean Frick posted an interesting response to this on the Yahoo list:

    “They seem to confuse the New Soviet Man with Marx’s ideas which, as far as I know, never really spoke of a new type of man under socialism and communism. Of course, different socio-economic systems do produce different types of humans. A man under feudalism would have a different value system and phenomenological outlook from someone under capitalism. Even within a socio-economic system there are changes, hence my generation (Gen Y) is more individualistic, more used to isolation and more concerned with personal well being over commitment to producing a family unit as opposed to people who were adults during the mid century. Of course there have been writings on what the new type of man would be like under socialism, Oscar Wilde’s Soul of the Man under Socialism comes to mind:

    http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html

    I wonder what the youtube poster who put up this video would think about Tomislav Sunic’s Homo Americanus? Sunic argues that Anglo-American capitalism has been far more successful at creating a New Man than USSR was. Just consider how quickly postcommunist Russia adopted neoliberalism to produce what we might call ‘neoliberalism with Russian characteristics’ which soon morphed into market authoritarianism (the new system of the 21st century?)

    Was Marx a racist? Certainly, and most Marxists don’t hide this at all. Of course the personal peeves of philosopher are not their undoing. I would more correctly state that his theories are more ‘civilization-ist’ than racist. Keep in mind that Marx was working off Hegel’s theories of linear historical development. Hegel devotes about a paragraph to Africa in one his books where he writes that it exists outside of general historical development and is not capable of evolving to the standards of the Western civilization. When you look Africa to this day its hard to disagree. Marx believed the same thing and figured that to achieve socialism nations had to go through a certain process of historical development which included becoming industrial capitalist nations before they could become socialist. This is why Marx believed some things which are somewhat awkward for contemporary socialists, like that India was better under the British because it meant that it would evolve into an industrial nation faster. The first major theoretical socialist opposition to imperialism comes from Lenin. Despite what many people believe, including some self described Marxists, capitalism is still viewed a very progressive system and the most progressive thus far, only to be followed by socialism (better) and then communism (the best; the end of history)”

  3. What I find more curious is all the places in which leftist and fascists overlap. For instance, Derrida’s friendship with De Man, Piccone’s resurrection of Carl Schmitt, and the French left’s infatuation with Heidegger. (I hope I’m not coming off too much like Jonah Goldberg here!)

  4. No, I think you’re actually on the right track. Have you ever read the essays I did for LRC critiquing what I called “totalitarian humanism”?

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/preston1.html

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/preston2.html

    What I argued is that the current ideological and institutional paradigm of the ruling class closely parallels fascism in its militarism and empire-building, state-capitalism/corporate-welfarist economic order, therapeutic state, and police state and so forth, with the difference being that the Cultural Marxist social agenda has taken the place of the “Faith and Fatherland” rhetoric of classical fascism.

  5. Yes, I largely agree with that analysis, and I did read those articles some time ago. What separates you, I’ve noticed from the left-anarchists, is a different set of enemies. For instance, the infoshoppers and munsonites still regard the cultural right as their primary enemy, even though that faction at this point has no connection with the state and the ruling class. They seem to live in a fantasy land where social conservatism is the dominant ideology and pushing cultural leftism somehow makes them rebels. But anyone with open eyes could easily tell that the opposite is true. When these types rail against “right-wingers” I have no idea who or what they’re actually talking about: there’s nothing genuinely conservative about the current Republican Party, with its interventionism and acceptance of the welfare state, and most factions of the cultural right-pro-lifers, gun nuts, etc.-are becoming increasingly marginalized. However, for you I’ve noticed, liberals and the left seem to be the main target, and I can see why: they’re largely the ones running the country now, and their cultural outlook has become the dominant social paradigm.

  6. I’ve heard it said of the Neocons that for them it’s always 1938 and Hitler is always on the horzion. Likewise, for most of the left-anarchists, left-libertarians, center-left, etc. it’s always Jackson, Mississippi circa 1955. Their whole ideology is some kind of “Permanent Revolution Against American Society As It Was Fifty Years Ago” delusion.

    When I listen to the anarcho-leftoids and others with similar views talk, I always ask myself, “What world do these people live in?” You would think they were describing Saudi Arabia or apartheid South Africa. I critiqued this a little bit further here (don’t mind the messy html at the top of the page-just scroll down):

    http://attackthesystem.com/should-libertarianism-be-cultural-leftism-without-the-state/

    I’m often amazed at how blinkered some people are on these questions, even many otherwise intelligent, insightful, cogent thinkers. Carson, for instance, once criticized me for being “dismissive” of people who push the issue of “racism and fascism” as if there are mobs of brownshirts and SA hooligans out there beating up and killing progressives on Main Street, USA. Chomsky once accused Ron Paul of, get this, “ultranationalism” because of his opposition to the U.N. (this from a supposed “anarchist”).

    In a column criticizing the war on drugs, William F. Buckley once wrote that rational thinking had completely disappeared from the drug issue. The Left seems to exhibit the same trait when dealing with these matters. What I find particularly interesting is their hysteria over the National-Anarchists. Did you ever see this?

    http://attackthesystem.com/2009/04/the-national-anarchist-litmus-test/

    It’s like they think the N-As are secretly building gas chambers in underground tunnels during their spare time or something.

  7. Both the anarcho and libertarian lefts teeter dangerously close to self-parody when it comes to these matters-which is why, at this point, I only skim through their writings ironically. (I came across an article on infoshop once in which the author declared the main enemy to be the “patriarchal-heterosexist-white supremacist-capitalist system” or something, and it gave me uncontrollable laughter.) As for Carson, he doesn’t strike me as a cultural marxist at all, and if he does show signs of it, it’s subdued and tolerable. I gave up on Chomsky a long time ago, chiefly due to the realization on my part that he’s no anarchist but a generic social democrat (support fo gun control? support for the united nations? c’mon). I actually think the left-libertarians are immersed in pc delusions than left-anarchists.

  8. “Both the anarcho and libertarian lefts teeter dangerously close to self-parody…”

    No doubt about it.

    “I actually think the left-libertarians are immersed in pc delusions than left-anarchists…”

    Did you mean to say “more immersed”? If so, that is my assessment of them as well. The left-libertarians remind me of a group I was around briefly about 20 yrs ago called “Love and Rage.” Their ideology was a weird mixture of anarcho-communism and Weatherman/Black Panther rhetoric about “white skin privilege.” That was my first real run-in with the Cultural Marxists.

    “As for Carson, he doesn’t strike me as a cultural marxist at all, and if he does show signs of it, it’s subdued and tolerable….”

    He seems to defer to Long and Johnson on those questions, which I think is a serious mistake. He does seem to have some issues with the N-As that I think are way overblown. But that’s ok. His work in economics stands on its own.

    ” I gave up on Chomsky a long time ago, chiefly due to the realization on my part that he’s no anarchist but a generic social democrat (support fo gun control? support for the united nations? c’mon). ”

    I still think Chomsky’s critique of U.S. foreign policy is among the best there is, though I think his narrow Marxian framework keeps its from being richer than it otherwise would be. My interest in this area at present is to synthesize Chomsky, Zinn, Cockburn, etc. with the anti-Zionist critique of Petras, Mearsheimer/Walt, etc. and the neo-isolationist views of Bacevich, Ryn, Lind, Buchanan, Raimondo, Rockwell, etc.

    “(I came across an article on infoshop once in which the author declared the main enemy to be the “patriarchal-heterosexist-white supremacist-capitalist system” or something, and it gave me uncontrollable laughter.)”

    Don’t they have any access to television, radio, newspapers, popular culture, public education, universities, or corporate sensitivity training programs? Maybe they don’t. Maybe they shut themselves off from the outside world and just read cultural Marxist literature so they can be safe in their delusions.

    I agree Chomsky’s pretty uninspiring on domestic issues.

  9. “I agree Chomsky’s pretty uninspiring on domestic issues.”

    Exactly, and his take on Ron Paul’s positions was laughable in its profound hyperbole. He even echoed the mainstream liberal cry for U.N. involvement on “moral obligation” grounds, and their anti-gun hysteria. Moreover, his embrace of the New Deal welfare state demonstrates a deep level of vulgar liberal (to use a carsonian term) historical ignorance. The more I read him, the more it becomes clear he’s a typical social democrat welfare-statist, and his “government is bad, but corproations are worse, so until we’re rid of the latter, let’s bloat and enhance the former” position is eerily marxist (rather than anarchist) to me. But then again, the majority of left-anarchists these days are really just marxists in disguise so why should this surprise me?

  10. Yeah, I remember Chomsky saying at one point he would vote for Nader over the Dems only because his state (Mass.) is a “safe state,” meaning virtually impossible to go for the Repugs. Yay for Gore, Kerry, Obama-those great anarchists!

    “But then again, the majority of left-anarchists these days are really just marxists in disguise so why should this surprise me?”

    Well, that’s why I’ve said before that the anarcho-leftoids (many of them anyway) will go over to the side of the establishment eventually. If all they give a damn about is the holy war against the taboo isms, archies, and phobias and the welfare state, then why the hell can’t they just join the SPLC, work a precinct for the Democrats, or maybe even become undercover infiltrators into conspiracy groups as Obama’s pal Cass Sunstein has suggested?

    Have you ever read Sunic’s essay on the 68ers?

    http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/sixty_eighters/

    I suspect the anarcho-leftoids will undergo a similar transformation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s