Saturday 12 October 2019

Post No. 1,429 - a few reading links and some cross postings

This article may interest some of you:
I also have a few articles to cross post, which originally appeared on my political blog at:
Review and lessons from TimeGhost Army’s “Rise of Evil - From Populism to Fascism”

A list of my book reviews can be found at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/09/studying-book-reviews.html.  

This video (see here) is one episode in an historical series, presented by “TimeGhost History”, which is focused on the period between World Wars One and Two. This particular sub-series is looking at the year 1932, and other series have looked at earlier years and issues – including the spread of Communism, with several unsuccessful revolutions, the “Red Scare”, and, of course, the second Russian revolution in 1917 which was followed by a civil war (“the horrors left wing authoritarian ideology brought with it”).
This episode reviews the development of right wing authoritarian ideologies, beginning with three Frenchmen.
Firstly, the French General Georges Boulanger who “promoted an aggressive nationalism, known as Revanchism” in the 1880s based on reversing Germany’s military gains in 1871 and also reversing anarchism and socialism to return to law and order and an imagined greater glory of the past (including, in Republican France, supporting a return to monarchy). This “taps into a deeply-rooted French sentiment of revolution in times of dissatisfaction” and becomes popular – almost leading a coup in 1889 after electoral successes, but he missed the opportunity so he could be with his lover, and subsequently fled charges of conspiracy and treasonable activity laid after an investigation based on the illegality of secret societies. There was a subsequent allegation of a sex scandal, and, a few months after his lover died, he committed suicide in 1891.
(The Wikipedia article includes a short discussion on whether Boulangism was proto-fascist right-wing movement or a precursor of fascism, and reports an assessment that, although charismatic, Boulenger “was a mediocre leader who lacked vision and courage”.)
Second was the political thinker Georges Sorel (lived 1847 – 1922), who, influenced by Socialist thinker Karl Marx and Mutualist philosopher and politician Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, considered the organisation of labour was crucial to achieving Marxism, and developed Sorelianism based on that and the power of myth: “Sorel argues that a shared story, regardless if it is based on lies, falsehoods, or myths, is crucial in uniting a group of people into a movement”.
(The Wikipedia article on Georges Sorel states: “His notion of the power of myth in people's lives (in particular, national myth) inspired socialists, anarchists, Marxists, and fascists”. The article also points out that he is noted for a defence of violence . . . )
Finally, Charles Maurras (lived 1868 – 1952), who was a xenophobic, anti-Semitic, Catholic, militarist who also picked up on the power of myth, considered liberal democracy had “degraded” French culture “by allowing freemasons, protestants, Jews, and foreigners to enter the French Nation”, but also considered “Socialism liberated from democratic and cosmopolitan elements fits Nationalism well as a well-made glove fits a beautiful hand”, and developed “Integral Nationalism”. (The strange influences of fascism, incidentally, reached out to also include “According to some even Stalinism, which at the time referred to as ‘Red Fascism’ by many other Communists”.) His philosophy becomes popular in parallel with the appalling, anti-Semitic Dreyfus Affair, and those two lead to “the first really proto-fascist movement, Action Française, which will develop a staunchly reactionary, racist, and antisemitic form of Nationalism”.
Mussolini later develops Fascism in Italy in Italy, in 1922 (see here), which has a shared myth of unfair treatment after World War One (Japan also has a shared myth of unfair treatment, combined with experiencing racism), and multiple French fascist parties develop following his model – although some become violent, using assassination, sabotaging French efforts to aid the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, and forming a basis for collaboration under the German occupation in the Second World War.
Fascism doesn’t, however, become a major movement in France – the only nations where the vote gets over 20% are “Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Romania”, although “there were countries where successful fascist or vaguely fascist movements didn’t use democratic institutions to gain power, such as Poland, Japan, or Spain”. Fascism does, however, develop in many other nations – South America, and then into the USA, for example (where it became less popular as the extent of Nazism’s aggression and militarism became more apparent), and West Asia (“Arab versions of Fascism challenges the status quo”).
However, Germany is where it develops its most extreme form.
This video points out that:
·       just as communism has certain requirements (an industrialised society, according to Marx), so too does fascism:
o   a modern society and nation “with a sizable portion of people fed up with they see as hypocritical and decadent liberal democracies” - which, in Germany’s case, is fed by discontent over ineffective governance, economic hardship, and reaction to the progressive and liberal “German Golden Twenties”;
o   the malcontents are united by the “stab in the back” myth, but this is also increased by widespread anti-Semitism (not only in fascist nations in the world of the 1920s and 1930s: 41% of US people thought Jews had too much power, as compared to 13% in 2009 – which puts a disturbing light on matters such as the rejection of Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler’s regime), despite the fewer than 1% of Germans who are Jewish (although the definition used becomes extreme) being mostly secular, well-integrated as Germans, and not dominant;
·       Bismarck’s welfare state means that most Germans don’t see need for more labour rights;
·       Although fascism is anti-Marxist – particularly so in the case of Nazism, they recruit large numbers of people from socialism (“a haven for disenfranchised Socialist militants and thugs”) – and the name of the National Socialist party gives an indication of the change which has occurred;
·       There are other versions of fascism (e.g., a Mussolini style Fascism called Querfront [Third Position]) but they lose to Nazism in December 1932 – in fact, although the term fascism is now often used as a pejorative, in 1932 there were “many different forms of authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies”;
·       Nazism differs from Mussolini’s fascism by rejecting its “statist and collectivist economic aspects” for an oligarchic economic model where private industry and finance have a certain amount of freedom, provided they toe the xenophobic and nationalist line.
The video ends with an assessment that, while, in 1932, “there might not have been a ‘Global Fascist Surge,’ there was a global anti-democratic and anti-liberal surge, sometimes taking on the form of Fascism. Thousands of people ready to abandon the rule of law, betray civil liberties, and deny the sanctity of human life. People . . . [who] will serve as some of the most hardboiled perpetrators of suppression, oppression, and mass murder of those they deem as lesser non-desirable human beings . . . [and] will be the enablers, the collaborators, and the SS volunteers. They will betray their country, their neighbours, and their friends to fulfil dreams of superiority and glory at the expense of all decency, humanity, and respect for human life.”
Before commenting on the lessons I consider this video shows, I should point out that the video uses a definition from political scientists Robert Paxton: “Fascism may be defined as a political behaviour marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed national militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandon democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraint goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
I consider that definition is probably arguable, but the term “fascist” has, to quite an extent, become a pejorative, so it’s meaning does need to be considered.
Now, the first point I wish to focus on is that of “the unifying myth”, which doesn’t need to be true, and thus shows that the problem of “fake news” predates the terms by more than a century. In fact, it probably goes back to early human existence.
The “unifying myth” today is that globalisation is irredeemably harmful, and that refugees are to be feared.
That video struck a few chords in the world of POTUS45.
And at this point, I wish to defer to Madeleine Albright, who, in her book “Fascism: A Warning” (pub. Harper, 2018, ISBN 978—06-283683-0), covers the threat of POTUS45 and fascism – beginning with her early life fleeing the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia.
Now, Ms Albright points out that the term “populism” dates back to at least 1890 in the USA, and that it has a broader brush than most people think, but “when we are afraid, angry, or confused, we may be tempted to give away bits of our freedom . . . Bill Clinton observed that when people are uncertain, they’d rather have leaders who are strong and wrong than right and weak”. When conditions are unsettled, people lose their patient reflection, and want decisive direction (Ms Albright has a particularly apt analogy with people liking vigilante movies).
So, as with this video, there are conditions which have to exist for fascism to become popular – or at least a creditable or attractive alternative, to a significant number of people.
My “take home” message on this point is that we need to move beyond generic, high-level only thinking to approaches that don’t leave anyone behind.
Yes, globalisation does have benefits for many people, but it also harms some – and those people who were “left behind” by globalisation are the ones who got POTUS45 over the electoral line.
Practising being inclusive in all ways – e.g., widespread anti-discrimination laws and ways of living – would, in my opinion, help ensure everyone, at all levels of society, is attuned to ways of thinking aimed at ensuring no-one is either excluded or left behind.
Now: the myth.
The last chapter of Ms Albright’s book is titled “The Right Questions”. In that, and the receding chapter, one of the topics she raises is whether we are asking “the right questions” (and there are some very good comments about communication, and holding to ideals).
That leads in to the next counter to the risk of fascism: clear thinking.
We’re starting to address this on social media, with campaigns urging people to think about sources, credibility, etc. That’s good, but I consider we need to go further, and teach “clear and present thinking”, as Brendan Myers terms it, in schools – and also teach rhetoric (see here).
I’d like to add a couple of points at this stage:
·       Firstly, this clear and present thinking needs to ensure people are able to identify and reject incremental erosion of freedom. As one of Ms Albright’s students responded to a question about whether a fascist movement could become established in the USA, “Yes, it can. Why? Because we’re so sure it can’t”.
·       Next, we need to be very aware of the methods we are using to counter fascism. US President Truman once made a comment, in response to McCarthyism, along the lines of not establishing a right wing dictatorship in response to a left wing dictatorship. The last chapter of Ms Albright’s book begins with a quote from Nietzsche: “Whoever fights with monsters should see to it that in the process he does not himself become a monster”.
Engaging respectfully is important – Paul K Chappell  writes about it, a workshop I attended a few months ago on how to counter backlash emphasised this, and interviews with former right wing extremists also raise the benefit of not getting people offside through aggression.
Of course, that is easier said (or written) than done – especially the massive damage caused by those people who are hateful, fearful, or misinformed.
There’s an aspect of this that the great Dr Martin Luther King raised, which I quoted a few times of late, that applies here as well:
“It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless.”
In the early stages of fascist developments, there may well be times where the law can and should be used to contain movement away from democracy. An example of that comes in the next episode of the series, about how failures to follow democratic principles (and the law) result in Hitler being given power - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_Iz5yt2YUU.
The other point I’ve noted is that, to be effective, fascists need to be organised.I can't think of any ethical way to fight that, but the principle also applies to those on the side of democracy and freedom: be organised in order to be effective.
I may edit this post further in due course.
Humans, humanity, and human rights 
I haven't had much time or energy for the researching, thinking, and writing of my humans, humanity, and human rights book project, but one thing I have started doing is creating an audio version of the book, and the first interim video is on YouTube at https://youtu.be/zyd4LR_nudw. 

 If you want to have a look at the written sections I've done (I have completed the first draft of Chapter One), have a look at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/02/humans-humanity-and-human-rights-update.html.

Voters and the possible impeachment of POTUS45 
A long time ago, I wondered what could get me interested in the LGBTIQ+ newspapers, and the answer was having more international news other than those based around LGBTIQ+ human rights problems and gains.

I then thought that, well, if that was what I wanted to see, I should have a go at writing it - here, on this blog, since I know no-one in the LGBTIQ+ print media, but when I started doing that (see here), I slipped into writing blog posts rather than using news-style.

I'm probably going to keep using blog-style, as it is more attractive (if not more interesting :) ) on this type of site, but that sequence of contemplation did suggest a few different ways of approaching issues, and one of the main ones is:

Why should people who are overwhelmed with their own issues care about others who also have problems?
This has been an issue for many years - in fact, it was a point of contention between suffragists (the suffragettes were a later, more militant organisation) and anti-racism campaigners in the USA just after their civil war (I'm not going to try and find that reference now: I'm OK with you choosing to disbelieve me, if you wish - but you should think carefully about such statements, no matter whether you agree or disagree), and I've seen that in quite a few areas in my life. (One is work [engineering], where professional demands seem to combine with conservative inclinations to stop some people [others, on the other hand, are up to date, inclusive, and merit the adjective "great"] staying up to date with changes in the late 20th Century, such as laws banning discrimination against LGBTIQ+ people - laws that even came with a big public debate, nearly two decades [some even earlier] before the Equal Marriage public-gay-and-trans-bashing fest.)

Of course, not caring about some people played a big role in getting POTUS45 (I will not use his name) elected - people who had been treated glibly, shabbily, and with disdain by pro-globalisation advocates / supporters / implementers.

So there's one harsh lesson about caring to begin with.

I've written elsewhere about Australia's move away from hospitality to hate over the last couple of decades ("Accepting asylum seekers strengthens our borders"), so there's another argument - viz., being hard and uncaring harms us and our standing in the world. (Mind you, refugee advocates - and I count myself as one - also have to address the sovereignty issue, which I did here . . . and that will come up elsewhere in the post [or the topic]).

Another aspect - and the one that is the biggest one for me personally - is that not caring makes us accomplices, even if "only" in the accessory-after-the-fact sense, to crimes against humanity, up to and including genocide - and what is happening against the Rohingya and other minorities in the burmese empire is one of the biggest examples of that (the crisis in Yemen is another; Syria is the third) - and my thoughts on the Rohingya are at "The Crime of Indifference".

The final introductory point I wish to make is the notion of communicating respectfully. This is something that is brilliantly demonstrated and written about by Paul K Chappell. As I wrote here, in “The Art of Waging Peace” (pub. Prospecta Press, reprint 2015, ISBN 978-1632260314 [Amazon]), Mr Chappell - in a section on listening, and how the target is to change the position of enough people, not all people - quotes the following comment by Leslee Goodman on how Mr Chappell was able to change the mind of a pro-war person:
"I had lost patience with one such person after ten minutes of unproductive dialogue. The Chappell showed up. He respectfully engaged my critic for a full forty-five minutes. Their conversation ended with the man thanking Chappell for listening to him and accepting a copy of [his book] The End of War. A few weeks later Chappell ran into the man and learned that he had read the book and had changed his mind about war as a means of ending terrorism."
This point is also argued for by  Amy Chua in "Political Tribes" (Pub. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018, London, ISBN 978-1-4088-8154-5; Amazon; a review here)., which I wrote about here, pointing out the impracticality - and others problems - of trying to get TGD people to talk to and convince every transphobic person in the world to stop being transphobic. There are limits, elegantly elucidated by the great Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. as follows:
“It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless.”
Nevertheless, when it comes to politics, the notion of communicating (keeping Zeno of Citium's admonishment that "We have two ears and one mouth, so we should listen more than we say" in mind) is a worthy one. In fact, one of the three major architects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, PC Chang (the other two being Eleanor Roosevelt and the Christian Lebanese Arab, Charles Malik - see Mary Ann  Glendon's "A World  Made  New", which I reviewed here, for more on them and the other major architects such as Hansa Mehta) often mentioned "two man mindedness", which was an ancient Confucian formulation aimed at agreeing to disagree, when necessary.

In politics, successfully appealing to swing voters is crucial, and the impact of the investigation and possible impeachment of POTUS45 is one matter where being aware of other people's positions, and planning accordingly, is going to be crucial.

After all, as things stand now, it is likely that any move to impeach POTUS45 would be adopted by Democrat-controlled the US House of Representatives, but fail to get the required two-thirds majority in the Republican-controlled US Senate - neither of the two previous impeachments, against POTUS42 Bill Clinton and POTUS17 Andrew Jackson, achieved the required majority.

That means, to impeach POTUS45, a compelling argument needs to be made for a significant number of US Republican Senators to change their current position, and a lot of that goes back to the effect of this on voters - so we're back to communicating with (not to) everyday people.

Even more so, given that the time taken for these procedures may mean the proceedings will either be concluded during or only just before the next US Presidential election in 2020.

People in my social bubble all assume that the impeachment proceedings will be seen as a terrible thing showing POTUS45's unfitness for the position of President of the USA. However, it is possible that this will harden the views of POTUS45's supporters, and cast him as a martyr for them and some swing voters.

Let's look at that a little further, using a few analogies.

Those who dislike POTUS45 see impeachment as something well deserved. It is like:
  • a bully in the schoolyard being punished by a teacher; or 
  • a bigot being ordered to back down, apologise and make restitution for their harm by a court; or 
  • an animal abuser being forced to give up the animals they are abusing.
For those who support POTUS45, impeachment is akin to:
  • being an LGBTIQ+ person and seeing another LGBTIQ+ person being sacked or or bashed; or
  • being coloured in South Africa before the 1990s and seeing one of your people humiliated; or 
  • being Jewish, and seeing your family and friends being persecuted.
The reactions of POTUS45 supporters around possible impeachment are powerful, genuinely held, and must not be underestimated.

Nevertheless, those who support POTUS45 are, in my opinion, doomed to suffer disappointment. Many of them are supporters because they feel ignored and abandoned by the pro-globalisation "elite". Sadly, however, the way to change something like that is not by withdrawing, or trying to put the globalisation genie back in the bottle (as the "white picket fencers" who want to go back to the 1950s when problems were buried under a pretence that they didn't exist are doing). The way to get more effective change is by engagement, and arguing for things like the measures the Andrews government introduced to help workers who lost their jobs when the Hazelwood power station was shut down (although too many of them are still unemployed, which possibly reflects issues such as age discrimination, and the need for a major new industry), and for the free TAFE courses in areas the community needs, and for a life long learning fund, first raised by the ACTU in around 2012, and which I have added my voice to the calls for.
Going back to the POTUS45 supporters, I suspect they're going to find POTUS45 cannot deliver on his job promises - especially with his clumsy, 1950s era thinking, and his unconscious inclination to favour his rich mates and elites. That will probably be what breaks their support, not behaviour that, no matter how deplorable it is, is viewed as if it was just part of a reality show that is putting its thumbs in the eyes of hated globalisation elites - a view that would be hardened by impeachment.

For an electoral change of President, more people need to get out and vote for someone other than POTUS45 than vote for him, and those voting for someone new will be died-in-the-wool Democrats and progressives, and, crucially, a number of swing voters. Those voting for POTUS45 will likely be died-in-the-wool Democrats and conservatives and POTUS45-ites, as well as a number of swinging voters.

Which takes us back to swinging voters, and how to get them to vote for someone other then POTUS45.

One aspect of that will be how they view impeachment proceedings - which will probably be determined by how partisan or otherwise those proceedings are, and I understand US Speaker Nancy Pelosi is wisely urging her colleagues to tone down their rhetoric. There will also be other issues - including the climate crisis (still not accepted by everyone, and even amongst those who do there can be reluctance to take action because of fear of job losses), globalisation, and jobs.

Oh, and incidentally, the Democrats still need to get united behind a single, credible candidate.




Posted by at