What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT

[Falco Knotwise]

From the Washington Post

While the rise of far-right populism has played a role, many victims say those on the right account for only a fraction of these anti-Semitic incidents. In December, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights asked European Jews who was responsible for the most serious incident of anti-Semitic harassment they had experienced: Only 13 percent said it was someone with a far-right political view, while 30 percent said it was an “extremist Muslim” and 21 percent said it was someone with left-wing views.

The fact is anti-Semitism is a growing problem on the left. In Britain this year, three members of the Labour Party resigned after accusing the party and its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, of being — as a former Labour general secretary put it — “institutionally anti-Semitic.” In Washington, congressional Democrats have struggled to confront anti-Semitism within their own ranks. Cywiński said the rise of left-wing anti-Semitism is not surprising. “Do not forget that the Nazi Party in Germany was a party of workers,” he said. “We are many times thinking about the Nazis as far-right. They were also very deeply speaking … to the left, using some leftist language.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... tism-left/

(Paywall warning)

Anti-semitism on the Left is a problem. Absolutely.

Do you think that by definition that there are no right-wing workers parties? Are conservatives completely uninterested in blue-collar issues?

Also, I don't really care for Marc Thiessen, who frequently makes rather shallow pro-war mongering arguments. I don't agree with him that criticizing Israeli policy is the same thing as anti-semitism, as he claims elsewhere in that piece.

My guess is he was making a reference to “The National Socialist German Workers Party” which was the full name of the Nazi Party,

This Wikipedia article makes clear how fascism was an attempt to save Marxism by putting the power of the state at its service.

In an attempt to save Marxism, Sorel gravitated towards the creation of a synthesis of populism and nationalism that also included "the crudest of anti-Semitism".[33] By this time, Sorel and other syndicalists concluded that proletarian violence was ineffectual since the "proletariat was incapable of fulfilling its revolutionary role,"[34] an assessment that persuaded many to see the nation-state as the best means by which to establish a proletarian-based society, which later congealed into the fascist concept of proletarian nationalism.[35]

George Sorel believed proletarian violence was ineffectual to establish socialist syndicalism which assessment “persuaded many to see the nation-state as the best means by which to establish a proletarian-based society.”

This was in their minds an attempt to “save Marxism” and there were many who regarded fascism as the “truly true socialism.” (see the article reference.)

That appears to have been the position of Mussolini’s party and that of the Nazi party as well, which the left finds so embarrassing.

“Mussolini himself confessed: "What I am, I owe to Sorel."

The Israeli historian Zeev Sternhell, considered a leading expert on fascism, asserted that this integration of syndicalism with unpatriotic nationalism was a factor in why "Italian revolutionary syndicalism became the backbone of fascist ideology."[40]

As an inside, it’s Interesting that the Israeli historian distinguishes fascism as an unpatriotic nationalism. Glad to see that because I’m tired of seeing any kind of patriotism denounced as fascist, too. Not that I don’t recognize the dangers of patriotism, but I think there is a kind essential to true piety, which I’ve tried to discuss in other threads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_syndicalism

One thing for sure is they were all partners on the scale of revolutionary dialectics, from Marxism to Fascism, which is indeed essentially opposed to western liberal democracy.

I do not deny there is some affinity between those who wish to establish “law and order” in populist fashion with the spirit of fascism. But to equate fascism with populism is a misuse of language, imo. Also, I do not think populism is necessarily associated with antisemitism either.

As we see today, antisemitism can just as easily be associated with left wing “social justice” and “anti colonialist” socialist rhetoric and even come from within the LGBTH community.

All I’m saying is the left really shouldn’t be throwing stones from within glass houses, imo.

[Falco Knotwise]

On Veteran's Day, Trump in a speech in New Hampshire called his political opponents "vermin" and warned that “the threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within. Because if you have a capable, competent, smart, tough leader, Russia, China, North Korea, they’re not going to want to play with us.” In an interview in early October, Trump said that immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country.” I think this is deeply concerning rhetoric that echoes the rhetoric of fascism in the 1920s and 30s. While I'm not prepared to called Trump or his supporters "fascist," I do think that he's flirting with some of the same kinds of impulses in his speeches and interviews.

And the opposite political party literally supports the extermination of unborn human beings just as if they were actual vermin, killing them by the thousands and millions with chemicals and surgical tools. If you don't find that troublesome at all, I don't take the concerns with Trump's bluster and bloviation all that seriously.

Some of us do think it’s relevant. It’s the blind spot of our age, much like killing heretics was once considered civil behavior in the Middle Ages. If a person is willing to kill the unborn, who are made in the image of God, and justify it in the name of “social justice,” what reason do they have to stop there?

[Falco Knotwise]

George Sorel could even have gotten his antisemitic doctrine from Karl Marx himself. Karl Marx once argued that . . .

. . . society cannot be free from the oppression of capitalism without removing Jews from society: "As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism—huckstering and its conditions—the Jew becomes impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object... The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question

[Falco Knotwise]

George Sorel could even have gotten his antisemitic doctrine from Karl Marx himself. Karl Marx once argued that . . .

. . . society cannot be free from the oppression of capitalism without removing Jews from society: "As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism—huckstering and its conditions—the Jew becomes impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object... The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question

All I mean by that is antisemitism was common on both sides back then. Later on, some socialist organizations would separate Marx’s antisemitism from the Marxist methods of analysis, and give up on that antisemitism. The SPD was one of them, having changed their position before the turn of the 20th century. Nonetheless, antisemitism was still common at the time and the SPD did not even make Nazi antisemitism an issue in the campaign against them.

[Ken]

George Sorel could even have gotten his antisemitic doctrine from Karl Marx himself. Karl Marx once argued that . . .

. . . society cannot be free from the oppression of capitalism without removing Jews from society: "As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism—huckstering and its conditions—the Jew becomes impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object... The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question

All I mean by that is antisemitism was common on both sides back then. Later on, some socialist organizations would separate Marx’s antisemitism from the Marxist methods of analysis, and give up on that antisemitism. The SPD was one of them, having changed their position before the turn of the 20th century. Nonetheless, antisemitism was still common at the time and the SPD did not even make Nazi antisemitism an issue in the campaign against them.

Oddly enough, Karl Marx himself was ethnically Jewish. Both his paternal and maternal grandfathers were rabbis. Although his own immediate family had converted to Catholicism. But despite that he would have been classified as Jewish in both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

[Falco Knotwise]

George Sorel could even have gotten his antisemitic doctrine from Karl Marx himself. Karl Marx once argued that . . .



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question

All I mean by that is antisemitism was common on both sides back then. Later on, some socialist organizations would separate Marx’s antisemitism from the Marxist methods of analysis, and give up on that antisemitism. The SPD was one of them, having changed their position before the turn of the 20th century. Nonetheless, antisemitism was still common at the time and the SPD did not even make Nazi antisemitism an issue in the campaign against them.

Oddly enough, Karl Marx himself was ethnically Jewish. Both his paternal and maternal grandfathers were rabbis. Although his own immediate family had converted to Catholicism. But despite that he would have been classified as Jewish in both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

That’s true, too.

[Jazman]

The mainstream of scholarship over the 60-70 years has placed fascism and Nazism into the right-wing. There are things that Goldberg has written that I appreciate, but he's an opinion columnist, not a historian and "Liberal Fascism" is not a serious, scholarly work.

I agree SZD, that Goldberg is no scholar - intelligent though he may be. He's right though in pointing out a lot of parallels and similarities between the Fascists and Progressives of early last century - much like Falco is pointing to similar parallels between Marxists and Fascists, much like one can notice parallels between the so-called New Right and Social Democrats. I think there is something to the Horseshoe Theory i.e. the more seeming divergence there exists between ideologies the more similar they become.

Don't limit yourself to binary thinking SZD, don't lock yourself into black and white, Manichean worldview.

Who said anything about a binary, Manichean worldview? I wrote earlier in this thread that the extreme ideological right and left of the spectrum echo one another and share some of the same characteristics. I also wrote that both Marxism and fascism are reactions to 19th Century European industrialization. What I don't find convincing is the argument that the two ideologies are branches from the same tree on the Left or that conservatism is innocent of those totalitarian impulses.

It's my understanding that part of Goldberg's argument was that conservatism was immune from fascism because of its commitment to classical liberalism. However, in the aftermath of January 6, he has admitted that he was wrong about that particular argument --

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfil ... t-fascism/

But there’s one important claim that has been rendered utterly wrong. I argued that, contrary to generations of left-wing fearmongering and slander about the right’s fascist tendencies, the modern American right was simply immune to the fascist temptation chiefly because it was too dogmatically committed to the Founders, to constitutionalism, and to classical liberalism generally.

Almost 13 years to the day after publication, Donald Trump proved me wrong.

My view is that generic fascism asserts itself as passion, not reason. Fascism is a highly concentrated and toxic form of populism that manifests itself as the politics of mobs, not manifestos. The ideological constructs used to defend and proselytize fascist ideologies were instrumental, not elemental, to the cause. Whether it was Hitler’s Führerprinzip or Mussolini’s Nietzschean pragmatism, even fascist intellectuals ultimately conceded that ideas were at best secondary considerations, mere marketing to give the naked pursuit of power more credibility and legitimacy.

On January 6, the president of the United States marshaled propaganda and lies to convince a mob that strength and will and violence were required to hold onto power. Sinister, faceless forces were conspiring against the people, and they needed to be confronted regardless of how much it offended the sensibilities of the weak and corrupt. Countless speakers invoked the language of rebirth and vowed to sweep the conspiratorial forces occupying our government. The Buffalo Helmet Viking Guy concluded his prayer in the Senate thus: “Thank you [God] for allowing the United States of America to be reborn. Thank you for allowing us to get rid of the communists, the globalists, and the traitors within our government.”

In the days leading up to January 6, Trump’s coterie, including his one-time national security adviser, raised the specter of martial law to set the nation right. This was in the wake of Trump exhausting all legal remedies in front of scores of judges – many of them conservative – who rejected the president’s often spurious claims. In the year since, the president and his defenders have constructed any number of “stabbed in the back” narratives about how they were robbed by sinister forces that are now using January 6 to oppress the authentic people. Some even try to make Ashli Babbitt into some kind of Horst Wessel-like martyr, a woman who was robbed of her life by the shadowy forces protecting our corrupt order. Countless right-wing populists today openly and unapologetically celebrate an event that marks the end of America’s tradition of the peaceful transfer of power.

Trump continues to use rhetoric that undermines the argument that conservatism is immune or has nothing to do with fascism.

On Veteran's Day, Trump in a speech in New Hampshire called his political opponents "vermin" and warned that “the threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within. Because if you have a capable, competent, smart, tough leader, Russia, China, North Korea, they’re not going to want to play with us.” In an interview in early October, Trump said that immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country.” I think this is deeply concerning rhetoric that echoes the rhetoric of fascism in the 1920s and 30s. While I'm not prepared to called Trump or his supporters "fascist," I do think that he's flirting with some of the same kinds of impulses in his speeches and interviews.

This and what HK quoted (Hayek) corresponds with the discussion I was trying to start here: POLL: Would you like these policies carried out by a future administration It's kind of fizzled out; it was wishful thinking on my part to hope some of the participants on our little forum would engage in a (self-implicating?) discussion of the illiberal/authoritarian rhetoric (campaign promises?) that they themselves have proposed/wished for in other forum contexts... I find that interesting; that some of the same ideas expressed on the campaign/rally platform recently, have been expressed here; sometimes months earlier. The ideas/rhetoric must be wished for / talked about a lot in a media sphere that I don't inhabit... maybe it's a tell...

[HondurasKeiser]

Hk, here are two lectures that I imagine you might enjoy, and I would like to hear your critique. I have listened to them four times and it is rare that I hear something that challenges and captivates as much as this has.

I post it here because her thesis is American Liberalism is a different tradition from European Liberalism, such as being discussed here. She argues it descends from its own sources and follows its own values and stood in opposition (at times) to the Liberal traditions of someone like Jefferson. In her view it springs from the cultural and religious expressions of an unlikely and commonly maligned group.

Marilynne Robinson: Liberalism and American Tradition

https://www.nypl.org/blog/2019/02/22/ma ... t-i-ep-254

Alright Barnhart, I have listened to both parts twice and found them fascinating. There's a lot to unpack and I'm not sure I can either do her talk justice or put my "critique" in a coherent format so forgive me for "bullet-pointing" my thoughts:

First some quibbles:

I am not sure that the English Poor Laws were as thoroughly deranged as Robinson describes. By no means perfect or even humane by modern standards; they nevertheless strike me an as early attempt to help alleviate the suffering of the "impotent poor" and to find ways to put the "jobless poor" to work in addition to punishing the "vagrant poor". The Puritans would do it better (the Anabaptists did it best?) but to suggest that the purpose of the Poor Laws was to keep the Poor, poor so they could remain a pool of cheap labor strikes me as misinterpreting the results ex post for intent ex-ante. It also occurs to me that inasmuch as the Poor Laws placed much of the burden for providing for the poor on taxpayers and sought ways to provide "make-work", they seem a kind of antecedent not to Capitalism but rather Socialism or at least the Welfare State which, were often told by both Left and Right, is really socialism by another name.

One other thought: Robinson bases much of her comparison between the Puritan's treatment of the Poor with that of the Tudors and their successors through a select reading of the English Poor Laws drawn against the aspirational and (truly) inspirational writings of Puritan leaders like Winthrop, Ward, Edwards and Peters. I was curious though about how much of that aspiration made it down from the heavens and into the brass tacks of workaday New England life, law and practice. While it seems that the Puritans did a better job (at first) for caring for the "deserving poor" there was little difference between the Puritans and England in their treatment of the "idle poor" and the "strolling poor". Indeed, it seems many of the early Massachusetts Bay laws about those 2 classes of poor borrowed heavily from established English law; Rhode Island for example, in 1647, simply adopted the English Poor Laws of 1598 completely intact. By 1735 Boston had a workhouse for the "idle poor" and almshouses had supplanted a more organic style of help for the "deserving poor". Another important note, Puritan New England allowed for slavery and the peculiar institution persisted there until after the Revolution. Robinson uses Henry Ward Beecher to draw a distinction between the Northern (Puritan) conception of man with that of the Southerner (Cavalier) but she and he fail to take into account that just 30 years prior to Beecher's birth, it was perfectly legal to own a slave in Boston.
https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/913 & https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/3083
For a comparison between English Puritan's and John Wesley's treatment of the Poor.


The religious tolerance of the Puritans is mentioned in passing as having been "written about beautifully" in Part 1 of her talks and is meant as a juxtaposition to that of the Jamestown Colony's Dale's Code, which among other draconian measures, specified "suffering death" for the 3rd offense of failing to "repair to Divine Services". The almost unspoken refrain throughout her talk is that the much maligned Puritans were and are misunderstood in many areas of life but especially in the realm of religion; they being far more tolerant than their Virginia cousins or anyone else in Europe for that matter. Writings and law codes are one thing but again, how these laws were enforced, or the writings put into practice, seems the more relevant question. A little research tells me that the Dale's Laws, while strictly enforced, were only in effect from 1612-1618. Meanwhile, the beautiful sentiments on religious toleration up in New England were translated into corporal punishment, banishment, and execution for heresy. Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams were driven from Massachusetts Bay for their dissenting opinions and 4 Quakers were hanged in the 1660's for refusing to be silent in public. It's notable that, according to Jefferson, no such corporal punishment or execution was ever meted out to Quakers in the Virginia Colony.

Both Virginia and Massachusetts Bay banned the Quakers, both punished dissension, but one (Virginia) slowly allowed Mennonites into their colony whilst the other (Massachusetts Bay) in 1651, publicly whipped a certain Anabaptist by the name of Obadiah Holmes while he prayed for them.

Guess which colony this quote comes from?
"all Familists, Antinomians, Anabaptists, and other Enthusiasts shall have free Liberty to keep away from us, and such as will come [shall have liberty] to be gone as fast as they can, the sooner the better."

All that to say, while the codes and writings of both may be held up for comparison in an attempt to rehabilitate the Puritans, when looking at quotidian life in the two colonies; I don't see a lot of daylight between them.

Those were my quibbles and in the grand scheme of answering your question about Liberalism they don't mean a whole lot but I did want to get them out of the way.

[barnhart]

I had similar thoughts about the practical effects of all that inspirational writing. I remember reading about the Boston colony breaking Quakers on the wheel for preaching without a license and I live at the southern terminus of the Hutchinson parkway. But it is refreshing to see someone on dig in to the history of a group like the Puritans without an open mind to see what they actually said rather than dismissing them with stale platitudes, as Ms. Robinson calls it "intellectual lockdown."

Back to the topic at hand, the roots of American Liberalism, she is attempting to sketch out a foundation separate from European Liberalism, and I see some truth in the general concept. One notable difference is the lack of the doctrine of class struggle. The Puritans saw social action as creating a space for harmony of classes, not thy dissolution of economic class, nor was struggle between the classes a necessary engine for social progress. They also were interested in a society of possibility for the lowest and had little interest in recreating medieval manors and Lords that men like Jefferson favored to the south.

I see roots of this broad based social vision in programs like progressive tax rates, social security and Medicare. They were designed from the beginning to benefit all classes without punitive action against any. I would if this baseline value prevented the violent forms of Marxism and class struggle from taking root.

[Ken]

What was going on in the American colonies during the 1650s is probably not all that relevant. Total population of the American colonies in 1650 was about 50,000 compared to about 5.6 million for England alone and a total European population of about 75 million. So it was a trivial backwater in every way. Plus, I expect American liberalism finds its roots much more in the Enlightenment than the Puritans.

I also expect it is more relevant to look at the evolution of American political thought when America was a more substantial country in the middle and later halves of the 19th century. I expect that is when most of the threads that exist today got their start. First with slavery and the civil war and then later with all the social movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.