Posted on 02/22/2014 2:49:10 PM PST by Sherman Logan
The Eurasian movement of Putin and his allies draws from both Nazism and Stalinism.
Dear Reader (Including the trenchcoat-wearing FCC minister with breath like he’s been sucking a urinal cake looking over my shoulder, tapping his BIC pen on his glass eye, and sighing every time I write something he doesn’t like),
I’ve got to bang out this “news”letter pretty quickly. I’m sitting in a too-small fake wicker chair at the coffee shop at the Broadmoor (one of my favorite hotels, btw). The time difference here puts me two hours behind at six in the morning. Plus, I don’t want the housekeeping staff to find the body in my room. If I didn’t need coffee so badly I would have taken care of that already. But one must prioritize. I think the high altitude here is making my brain itch.
FASCISM, AGAIN
Timothy Snyder has written the best piece I’ve seen on what’s going on in Kiev. It’s worth reading just as a primer. But it’s also interesting in other ways. I had not read a lot about the “Eurasian Union,” a proposed counterweight to the European Union, in much the same way the Legion of Doom is a counterweight to the Justice League. Putin and a band of avowed “National Bolshevik” intellectuals are in effect trying to put the band back together. Snyder writers:
The Eurasian Union is the enemy of the European Union, not just in strategy but in ideology. The European Union is based on a historical lesson: that the wars of the twentieth century were based on false and dangerous ideas, National Socialism and Stalinism, which must be rejected and indeed overcome in a system guaranteeing free markets, free movement of people, and the welfare state. Eurasianism, by contrast, is presented by its advocates as the opposite of liberal democracy.
The Eurasian ideology draws an entirely different lesson from the twentieth century. Founded around 2001 by the Russian political scientist Aleksandr Dugin, it proposes the realization of National Bolshevism. Rather than rejecting totalitarian ideologies, Eurasianism calls upon politicians of the twenty-first century to draw what is useful from both fascism and Stalinism. Dugin’s major work, The Foundations of Geopolitics, published in 1997, follows closely the ideas of Carl Schmitt, the leading Nazi political theorist. Eurasianism is not only the ideological source of the Eurasian Union, it is also the creed of a number of people in the Putin administration, and the moving force of a rather active far-right Russian youth movement. For years Dugin has openly supported the division and colonization of Ukraine.
The point man for Eurasian and Ukrainian policy in the Kremlin is Sergei Glazyev, an economist who like Dugin tends to combine radical nationalism with nostalgia for Bolshevism. He was a member of the Communist Party and a Communist deputy in the Russian parliament before cofounding a far-right party called Rodina, or Motherland. In 2005 some of its deputies signed a petition to the Russian prosecutor general asking that all Jewish organizations be banned from Russia.
Some of this was news to me. I was familiar with the National Bolshevism of the early Nazi years. Thinkers like the Ukrainian Bolshevik Karl Radek and the Nazi Otto Strasser dabbled with the idea of merging Bolshevik and Nazi ideology. After all, if you’re already a National Socialist it’s not that long a trip to being a National Bolshevik, now is it? Some left-wing members of the Nazi military described themselves as National Bolsheviks as well. But ultimately, National Bolshevism as an intellectual movement died in the crib. Or so I thought.
What I did not know is that National Bolshevism is making such a comeback. And while, it’s evil and a national-security threat and all that, I can’t help but smile.
THE OPPOSITE OF OPPOSITES
National Bolshevism must strike some on the left as quite perplexing. After all, Bolshevism and Nazism — like fascism and socialism — are opposites, right?
If you read my book, you’d know I consider this the greatest myth and/or lie of the 20th century (coming in a distant second: the idea that there is a difference between good flan and bad flan).
Funny enough, the Eurasianists are counting on this myth for their propaganda campaign. They insist that the protesters in Kiev are trying to stage a “brown revolution” or fascist coup. In other words the de facto fascists are calling the anti-fascists “fascists.” And apparently lots of folks are falling for it. Snyder again:
Why exactly do people with such views think they can call other people fascists? And why does anyone on the Western left take them seriously? One line of reasoning seems to run like this: the Russians won World War II, and therefore can be trusted to spot Nazis. Much is wrong with this. . . .
The other source of purported Eurasian moral legitimacy seems to be this: since the representatives of the Putin regime only very selectively distanced themselves from Stalinism, they are therefore reliable inheritors of Soviet history, and should be seen as the automatic opposite of Nazis, and therefore to be trusted to oppose the far right.
Again, much is wrong about this. . . .
Snyder’s rebuttals are good (I’ve trimmed them mostly for space). But they don’t cut to the heart of it.
First, let’s clear some underbrush. The idea that Communism and Nazism are opposites is more of a utilitarian idea than a core conviction for the Left. It is a rationalization that allows the Left to cut around the historical tumor of Nazism and fascism and say, That has nothing to do with us.
But the simple fact is that the hard Left has always endorsed or at least sympathized with national-socialist countries. What do you think Cuba is? It’s nationalistic and it’s socialistic. Venezuela under Chávez and now Maduro is nationalist and socialist. Nicaragua in the 1980s, etc., etc. Read a speech by any socialist dictator and swap out the word “socialize” for “nationalize”: The meaning of the sentences doesn’t change one iota. Nationalized health care is socialized medicine. Even Obama’s weak-tea socialistic rhetoric is usually dolled up in the rhetoric of nationalism, even militaristic nationalism. Let’s all be like SEAL Team Six! Let’s make this a “Sputnik Moment.”
Most of the Left in the U.S. didn’t really hate the German national-socialists until Stalin told them to. That the useful idiots thought Stalin’s command to turn on his one-time Nazi ally was rooted in deep ideological conviction just proves the depths of their idiocy.
After all, it’s not like the Left suddenly turned on Stalin when he embraced nationalism wholeheartedly and talked of fighting the Nazis as part of the “Great Patriotic War for Mother Russia.” But, hey, maybe I’m missing the deep Marxist themes in the phrase “Great Patriotic War for Mother Russia.”
NORTH KOREA BY ANOTHER NAME
If you think this is all semantic faculty-lounge argy-bargy, consider the fact that North Korea is in many ways as “Nazi” as the Nazis were. It’s a nationalist country that subscribes to eugenic theories that it uses to justify the industrial torture and slaughter of its own citizens. In fact, North Korea’s eugenics is crazier than Nazi Germany’s was. I’m not trying to minimize the evil of the Holocaust, but “Jew” is a real category of human being and eugenics generally weren’t discredited in the 1930s. Eighty years later, North Korea believes that the political views of people are genetically heritable for generations. So you can get sent to a death camp if your great uncle said something nice about America or if your second cousin lives in South Korea.
But because of the emotional and political investment in the idea that Nazism has nothing to do with Communism, North Korea is put in a category of lesser evil. If the Kims just described themselves as Nazis — but kept all of the same policies — it would be vastly easier to rally public opinion against their decades of murder. But when you talk about the evil of Communist regimes, a lot of people idiotically roll their eyes. Everyone is a brave anti-Nazi now that they’re all gone, but many are afraid to devote a fraction of that passion when it comes to the heirs, imitators, and competitors of Nazism.
HERESIES OF HERESIES
Richard Pipes had the best pithy summation of the difference between Nazism and Bolshevism. They aren’t opposites, he argued, they’re both “heresies of socialism.”
I agree with this entirely, but step back from that a bit. Socialism itself is a heresy — a heresy of tribalism. Socialism is simply an attempt to gussy up ancient tribal tendencies in modern garb. Nazism was tribalism of one race. Communism is tribalism of one class. Italian fascism was tribalism of one nation.
There are of course, better and worse forms of tribalism. And, I would argue that a little tribalism, like a little nationalism, is a healthy thing, insofar as communities aren’t held together by reason alone. They’re held together by a complex set of sentiments, and a politics that doesn’t take account of that will necessarily fail. As Edmund Burke writes, “politics ought to be adjusted not to human reasonings but to human nature, of which the reason is but a part, and by no means the greatest part.”
But here is the important point. Looking back on the long history of humanity, tribalism — simple or complex — was the norm for 99 percent of our time on Earth. It wasn’t until 200-300 years ago that a different path emerged. (Yes, Christianity was a big leap forward in advancing a universal conception of humanity, in principle. But in practice it was often coopted by tribalism in one form or another. We can talk about that more another time.) The different path emerged largely in England and spread from there. This different path recognized the sovereignty of the individual, the necessity of the rule of law, democratic legitimacy, and private property, and the inherent dignity of bourgeois labor.
As I’ve written before, what makes America special is that we took England’s culture of liberty and broadened it out into a virtual tribe of liberty. I say virtual because we took the ethnic and racial components out of it (and, no, we didn’t do it overnight). You can be a progressive or a liberal or a social democrat and still believe in all of the things that define the tribe of liberty. You can also be a nationalist, a patriot, or a traditionalist and believe in all of these things. But go too far in either direction and you can fall off the path. Perhaps path is the wrong word. Bridge might make more sense. After all there’s a left side and a right side of the road. But if you fall off a bridge, all you do is fall down.
Seen from this perspective the differences between Bolshevism, Nazism, Maoism, Italian Fascism, North Korean Juche, et al may be interesting or meaningful (the differences between football and rugby are interesting and meaningful, but at the end of the day they’re both just games). But seen from the broadest perspective, they’re simply different ways to fall off the bridge and back into the wilderness below.
VARIOUS AND SUNDRY
My apologies if this “news”letter was lacking in verve and panache this week. Maybe it’s the fact the Couch couldn’t make it out West this week.
Also, if you want to unsubscribe from this “news”letter, by all means do so. But in the spirit of William F. Buckley, let me ask you that you cancel your own damn subscription. I have asked the suits to put in or restore the unsubscribe button (I could’ve sworn there used to be one).
Quick Zoë update. As I’ve said before, we’re pretty sure that Zoë is a Carolina dog, and not a German Shepherd mix. She may be a mix of all sorts of stuff, of course. Though readers who think she’s a Shiba Inu are probably giving a bit too much credit to the stock of stray dogs in rural South Carolina. Anyway, healthwise she seems to be thriving. But behaviorally she is a major handful. Obsessed with tracking down “treats” in the dirt and the snow, she’s not much interested in listening to her humans. The other day, Zoë found a rabbit’s head under the snow and ran off with it. She wouldn’t drop it for anything, much to my wife’s dismay. She’s also turning into a dirt eater, which is bad enough outside. But inside is a real problem, which is why we’re going to put cayenne pepper in our potted plants. On the upside, she remains improbably cute and her commitment to squirrel chasing is total.
Readers' Digest Condensed Version of the Road to Serfdom (in PDF format)
You see the same kind of intellectual dishonesty (unless it's just plain ignorance) at work with Goldberg's classification of Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco as "left wing," on the grounds that American rightwingers are libertarian while fascists were authoritarian.
Obviously, the American right doesn't share much in common strategy-wise with the European right (especially fascists). What they do have in common, and what classifies them both as right-wing, is that they both follow the dictionary definition of conservative vs. liberal: upholding the traditional social structure and hierarchy versus subverting it. Webster's Dictionary definitions of conservative/liberal and right/left-wing don't say anything about the size of government. I think I'll stick to these and leave the "Stalin was actually right wing" or "Hitler was a leftist" to the intellectually dishonest or misinformed on either side of the aisle.
I try not to use "Left: and "Right" all that much because these disagreements always crop up and they are tiresome.
It seems to me that the spectrum is really Collectivist vs Individualist. Mussolini identified himself as a Collectivist. He focused on the group, on society, on the state.
Lenin, Trotsky, Hitler, and Obama have all focused on the group, on society, on the state.
Our Founding Fathers declared some individual rights to be inalienable and they wrote a Constitution designed to protect individuals from the over-reaching power of Government.
America was not intended to be a Collectivist society, but it has become one.
The fact that Mussolini himself was probably an atheist or an agnostic is irrelevant, what matters is what alliances he fostered politically. The point I was trying to make is that the traditional right tends to support the Church and its role in society (even if it's solely for opportunistic reasons) while the radical left is anti-clerical. Mussolini's relationship with the Church underscores the fact that his movement were by all rights the former.
As I told ZC, this whole "fascists were liberals" tack from people like Goldberg stinks of incredible ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty.
However, it seems strange to me that somebody could realize that anyone who understands the history of the Right vs. Left divide (pro-aristocracy, pro-Church, and pro-industrialist landowner vs. pro-labor union) could claim that European movements who sought the support of aristocrats, clergy, and industrialists and crushed the labor unions are actually "left wing."
The reason people focus on these definitions is because you have authors like Goldberg making absurd statements like "Hitler and Mussolini were leftists because they were anti-individualistic collectivists." The military is by its very nature anti-individualist and collectivist. Does this make all militaries, including our own, inherently "left-wing?"
Fascist movements basically took the collectivism inherent to military organization and expanded it to encompass the entire organization of the state and society. Now, there are good reasons to say that this is not a desirable state of affairs here or anywhere else, but to call their movements "leftist" or "liberal" on these grounds is ridiculous.
It seems to me that the essential point is that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini all approached the entire organization of the state and society in very similar ways. They were all anti-individualistic collectivists.
I don't care how you label the spectrum, but I think, as a group, they all bunch up on the same side.
I'm having a really hard time with that string of words. I don't think it has any meaning at all.
Well, I've often observed that the American Left is certainly different from the Left elsewhere precisely because it is anti-military and anti-patriotic--even self-hating--whereas the Left elsewhere (especially in the Third World) is very militaristic and patriotic. For years Communists described themselves as the "patriotic" side in every conflict with anti- or non-Communists (remember Nkomo's and Mugabe's "Patriotic Front," or Ho Chi Minh's original pseudonym of "Nguyen the Patriot?"). Plus since the end of World War II Communism has presented itself primarily as a way for occupied "indigenous" peoples to attain national independence and sovereignty by chasing out the "foreign devils." One need only look at the Irish Republican movement to see a perfect example of this almost mystical Communist nationalism.
The American Left is so different from the Left elsewhere that I have often wondered if the American Left could ever govern this country. How does it suppress "counter-revolution" and defend itself from foreign attack if it is so anti-military? And again, if this country should never have been created in the first place, why "liberate" it to begin with? Why not just dis-establish it?
Would a Communist America (G-d forbid!) even invoke "socialist patriotism" at all?
These are not problems the Left anywhere else has had to contend with. A brief look at Cuba will show how the Left outside the United States adopts to militarism quite easily as well as to the "fascist" tactic of identifying the ruling ideology with the nation to such an extent that dissent from the ideology is un-patriotic. While Communists in other countries wave their national flags, American Communists would probably burn their own, even after coming to power (G-d forbid!).
You see the same kind of intellectual dishonesty (unless it's just plain ignorance) at work with Goldberg's classification of Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco as "left wing," on the grounds that American rightwingers are libertarian while fascists were authoritarian.
Most American conservatives do not condemn Franco, Salazar, Papadopoulos, or similar personalities. Their fascism that equals communism is pretty much limited to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy (another sign of dishonesty). After all, while Franco was certainly preferable to any Communist dictator, his regime was highly centralized and cracked down very hard on regionalism. Yet he is a hero to American conservatives who attack "big government" and defend "states' rights." This also tells us that there is still a connection between even American conservatism and conservatism elsewhere. (Another centralizing ruler for whom American conservatives have warm feelings is Chiang Kai-shek, whose nationalist ideology was opposed to the federalism which some of his and Sun Yat-sen's opponents advocated. Chiang also criticized capitalists and expropriated some businesses to state ownership.)
Another centralizing, "big government" right winger who is hailed by even neo-conservatives is Augusto Pinochet. True, Pinochet saved his country from the Communists and single-handedly pushed back the Brezhnev Doctrine. But do American minarchist conservatives truly view his government as one they would like to see implemented here (outside of an emergency)?
Belatedly, I would like to point out that Brazilian ultra-traditionalist Catholic Plinio Correa de Oliveira considered Franco not as a true conservative Catholic, but as a "national socialist" posing as a conservative Catholic.
Obviously, the American right doesn't share much in common strategy-wise with the European right (especially fascists). What they do have in common, and what classifies them both as right-wing, is that they both follow the dictionary definition of conservative vs. liberal: upholding the traditional social structure and hierarchy versus subverting it. Webster's Dictionary definitions of conservative/liberal and right/left-wing don't say anything about the size of government. I think I'll stick to these and leave the "Stalin was actually right wing" or "Hitler was a leftist" to the intellectually dishonest or misinformed on either side of the aisle.
I agree with you 100%, although it must be remembered that Italian Fascism, German Nazism, and Primo de Rivera's original conception of Spanish Falangism were revolutionary movements, and to a certain extent anti-traditional, though not to the extent of Communism. Moreover, Fascist totalitarians (and to some extent the non-totalitarian European right) are often atheists or agnostics who view religion as a cultural relic to be exploited for purely utilitarian purposes.
The point at which the American right breaks off from the right in Europe and elsewhere is the point where social classes based on traditional aristocracy give way to those based on ownership of the means of production by upwardly mobile individuals. To Communists the capitalist class structure is a huge improvement over everything that preceded it but it is still a class division--the last to be overcome and abolished. To the European right it is at this point where the traditional aristocracy gives way to the capitalist that the "revolution" begins. Just as American conservatives simply cannot wrap their heads around how the European right is "right wing," so European rightists cannot see American-style capitalism and "free enterprise" as anything other than a destructive and corrosive acid that begins the destruction of civilization and inevitably paves the way for Marxism. Other than the "palaeos," I don't think American and European right wingers will ever understand each other.
As a Theocrat, I don't know where I fit on the spectrum, or even if I'm on it at all.
Again, thank you so much for your intelligent and intellectually honest posts on this topic, ek. They are a joy to read.
The basic argument was Socialism in One Country rather than Socialism as a world movement. Stalin played one against the other and then adopted a rather interesting mix of both.
EL Duce and Hitler were Rightists in that they promoted socialism in one country first rather than a world socialist movement.
Fascist movements basically took the collectivism inherent to military organization and expanded it to encompass the entire organization of the state and society. Now, there are good reasons to say that this is not a desirable state of affairs here or anywhere else, but to call their movements "leftist" or "liberal" on these grounds is ridiculous.
You've hit the nail right on the head. The European totalitarian right wing ideal is really ancient Sparta, which was a totalitarian and collectivist hell where babies with birth defects were left to die and children were raised collectively in a sort of military barracks. Ironically, ancient Sparta was also very "left wing" economically, so it does serve as a sort of connecting point for both Communism and Fascism.
There are two other points I would like to make before I forget them. First, the old order of European conservatives like Metternich saw the social Darwinism of individualistic free enterprise (unleashed, ironically, by the French Revolution, which was a project of the bourgeoisie, not of the proletariat) as unfair and cruel to the poor. They argued for a restoration of the old order in part in order to protect the poorest segments of society who would otherwise be left to die on the outskirts of the "struggle for life." This attitude, I believe, is one reason for American Catholic devotion to the Democrat party, which while liberal by American Protestant standards was the closest thing Catholic immigrants could find to "social chrstianity" in America. Unfortunately, as the Democrat party went Left it took American Catholics with them. Later on Father Coughlin attacked capitalism and called for minimum wage legislation and even nationalization of certain industries as well as the curbing of economic individualism. While left wing by American Protestant standards, within European Catholicism this was a right wing position, and Father Coughlin is indeed rejected by the Left and claimed by some on the Catholic right to this day.
The other thing I would like to mention is the right-populist identification of capitalism with Communism (a position very much held by the European right). Recall that whatever its ideological pretensions, every Communist country in history has not abolished the state or put everything in the hands of workers' councils, but rather centralized everything into the hands of an all-powerful state. Right populists have long claimed that Communism is nothing but a front for wealthy capitalists to consolidate resources under their own de facto ownership by centralizing them in the hands of governments which they control from behind the scenes. After all, if a few big businessmen have a government in their pocket, they have nothing to lose if that government expropriates all productive property. True, they will lose nominal ownership of their productive property, but will retain de facto ownership, while at the same time gaining de facto ownership of the productive property of their former competitors. It is no coincidence that the John Birch Society's rogues' gallery is identical to that of the left wing Populists of the late nineteenth century: the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Mellons, and the Carnegies. I have even read speculation that it was David Rockefeller (who vacationed in the Crimea in 1964) who ordered the firing of Khrushchev and his replacement by Brezhnev. The late JBS author Gary Allen also speculated that SMERSH (made famous by Ian Fleming) was the enforcement arm the "international bankers" used to control the Communist movement. I note that there are even Protestant American conservatives who admire people like William Jennings Bryan and Huey P. Long.
I am no fan of the JBS (being a repentant former member) or subscriber to their conspiracy theories, but one must admit that it is certainly theoretically possible for "state socialism" to serve as a front for capitalists. After all, actual "workers' control" has never existed at any time in any Communist country.
Would a Communist America (G-d forbid!) even invoke "socialist patriotism" at all?
The bottom line seems to be that those out of power hate the government and the military, those in power support it. When the Left was on the outside looking in, it posed as anarchist champions of "liberty." When they come to power, government and army become their tools. I suspect that in your scenario the Abbie Hoffman types would be the first to be shot by Leftists who were actually serious about ruling and governing (leftwing anarchists didn't last long under Lenin or Stalin).
Similarly, I wonder to what extent the libertarianism of many on the Right is just a convenient pose for the disenfranchised (i.e. now that socialism of various degrees has become the norm), to be abandoned if and when the leftists are removed from power.
(Another centralizing ruler for whom American conservatives have warm feelings is Chiang Kai-shek, whose nationalist ideology was opposed to the federalism which some of his and Sun Yat-sen's opponents advocated. Chiang also criticized capitalists and expropriated some businesses to state ownership.)
Chiang Kai-Shek was in many ways a distributist. While it is true that he nationalized some businesses and lands, he also sold off some of the appropriated lands to turn de facto serfs into property owners. His logic (and that of many distributists) was essentially one of "Why should people be anti-Communist and defend private property unless there's some reasonable expectation that they will be property owners themselves?" In a society where a few families and their cronies lord over all property, it's not hard to understand why peasants see Communism as their only salvation. Chiang-Kai Shek turned this around by making the peasants property owners and giving them a stake in defending private property and enterprise. That's something that many right-wing ruling juntas forget elsewhere.
Another centralizing, "big government" right winger who is hailed by even neo-conservatives is Augusto Pinochet.
Well, many neo-conservatives are all for centralizing big government and the welfare state, they just resent that it's run by a "D" rather than an "R" (or they would prefer that the "D" be more along the lines of an LBJ than a Clinton or Obama, for whatever reason). So their support for authoritarian centralized governments isn't all that surprising.
Belatedly, I would like to point out that Brazilian ultra-traditionalist Catholic Plinio Correa de Oliveira considered Franco not as a true conservative Catholic, but as a "national socialist" posing as a conservative Catholic
I would have argued that it's the other way around. Franco was a traditionalist Catholic who adopted some of the rhetoric of Fascism to win the support of authentic Falangists like Primo de Rivera at home and military aid from Mussolini and Hitler abroad.
I agree with you 100%, although it must be remembered that Italian Fascism, German Nazism, and Primo de Rivera's original conception of Spanish Falangism were revolutionary movements, and to a certain extent anti-traditional, though not to the extent of Communism. Moreover, Fascist totalitarians (and to some extent the non-totalitarian European right) are often atheists or agnostics who view religion as a cultural relic to be exploited for purely utilitarian purposes.
By all accounts, the ruling Saudi Royal family aren't particularly pious. They like their booze, their whores, and just about everything else that the Koran condemns. That doesn't change the fact that Saudi Arabia has the strictest Shariah law of any Middle Eastern nation. Similarly, it really doesn't matter that Mussolini was himself probably agnostic or atheist, he forged an alliance with the Catholic Church (basically creating the Vatican as an autonomous entity) while the Left's goal was to minimize the Church's influence and power.
The point at which the American right breaks off from the right in Europe and elsewhere is the point where social classes based on traditional aristocracy give way to those based on ownership of the means of production by upwardly mobile individuals. To Communists the capitalist class structure is a huge improvement over everything that preceded it but it is still a class division--the last to be overcome and abolished. To the European right it is at this point where the traditional aristocracy gives way to the capitalist that the "revolution" begins. Just as American conservatives simply cannot wrap their heads around how the European right is "right wing," so European rightists cannot see American-style capitalism and "free enterprise" as anything other than a destructive and corrosive acid that begins the destruction of civilization and inevitably paves the way for Marxism. Other than the "palaeos," I don't think American and European right wingers will ever understand each other.
While most paleoconservatives are libertarian strict constructionists, you also see some sympathy for European-style rightwing ideas among some. One instance of this is the romantic attitude of many on the traditional Right for the Confederacy, which is probably the closest thing to a European-style feudal system on American soil.
There are also rightwingers who are skeptical of laissez-faire capitalism for other reasons. Pat Buchanan, for example, was often (wrongly) criticized as a "crypto-socialist" by his neo-conservative and libertarian opponents for opposing free trade and other aspects of laissez-faire. Like the most on the European Right, Buchanan recognized that certain aspects of laissez-faire are caustic to social conservatism and traditionalism. You can't have stable communities with an economic system that forces people to change jobs and relocate just to survive, which is why Buchanan made preserving America's industrial base a centerpiece of his agenda (whether this is desirable in itself or not is open to debate and beside the point). The same is true for immigration: laissez-faire libertarians who put profits first want cheap immigrant labor, traditionalists oppose it.
As a Theocrat, I don't know where I fit on the spectrum, or even if I'm on it at all.
Obviously theocracy is right-wing, even though it's probably even more against the grain of American politics than the European-style right.
Again, thank you so much for your intelligent and intellectually honest posts on this topic, ek. They are a joy to read.
Sure, though it can be frustrating when only 1 or 2 readers are on the same wavelength.
I had never really thought much about this, but what you say makes perfect sense. I had wondered why so many socially conservative Catholics remain loyal to the Democratic Party. Part of the reason, of course, is that American Catholics are often "ethnics" who were championed opportunistically by the Democratic Party in the 19th Century, and they've remained loyal ever since by inertia (even though anti-Catholic and anti-"ethnic" bigotry in the 19th century sense is almost non-existent in America today).
The other reason (following your line of thinking) may very well be that Catholic social teaching and radical laissez-faire aren't really a good match. There are no parties advocating syndicalism, distributism, or other systems that are closer to Catholic social thought, so on economic issues many Catholics turn to welfare state socialism as the only alternative.
Anything is possible, but this sounds a little wacky. Russia is going to want a close alliance with its close neighbors, whether you call it the "Commonwealth of Independent States" or the "Eurasian Union." That's a given.
Whether Putin's "Eurasian" schemes have anything to do with "Eurasianism" -- a recurring idea in Russian thinking -- or with Dugin's ideas is questionable. Like I said, anything is possible, but I wouldn't assume that a connection has been proven to exist.
This is very true. Although today's neo-Confederates are not really Confederates in the traditional sense. For one thing, they advocate protectionism while the actual Confederates were free-traders. For another, neo-Confederates are part of the same Right that includes the Germanophilic Midwestern non-interventionist Republicans, whereas the Confederates were certainly not pacifists (and neither were Southerners of the World War II era, who were already serving in foreign militaries against the Nazis and Japanese before America even entered the war).
And of course the third is their admiration of centralizing big government dictatorships elsewhere while advocating "states' rights" and calling Abraham Lincoln a Communist dictator at home.
As for Chiang, the Kuomintang started out as a left wing party under Sun Yat-sen and at one point collaborated with the USSR and the Chinese Communist Party. Some of this ideological fellowship persists to this day in the Kuomintang, which still retains the "Leninist" party structure it adopted during the collaborationist years.
Are you sympathetic to right wing alternatives to capitalism? Your last post sort of gave this impression. There have in the past been Falangist and National Synidicalist parties in the United States (with ties to the Lebanese parties), but I don't know if they're still active.
I wish you had commented on the JBS theory of Communism as a front for capitalist consolidation.
I don't think there is much of anything about Sparta that can be called "left-wing" in any real sense.
What you are probably referring to are the syssitia, or the dining clubs where the Spartiates or full Spartans ate.
But this was not an egalitarian institution at all. It was limited to those of Spartiate descent who had successfully completed the full agoge or military education. But it was also limited to Spartiates who owned private landed property of sufficient value to be able to afford the dining club fees.
In fact over time the number of Spartiates dwindled to alarmingly low levels simply because of the concentration of property in fewer and fewer hands.
So in essence Sparta was governed by an elite group of the "master race."
Certainly later racist groups admire them.
I suspect Plato is what you were thinking of.
Due to battle deaths, male lines tended to die out, and heiresses inherited. When they married already rich guys, wealth became concentrated in fewer families, resulting in fewer Spartan peers to form the phalanx.
In later Sparta, several attempts were made to split up the land between more families so more Spartan peers would be available. But the motivation behind this was profoundly conservative, even reactionary, so I’m not sure even this would be reasonably called “left-wing.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
