Friday, 14 August 2009

It is not a rise of the "far right" predicted in Europe, but a reversion to fascism

People have often pretended that Stalinism and fascism are politically very different and opposite ideologies.

However, one of my first recollections of discussing the issue of communism and why it failed to work out as Karl Marx said it would is of my father telling me that "in practice, communism is very similar to fascism". When my father become utterly crazy and I turned to radical "fighters" like Socialist Alternative and the Democratic Socialist Party because of my (justified) concern that Kennett's abominable wastage on freeways would cause runaway climate change, I heard a message that:
  1. fascism was totally different from real socialism in which the workers had complete control over production, but
  2. fascism was similar to the "state capitalism" that actually ruled in all the so-called "Communist"/"Marxist" nations
Since I first read Human Events a couple of years ago, I have seen that the "Old Right" view any form of Marxism or fascism as essentially similar. Both are seen as left-wing because they support big, intrusive government. In the words of Robert Patrick Murphy from his Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism:
This is the difference between fascism, where enterprises are state-directed, and Communism, where enterprises are state-owned.
For the "Old Right", both fascism and Communism are antithetical to Wetsern Civilisation because they rejecte its pillars of Christianity, free markets and strictly limited government.

Erik von Kühnelt Leddihn said that, despite its racism and elitism, fascism was/is essentially "democratic" because they appealed to the simplest desires of the people and aimed to destroy the old forms of society by inciting the masses. The fundamental difference between this view and that of radical Trotskyists is that direct ("real") democracy which the radical socialists see as the ideal political system is seen as having the same flaws as the representative democracy seen in Europe today. In contrast, Kühnelt-Leddihn saw a limited absolute monarchy as not based on party rule and as fitting into the tradition of Christian society in a way democracy cannot.

In the context of this argument, claims here that
“Into the void has stepped a resurgent group of extreme-Right political parties, among them the British National Party, which gained two seats at recent elections to the European Parliament.”
are surprising from a Christian site. If they are remotely Christian they ought to know how thoroughly secularised Europe is today, and then they should at least think about whether Christianity can offer answers. History suggests Christianity actually has at the very least a prospect of doing. If a site dedicated to Christianity in England actually knows the religion is doomed in Europe, it should at least take a different tone - one of learning from past mistakes. It is this tone that I try mentally to take when looking at the problems faced by Europe. They also do not know what to make of a fascist reaction to the spread of Islam - one which so many people in the United States and Australia know to constitute fighting fire with fire to no effect.

They ought also to know that radical defeminisation of women and culture in general with resultant lack of stable marriages can likely only be solved by reduced government.

Take this, all in all, as a lesson that there really is little communication across the Atlantic!

No comments: