This really may be one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen
In American politics, one of the more tedious arguments that continues to pop up is the claim that the fascism is a left-wing ideology. Now, you may protest that Benito Mussolini specifically wrote that “Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right’, a Fascist century.” in his Doctrine of Fascism and that virtually every fascist regime rose to power on the backs of dead socialists. But, the elite of the conservative intelligentsia would beg to differ, and who are we to argue with them?
Usually, I have dismissed these claims as the desperate whining of people too immature to accept that their political philosophy might be less then perfect. But I came to a realization recently: I understand why someone might make that mistake. In the U.S, if you asked an ordinary person what the biggest political divide in our country was, they would almost certainly tell you it was between Democrats who want ‘Big Government’ and Republicans who want ‘Small Government’. The Left wants a large, powerful federal government that can intervene in people’s lives to make them better, while the Right believes that the government can only make things worse, and should leave people alone. This, I would say, is a fairly uncontroversial statement. It is also completely incorrect. Or rather, while it may be correct on narrow technical grounds, it fails to fully describe the actual philosophical differences between Right and Left. True, conservatives generally distrust the Federal government and wish to destroy it. But they do not hate it because it exercises power over humans, but rather because of the way it does so.
More simply put, the Left supports a centralized government staffed by professionals that (theoretically) dispenses justice and administration in an impartial manner according to ethical principles. The Right supports the maintenance of the traditional fonts of power—-the Church, the family, the gentry, and the powerful commercial interests, and opposes threats to the preservation of the old order, of which there is perhaps no greater than a professional civil service. These are vastly differing philosophies of government, but please take note that in each one, institutions retain vast power over society. The only difference is the institutions in question. This should be obvious. The same people who decry government-subsidized healthcare as slavery demand that the police enforce morality legislation against people whose lifestyles they disapprove of and argue that criticism of the President is treason. The difference is that the former case works to undermine traditional authority while the latter cases uphold it.
But none of this is new. If we cast back our gaze two hundred years to the crucible that forged the modern state, we will find the very same phenomenon playing out.
IT’S FRENCH REVOLUTION TIME WHOOOO
To claim that the French Revolution created government as we know it would be a grave understatement, but it is nonetheless true that it played a vital role in creating the political realities of today. Old feudal relationships and systems of land tenure dating back hundreds of years were swept aside, and the Jacobins and their Napoleonic successors forcibly introduced innovations such as the universal legal codex, the Levée en masse, and systemic administration into the European body politic. That the supporters of aristocratic and feudal rule would oppose the creation of democratic Republics is not surprising, but reactionaries also bitterly opposed the many administrative reforms brought about the Revolutionary Wars. Why? Someone brought up in the American political context might conclude that conservatives opposed these innovations because they were tyrannical, concentrating power in the hands of a few powerful men. But, speaking frankly, this is laughable. Leaving aside the absurdity of the crowned heads of state of Europe claiming to speak for freedom in any sense of the word, we have the evidence of what the Allied Powers did once they finished crushing Bonaparte:
“In Spain the obscurantist and despotic regime of Ferdinand VII led to a revolution in 1820. In Italy the obscene brutality of such rulers as Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies produced the same result in the same year. In Germany the Carlsbad Decrees of 1819 established an inquisitorial tribunal to investigate secret societies and instituted a reign of terror in the universities, which were regarded as hotbeds of liberal and nationalist ideas. Austria became a police state. In Poland the autonomous institutions were gradually restricted and eventually abolished by the Russian authorities. In England civil liberties were partially curtailed.” (The Age of Napoleon, J. Christopher Herold).
Our ongoing obsession with the horrors of the French Revolution has, I believe, led us to whitewash the monstrosity of the Ancien Régime, or at least to forget it, a point made much more elegantly by Mark Twain:
“THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”
This is not intended to become an apologia for either Robespierre or Bonaparte, neither of whom I am a big fan of. The point of this long digression is that conservative opposition to the statist reforms of the Revolution was not due to any high-minded principles about the ideal size or scope of government, but rather the understanding that traditional authority was threatened by the rise of the centralized state. For the petty landlord or the bishop to control his flock, he requires the ignorance and parochialism of his flock, the authority to maintain order as he sees fit, and a judicial order that rests on tradition or custom more than a written code. A central government that enforces a uniform code of justice or enacts universal education is obviously a threat to this. Worse, it allows people to “get above their place”, so to speak. The Law is now supreme over the old gentry and aristocracy, and it is intolerable to such people that some petty bureaucrat who owes his position to merit instead of blood is allowed to lay down the law to them.
This should be familiar to any American, as one of the most common themes in our politics is the story of the pompous government bureaucrat, officiously interfering with the rights of some businessman or farmer. Insisting that they have to obey some law or regulation. It is, of course, no coincidence that the hated civil service has also historically been one of the few reliable avenues to the middle class for African-Americans. Getting above their place, once again.
Hey, remember we were talking about this guy?
Returning at last to the question we began with, I will acknowledge that there is a shred of truth to the charge that fascism is a Leftist mode of government. At it’s heart, what the fascists realized was that the vast administrative structures of the State could be used not to create a level playing field or to strengthen a ruler, but also to maintain those traditional fonts of power we’ve been talking about. The Church, the family, the gentry, and the powerful commercial interests. All benefited from fascists governments that attempted to indoctrinate people in traditional values and worked with corporations to ensure the destruction of organized labor and to ensure the domination of the economy by a few monopolistic corporations. The fact that they realized that administration and bureaucracy were useful tools for enacting their policies does not make them Leftists any more than the fact that the existence of the Red Army implies that the Soviet Union was a right-wing dictatorship. Likewise, the fact that the Democratic Party supports a more sustained federal role in health care policy does not make them the natural heirs to the NSDP. If the Nazis had merely supported “big government” in the abstract sense, as conservative luminaries today argue, it is unlikely they would have harbored such a hatred for the USSR.
When conservatives today talk about shutting down government agencies and purging government workers, they’re making the government smaller, yes. But the power and authority wielded by those agencies and that government does not dissipate, it merely diffuses itself back into a thousand petty tyrants who can inflict now inflect themselves on the people. In America today, conservatives believe this to be the best and most efficient way to maintain traditional power. If the United States had a much robust left-wing tradition, then Republicans would likely support a strong central government that could crush the rabble and protect property. The powers of government are tools, nothing more, nothing less, and how they are wielded depends on who picks them up.
This is why, contrarily to popular belief, more government can often (thought not necessarily) mean more freedom. A government that sends out inspectors to accurately asses land values and assign taxation rates is freer than one that leaves it to the local country squire to determine what his tenants owe. A government that creates a standardized legal codex and sends out judges and police to enforce it is freer than one in which the local priest arbitrarily determines who is compliance with God’s laws. A government that imposes a uniform standard of citizenship is freer than one that permits every town and village council to determine who has rights and who does not. A government that subsidizes health care so that people can live free from fear is freer than one in which most people depend on the sufferance of their employer for survival.
Freedom is not determined by the number of government agencies in the capitol, it is determined by the ability of every person to live life to their fullest potential.
Back during the 2013 Shutdown: A U.S Representative uses the power of his office to bully and intimidate a government employee for daring to do her job
Goldwag's Journal on Civilization 