America's elite has adopted the fascist dream of a corporate oligarchyw the Democrats fell for Mussolini
There’s a tendency today to see Benito Mussolini as a pathetic sideshow [to Hitler]. Yet in many ways, Mussolini’s notion of fascism has become increasingly dominant in much of the world, albeit in an unexpected form: in the worldview of those progressives who typically see “proto-fascism” lurking on the Right.
Mussolini, a one-time radical socialist, viewed himself as a “revolutionary” transforming society by turning the state into “the moving centre of economic life”. ...
Indeed, Mussolini’s idea of a an economy controlled from above, with generous benefits but dominated by large business interests, is gradually supplanting the old liberal capitalist model. In the West, for example, the “Great Reset,” introduced by the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab, proposes an expanded welfare state and an economy that transcends the market for the greater goal of serving racial and gender “equity”, as well as saving the planet.
Here we see the ideological difference. Mussolini's corporate state was, despite the appeals to ancient Roman grandeur, fundamentally pragmatic--"he made the trains run on time." In today's Prog vision of a Great Reset the reset is not a transformation of a corrupt and inefficient state but of human nature itself. So that, as Steve Sailer puts it, the trans run on time. Rather than a truly pragmatic goal of better management, the Great Reset envisions a Neo-gnostic deification of Man--or at least of the ruling class. Mussolini's appeal to ancient Roman grandeur was designed to galvanize a basically pragmatic transformation. The new Globalist masters seek to galvanize our would be elite classes by an appeal to Neo-gnostic and anti-reality ideology: universal equity. "You'll own nothing but you'll be happy", says Klaus Schwab. Equity will reign. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. Some things, self deluding, hubristic fantasies, never really change.
Wherever it appears, whether in the early 20th century or today, fascism — in its corporate sense — relies on concentrated economic power to achieve its essential and ideological goals. In 1922, for instance, large corporations and landowners helped finance Mussolini’s Black Shirts for their March on Rome. ...
Elsewhere, the German cartels and Japanese zaibatsu both kowtowed to and benefited from fascist state support and contracts. Even today, China, in many aspects the model fascist state of our times, follows Il Duce’s model of cementing the corporate elite into the power structure. ...
Capitalist countries have historically resisted such concentrations of power, but this process seems inexorable after a pandemic which devastated small businesses yet saw the ultra-rich grow richer and the largest firms record eye-watering profits. A handful of giant tech corporations now account for nearly 40% of the value of the Standard and Poor Index, a level of concentration unprecedented in modern history.
And yet even now the Dems deplore the rich--their rich--growing richer, pulling the wool over their simple minded base. A base educated--or indoctrinated--in elite colleges. All this even as Prog politicians--the Clintons, Bidens, Pelosis, and many more--lead the rush to the public trough.
Companies like Amazon are our zaibatsu, ...
This parallels the alarming transformation of the US Democratic Party, the putative “party of the people”, now increasingly a subsidiary of the corporate elite. Among financial firms, communications companies and lawyers, Biden outraised Trump by five-to-one or more. Today’s oligarchs are particularly keen on the progressive non-profit sector, which provides important support for their political and social advocacy — a means for them to make politically correct statements about climate change, gender and race, while still obtaining enormous profit margins and unprecedented wealth.
But, really, when since Roosevelt--or, going further back in history, since Wilson--have Dems truly been a "party of the people" in any but a PR sense? Any more than the Bolshevik party was "of the people." The Prog agenda has always been elitist and has always sought to coopt the elites.
But whereas the old fascism sought greater prosperity, its new form, at least in the West, supports only an expanded welfare state that keeps the beleaguered middle and working classes both quiescent and stripped of aspiration. Worthies such as former Bank of Canada and Bank of England chief Mark Carney even embrace “de-growth,” a conscious slowing of the economy and embrace of declining living standards.
Indeed, the widely hailed Club of Rome report in 1972 — “The Limits to Growth” — was financed not by green activists but by the Agnelli family from Fiat, once a linchpin of Mussolini’s original corporate state. ...
Fast forward to today’s new economic order, and it’s clear that not all economic animals are equal. ...
And these woke oligarchs, like their fascist counterparts before them, see little use for democracy. Eric Heymann, a senior executive at Deutsche Bank, suggests that to reach the climate goals of Davos, corporations will have to embrace “a certain degree of eco-dictatorship”. ...
Unsurprisingly, the biggest losers will inevitably be the poor. ... the Jacques Delors Institute estimated that some thirty million Europeans [--living under a form of eco-dictatorship--] were not able to adequately heat their homes during the most recent winter.
Unfortunately, after that promising start, Kotkin (like Codevilla) concludes with a pathetic solution, steeped in antipathy for Trump. Recall that Codevilla's solution to the aggressive impulses of the Prog transformers of humanity is to find a "Great Leader" who would persuade the Progs to give up their elite pretensions to total power in favor of allowing the deplorables to eke out a modest livelihood in squalid enclaves around the country. Kotkins solution is to galvanize opposition to the corporate state with a Great Crusade in favor of ... a restoration of competition? Really? That's the goal the masses are supposed to "put up a fight" for? That will get them to give up "destructive nativism" (i.e., Trump)?
But building a coalition against the new fascism requires avoiding destructive nativism and instead focusing on how to restore competition and protect consumers from the overweening power, and vast wealth of the corporate elites.
Will a citizenry, dependent on transfer payments and increasingly voiceless, still put up a fight? To slow fascism’s spread, either from China or from within, requires a re-awakening of the spirit of resistance to authority that has long marked human progress and now seems far too rare.
Imagine conservatives marching through the streets--or even just displaying bumber stickers--behind the banner of "Resist Authority!" Right, that'll do the trick.
"Today’s oligarchs are particularly keen on the progressive non-profit sector, which provides important support for their political and social advocacy"ReplyDelete
I have long thought that one of the best places to start dismantling the left is to take away their non-profit advantage. I just don't know how to do it, but it is common knowledge that all of them eventually veer hard left, and they seem to live forever.
"building a coalition against the new fascism requires avoiding destructive nativism and instead focusing on how to restore competition and protect consumers".ReplyDelete
I don't see these 2 approaches as being mutually exclusive.
Much of DJT's "nativism" was about trade policy, whereas
any bid to restore competition would focus more on domestic outfits.
Whether one approach should get priority over the other is a debate worth having.
Insofar as marching under the banner of "Resist Authority!"
refers to "Resist Hugely Corrupt Authority!", this seems rather consistent with "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
Of course, Kotkin's reference to "destructive nativism" was likely, as you say, steeped in Virtue Signaling antipathy for Trump.ReplyDelete
Well, Kotkin lost me right here: "But building a coalition against the new fascism requires avoiding destructive nativism and instead focusing on how to restore competition."ReplyDelete
1) The only people who use terms like "destructive nativism" are anti-Trumpers, cognoscenti virtue signalers, and/or globalists. Kotkin makes it worse by linking to a NYT column whose author has no clue what he is talking about.
2) Kotkin does not seem to realize that nations and national economies used to be a way to ensure economic competition. In fact, part of the rationale for a Common Market and then EU was to minimize this competition within Europe and along with it hopefully preclude potential cassus bellis due to economic reasons. Now, the lack of competition is largely due to controlled monetary policy and markets on a global level. Whereas fascism used to be national today it is global.
Sure, more competition would be great - but Kotkin offers on ideas or path for how to get there (not surprisingly). When you don't understand where you are how can you get to where you want to be?
Kotkin seems to espouse something like "borderless competition." Isn't that what we tried and found to be a fail?Delete
Been banging this drum for several years; communism & fascism are/were/will always be 2 sides of the same coin. Both are steeped in Marxism & both have a general hatred of capitalism. Fascism seeks to “manage” it the way the Chinese do it now. The proof is in the pudding right there - China; they were true communistic until the West decided it be a great idea to “open them up”. Then the hierarchy recognized they could get Uber rich off of it & presto! They morphed into fascism, the only difference being under communism there is no private ownership, the State owns & directs the means of production while under fascism The State dictates the means of production while nominally leaving the means of production in private hands; I.e you get the appearance of “ownership” as long as you heel to The State’s mandates/directives.ReplyDelete
Fascism is only “right wing” if you’re viewing it thru a total communistic prism.
Mr Wauck - have an excellent graph that shows this. Ck your email
Yes, I hate to keep going to the Tom Luongo well but as he points out, the best, basic distinction is between collectivists and i individualists. Fascism, communism, socialism and all the flavor combinations all involve compulsion of the individual to the whole. America alone was the first and only nation founded upon the radical notion that sovereignty begins with individual rights given by God.ReplyDelete
America has been tbe exception. At least it was. Maybe now we're returning to the rule for mankind. Unluckily as Heinlein would say.
Society is based on the family, not the individual. Morality--including social morality--is not based on rights. It's based on what's good or bad in terms of human nature, and the common good of humans living in society--not the individual. Libertarianism is as lame as socialism.Delete
Not talking about libertarianism, Mark.i dont buy their extremism that anything goes.Delete
Yes, agree that morality is at the heart of any legitimate social system but how does that translate into a political system? Would you compel people by force to be good catholics? Isn't the genius of 1776 the proposition that government derives its its legitimacy from the consent of the governed and that no government is legitimate which deprives citizens of their "unalienable rights"? The entire dividing line of western civ including Christianity is the value placed on the individual. That doesn't make us libertarians. We can still affirm the duty of the individual to society and the moral framework necessary for a healthy functioning system. I hope I am not mistaking you re the family and society. It's no coincidence that some of the worst mass murderers have cloaked their crimes in notions of family and then tribe and then nation. Family is vital and its destruction over the last 60 years is a big reason for our current ills, but protection of individual liberties is essential for the protection of the family.
As a matter of historical fact, "inalienable rights" is simply a proxy for morality. It was put forward out of despair--or in some cases intellectual conviction--that moral philosophy can establish principles based on a known human nature. As such, it was a defensive action. As we see now, sooner rather than later people realize that if human nature cannot be grasped objectively then neither can "inalienable rights". And so an alternative is sought, or the unscrupulous turn this to their advantage. That's what identity politics is all about--it's the realization that without objective human nature "inalienable rights" is all nonsense and all human relations--and politics--is simply about power. This was all understood millennia ago by the Israelites and Greeks.Delete
"western civ including Christianity"
Western civ IS Christianity, and without Christianity there is no Western civ. Yes, there are non-Christian elements that went into the development of Western civ, but the core is Christianity. With the collapse of Christianity comes the collapse of Western civ.
"the value placed on the individual."
The individual has no value AS individual, but only as bearer of human nature in relation to the Creator. The value of the individual is derived. When that derivation is denied or ignored, the value of the individual is lost. Attempts to simply assert such value ultimately fail without the firm basis of created human nature objectively understood. Again, this is the collapse we see everywhere.
Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism ...ReplyDelete
“Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts.”
The state is paramount, supreme. Rhetorically, who today in the US demands we absolutely follow the state? Oddly, those same folks make allowances for their Black Shirts. I digress...
“ The rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State — a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values — interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.”
Hmmm ... many Democrats like Woodrow Wilson and Barak Obama lamented about the fact that the US Constitution has negative liberties it gives the State. This sentiment fully negates the essential American precept that an individual has any inherent right at all as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Yet, Mussolini implores us all throughout that Fascism is spiritual, meaning, religious, and I guess he is correct in that the State is the religion, law giver and life giver with all encompassing State derived morality.