My take is as a have been saying, following Alexander Dugin. The underlying dynamic of the 19th century was socialism-capitalism and its political manifestation as communism-fascism versus liberalism. The fundamental dynamic in the early 21st century is the historical dialectic unfolding between liberalism and traditionalism. This being a dialectical process historically, aspects of the communist-fascist-liberal dynamic are incorporated, but the fundamental dynamic characterizing the Zeigeist has shifted after the defeat of the Axis powers, subsequent collapse of the USSR, and the liberalization of China under Deng Xiaoping. Vladimir Putin recently referred to his in his interview with the Financial Times where he observes the excess of liberalism leading to its decline, along with the resurgence of traditionalism as a major factor. He seems to be echoing Alexander Dugin.
Bruno Maçães views the cause of the rise of populism as chiefly international, involving the decline of the Western hegemony and the unwelcome influence of other cultures across borders. I see that as only a partially true and reflective of a deeper dynamic between liberalism pushed to its extreme and the resurgence of traditionalism, which was the original target of liberalism in the 18th century. Now that dynamic is returning in force, as the conflicting world views clash.
This is not only an international phenomenon, but also a domestic one. For example, in the US Christianists were tolerated in the GOP "big tent" as a political wing of the party, but for the most part they were thrown only crumbs. Dissatisfied with the rate of progress on their political goals, they have reasserted their political power and are a big force behind the Trump-Pence phenomenon. There are similar phenomena in the resurgence of Islamism in the Muslim world, Orthodox Judaism as a political factor in Israel, and radical Hinduism in India as a mixture of a particular viewpoint on traditional religion not merely as a system of doctrine, ritual and observance but also as a cultural model. The return to an alliance between the Russian state and the Russian Orthodox Church after the collapse of the USSR is another manifestation of this phenomenon.
The fundamental paradigm of liberalism is the naturalism of the scientific revolution in the West that replaced the Great Chain of Being that is in essence supernatural. While the great chain of being is generally thought of in the West as Judeo-Christian, it was also characteristic of the Greek, Roman and other "pagan" religions. It is found in some from in most traditional cultures were the wisdom of the ancients is regarded as authoritative based on a supernatural pedigree.
It would not be correct to claim that contemporary populism is "caused by" this dynamic, even through it is a fundamental factor. There are many factors in plays and the different in different nations, regions, localities and cultures. What seems to be happening is that the entire world is now caught up in the "melting pot" that once was characteristic of the US as the first liberal democracy with enough space to support large waves of immigration. This was always a challenge socially and culturally, and I am old enough to remember similar dynamics regarding immigrants as are happening now.
This is inevitable as the world shrinks owing to innovation in communications and transportation technology, especially the Internet, as well as the expansion of economic globalization and global supply chains. This brings out the good side of liberalism in tolerance and emphasis on popular sovereignty, but it also brings out the bad side in terms of neoliberal globalization, neo-imperialism and neocolonialism, as well as the "excesses" of liberalism as perceived by the various traditionalisms. This leads to "populism" as circling the wagons against being forced to accept difference that is unacceptable.
While values can be applied to this depending on one's point of view, it is a historical and sociological process that can be viewed objectively in terms of phenomena and their causal factors. From this perspective it is history taking its path-dependent course. Hegel look at this as an observer and analyst, whereas Marx went further and added an activist perspective to shape the process. The liberal West has also taken an activist role in spreading the message and often imposing it on other who may not be willing to receive it. This has led to the present dynamic developing between liberalism and traditionalism.
Well that must be about the ten thousandth article by a leftie intellectual who is frustrated at the rise in populism, and who produces a long, boring series of compilicated pseudo-intellectual explanations for the phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteI suggest the explanatin is quite simple: leftie intellectuals have become progressively more and more idiotic over the years to the point where they are now champions of the religion which goes in for female genital mutilation, wife beating, homophobia, killing authors and cartoonists etc. I'm referring to Islam of course.
Ordinary people with a bit of common sense have got sick of these pseudo-intellectuals and have turned to the Donald Trumps of this world in search of some ordinary if boring common sense.
Ralph: You repeat simplistic deviant rejection attacks with tired slogan slurred talking point: terms that parallel an oppositional defiant disorder. yet your comment suggests (or portends) that you actually read (and understood)the entire article! If you actually contested some of the points made in logical argument form, it might have added to the discussion. Instead it seems that you want to appear superior to the analysis without earning that right. that is not ordinary and it is not common sense. It is the antics of a baby or of a troll that wishes to demean an argument by an appeal to ignorance. That is a logical fallacy as stated here:
ReplyDelete"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric." https://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/ignorance.html
The term argumentum ad ignorantiam was introduced by John Locke in his "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" in 1690. https://www.thoughtco.com/appeal-to-ignorance-fallacy-1689122
of course "ATTACKING THE PERSON' is also a fallacy known as Ad hominem - Wikipedia.
Mike Norman: FIRST AND FOREMOST: BRAVO !
ReplyDeleteI would say that syndicalism should be added to your analysis, and historically fascism was against communists and national socialism (as historically labeled chronologically not ideologically alone)was again st the industrialist (capitalist) that represented themselves and were identified as Individualists (monarchs of capital so to speak that dominated monopolistically and held leverage over economies forced to scale). I know that is a complex aggregate, but it represents toe composit prior tp post war neocon power politics and neo-liberal global pirvitazation that dominated market resources and practiced asset grabbing techniques of exploit (along with advantages from politically induced crisis capital: SHOCK DOCTRINE...Naomi Klein).
The neoliberals somewhat burnt out globalism under rival financial competiton and over expansion and sought relief in austerity policies that intensified exploitation of domestic wealth and rentier economies of scale squeezed populations insidiously into a more subservient level to protect the concentration of wealth accumulated globally by international political finance. The so-called populous reaction was partly usurped by the same stratified ranks that sought political domination through power, while some degree of relief seeking populism was manipulated by labor opportunists as well. Most of what was legitimate critique of the USER CLASS, gets lost in all the shuffling and finger pointing. Opportunists thrive under chaos and add willingly to the confusions and conflations.
\Meanwhile, this new rise of a more fused and hard line neoglobalism is being positioned as a new narrative in support of this rival super power competiton; more or less a revival of the DETENTE divisions of the last century (only now regionally aligned among hard conservative centrists).
I see the article you are canalizing as a very selectively divisive effort to re-create a new narrative that rationalizes and justifies this renewed attempt to galvanize a hard core economically dominant conservative dismissal of liberal social order, in favor of a more politically based concentration of capital based power. The dismissal of the actual causes of populism is essential in order to deflect responsibilolity and accountability of the past transgressor exploits, and to basically start the old game up again (calling it a new history). justified by supremacy rivalry it strategizes a new world order both externally and internally integrating the capitulation of entire systems of population survival. (or a disorder under command, if you follow my drift).
Good luck with your work !
Bruce