We need to think a little about what our contemporaries mean when they fret about the ‘far Right’, the ‘hard Right’, the ‘radical Right’ and ‘Right-wing extremists’. I open the newspaper and find these phrases everywhere, and it is common also to find them in academic articles – as if they have explanatory power. Well, no: as usual, these phrases do not explain anything: in fact, they need to be explained. And I have a bit of an explanation.
On April 6th 1967 Theodor Adorno was invited to give a lecture in Vienna. The title was ‘Aspekte des Neuen Rechtsradikalismus‘, or ‘Aspects of the New Right Extremism’. (This was published in English in April 2020 – odd, eh?) I find variants of this argument everywhere, but I rarely see anyone give Adorno credit for them. His argument was that Right extremism was caused by resentment, fear or anxiety created by life in a democratic society. The standard Leftist explanation of this is that it is caused by economic inequality. Those who suffer from economic inequalities should, and would if they were rational (and one has to laugh here), fall in with Leftist politics and the effort to secure economic equality. But they don’t. Instead, they, since they are irrational, get tangled up in concerns about race, gender, nation etc. This is good. It is extremely patronising. Anyhow, read the Guardian and you’ll find this sort of patronising, caring argument trotted out on almost a daily basis.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Or as Schrödinger’s Cat used to say, “The observer is part of the experiment.”
And how can the cat know whether the observer is still alive?
I like to point out that China is a true fascist country, certainly not communist. It winds them up no end
Just like east and west, right and left are relative terms.
If you an I stand on the centre spot of a football pitch, and you move to the left, I’m on your extreme right. But I didn’t move an inch.
Ergo, those who use these labels expose their own radicalism.
Simples.
Yes, it’s their form, of the Overton window, they use it to justify (falsely) that opinions have changed when in fact society at large more or less has the same stance as many years ago.
Terms mean nothing. As if ‘ideology’ is weather vane. You can’t put a piece of paper between Communism and Fascism, just some variations in objectives and implementation, but same end result. The true Fascists I saw during Rona. Fake Virus, demanding poisions, diapers and a lockdown. Same idiots who now call Tronald a Fascist, or claim that we have a ‘thriving democracy’. Where were these assholes for 3 years? You can go to jail in this country for being Christian. How is that different from Nazism or Stalinism?
So, following the argument of the essay, the UK Establishment is probably fascist (oppressive dictatorial control). The Conservatives were supine in front of such fascism and Labour thought they were among friends but are rapidly realising that the ‘enemy of my enemy’ may still be an enemy to their plans.
Perhaps the best we can hope for is a reduction in the power of the Establishment?
Is national socialism always fascist or was it just the German and Italian strains? I ask because I would argue forms of national socialism are probably the most common governing system worldwide, certainly in the developed world. Any country rich enough to implement welfarism and which retains a modicum of sovereignty tends to lean towards national socialism. Singapore and Japan are obvious examples. European countries are harder to identify because the national bit has been diminished by the EU. What these states lack is how Robert Tombs defined fascism i.e. the style of politics; militarism, racism as policy, parades etc. By this definition are all Western societies fascist in substance if not style?
I think the common characteristic feature of all these systems is totalitarianism.
State control, subjugation of the individual.
Stalinism, communism, Maoism, fascism, they are just different manifestations of a cult that worships the “state”.
Recent example: mandatory vaccination.
National Socialism wasn’t Fascism and Fascism wasn’t National Socialism – hence the two different names.
Short explanation:
National Socialism: the Party and its leader were the embodiment of the pure-bred Ayran race, and State and saw this in terms of the collectivism of Socialism. One State, one people, one leader. (The State not defined by borders but anywhere Aryans lived.)
Fascism: the State was the embodiment of the Nation and its People as a Socialist collective. “The State, everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.
Fascism defined a technocratic approach to government, particularly economic management (which is the model adopted by the EU and so-called democracies) whereby, unlike Socialism where all production is State-owned with workers employed by the State, production remains in private ownership employing workers, but just like Socialism it operates as directed by the State in the interests of the State.
Hitler, an admirer of Mussolini, liked the technocratic aspect of economic management of Fascism instead of direct State ownership and adopted it.
Whilst National Socialism has the race element, Fascism does not.
But both brands are offshoots of Socialism, like Church of England and Roman Catholicism where both brands are offshoots of Christianity.
Calling National Socialism and Fascism Far Right, or conflating the two is uninformed and/or lazy.
I’m just a little bit tired of the term “far right“ and “fascist”.
Somehow this term now means:
So yes, perhaps I do feel a bit resentful of being considered an “extreme right fascist”.
I would add: people who think we should all be self-dependent not State-dependent and the welfare state is serfdom giving power and control over the masses bribed by it, by a self-selected few.
Fascism: Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini
before this guy the word did not exist, he invented it, he called his party the RFP, the Republican Fascist Party
ask any lefty liberalist what it means and they will all fail to answer it!
It’s a totally made up word by one self appointed dick, sorry, dictator
I think it was Mussolini who talked about corporate fascism, or perhaps the control by communists to achieve their means of control through control of corporations. After all businesses will follow the money and if easy money comes from bad governance by socialists they will easily comply. Hitler’s control and demand for products found willing partners even though the tanks and planes were not at the time fit for purpose. The corporations complied out of either fear or easy money.
Then we have the likes of Franco who does not fit with the other two, but he was an authoritarian and would fit better with divine rulers, which maybe why he supported the monarchy and why many monarchists seemed to be open to fascism.
at the end of the day it seems to be about a means of control, fascism being a stepping stone to absolute rule by a bunch of dictatorial, authoritarians. Just look at Europe and the mess we are in now!
From Fascii – Latin for rods in a bundle carried before Roman pro-consuls as a sign of authority. He was member of the Italian Socialist Party and tried to “sell” his revised Socialism – struggle between nations not classes – but it was mostly rejected in the various branches except for a few pockets of people within the branches who were persuaded.
He was expelled and forced a new Party, “bundling” together these “rods” – hence Fascist Party.
“We need to think a little about what our contemporaries mean when they fret about the ‘far Right’, the ‘hard Right’, the ‘radical Right’ and ‘Right-wing extremists’.”
IMO what they usually mean is “I don’t like your ideas and/or you are a threat to my power/gravy train, so I am going to use a smear term that will frighten people instead of arguing my case, because I consciously or unconsciously know my case is weak”.
Normal Views now called Far Right
This is a rather confusing article. If the purpose of organised society is to encourage and enable an individuals best life, then clearly individual freedom to follow that best life is at a premium. There are two things which work against the enabling of such freedom. An overbearing authoritarian government or some individuals obtaining overbearing dictatorial power. Extreme left and extreme right maybe suitable labels for these two extremes, although they both have a similar pernicious effect . A sweet spot is needed in the middle, affirming encouraging and defending basic rights by government, which enables the widest reciprocal freedom of the individual. The problem is that at the moment in the west the overton window has moved too far to the extreme left . Which is why common sense is now right wing.
To break the authoritarianism of either some government or some dictator will take some kind of an extreme event. Neither government or dictator will go quietly.
“An overbearing authoritarian government or some individuals obtaining overbearing dictatorial power.”
Isn’t that called (incorrectly) “democracy”? Democracy properly is the dispersion of political power across the demos with each member having equal power, so nobody can impose their political will on anyone else. This prevents concentration of power which allows tyranny, and the inevitable bribery, corruption, oppression of dissent that goes with it.
Voting is the bastardised version that concentrates power in the hands of a few – whether that is with the consent of a majority or not. Worse, the political Party system creates a ruling elite of tyrants who cannot be displaced.
This will just get worse until we get rid of the Party system and voting, and restore self-government according to our monoculture of common language, sovereignty of the individual, property Rights, self-subsidy, shared morals, values, manners, beliefs, laws.
Maintenance of law and order and fair dispensation of justice does not need a Government, nor do we need constant legislative Acts which undermine our sovereignty, the Common Law and our natural Rights.
Our current “Parliamentary democracy” style of Government is a modern invention to concentrate power for an elite and their cronies, largely to serve their economic interests but also the sheer joy of power and control.
John Ray has webpages devoted to Authoritarianism in general, and has drilled down to the nut regarding “fascism”. https://johnjayray.com/index.html
Socialism, Fascism, National Socialism share common roots: elevation of the State above the individual, central economic planning and control. F A Hayek.
These three ugly sisters are all Left-wing and extreme. Dialectic that!
From what I see, every aspect of the left thinkers is about projection of their internalised thoughts and values, with no apparent connection to reality in order to recognise it. That’s why I consider it a mental illness.
It is too much of a subject to be addressed in an essay. The word itself is probably defunct. There was Kurosawa film where someone held up a twig and broke it and then held up a handful of twigs bound together and they were impossible to break. You could say the same about family as well as fascism. In Japan fascism has a family feel. The essence of fascism is this binding and the power produced by it. The theologian Paul Tillich said that all organisations are demonic in that they tend towards their own aggrandisement. I liked The Authoritarian Personality. I have seen it myself hundreds of times. Men who were given a hard time by their dad and got the crap kicked out of them can become nasty to their own wives and children. Covetous of money, lacking in morality, happy to sit down and eat a slap up meal while the person sitting with them is starving to death. There is an attempt to conflate two entirely different things.
‘far Right’, the ‘hard Right’, the ‘radical Right’ and ‘Right-wing extremists’.
Synonyms for NORMAL…..
In the days before language was hijacked.
Fascism AKA national socialism is a left wing ideology, The hostility between communism and fascism is sibling rivalry. They both seek to occupy the same political territory, Big government totalitarian.
Another helpful article. Well done James. Keep up the good work.