Pomanjkljivo opozorilo Albrightove na fašizem v vzponu

Ne vem, ampak kakorkoli mi je Madelaine Albright simpatična figura in kakorkoli mi je njeno veliko opozorilo na vzpon fašizma v njeni novi knjigi “Fascism: A Warning(2018) všeč, pa me odlomki iz njene knjige ne prepričajo povsem. Strinjam se z njenimi zgodovinskimi paralelami, da je današnja situacija v razvitih državah zrela za vzpon populizma in fašizma. Vendar me odbija, da skorajda v vsakem odstavku privleče lamentacijo nad ZDA, ki so izgubile / opustile vlogo svetovnega policaja, zaradi česar je svet danes manj stabilen.

In moti me, da razlogov za vzpon fašizma ne išče v njihovih korenih, ki so enaki kot v 1920. in začetku 1930. let – brutalni neregulirani kapitalizem pod taktirko velikih korporacij in globalizacija z odprtimi trgi in prosto mobilnimi kapitalskimi in finančnimi tokovi, ki sta skupaj pavperizirali srednji razred na Zahodu in hkrati producirali velik pritisk na socialno državo. Hkrati pa v konjunkciji sproducirali finančno krizo stoletja. Vzpon neliberalnih metod vladanja se tako dogaja na Zahodu (kjer ZDA, če zanemarimo Namčijo po WW2, niso igrale vloge policaja), ne pa v državah v razvoju, kjer ZDA še danes bogato “mešajo štrene” in jih sistematično destabilizirajo za doseganje svojih partikularnih strateških interesov.

Rešitev pred vzponom fašizma ni v vrnitvi k monocentričnemu svetu z ameriško hegemonijo, pač pa v ukrotitvi in humanizaciji kapitalizma ter v omejitvi globalizacije (tokov blaga, kapitala in ljudi). Če želimo, da se ljudje na Zahodu nehajo ozirati za populističnimi lažnimi mesijami s fašističnimi tendencami, jim je najprej treba povrniti ekonomsko varnost.

Mussolini observed that in seeking to accumulate power, it is wise to do so in the manner of one plucking a chicken—feather by feather. His tactics live on in our no-longer-new century. When we awaken each morning, we see around the globe what appear to be Fascism’s early stirrings: the discrediting of mainstream politicians, the emergence of leaders who seek to divide rather than unite, the pursuit of political victory at all costs and the invocation of national greatness by people who seem to possess only a warped concept of what greatness means. Most often, the signposts that should alert us are disguised: the altered constitution that passes for reform, the attacks on a free press justified by security, the dehumanisation of others masked as a defense of virtue, or the hollowing out of a democratic political system so that all is erased but the label.

We know from experience that Fascism and the tendencies that lead to it are subject to imitation. Surveying the world today, we see apprentice autocrats copying repressive tactics that had their tryouts in Venezuela or Russia fifteen years ago. Undemocratic practices are on the rise in, among other places, Turkey, Hungary, Poland and the Philippines, each a treaty ally of the United States. Radical nationalist movements—some violent, some not—are achieving notoriety as they draw media attention, make parliamentary inroads and push the boundaries of public discussion toward bigotry and hate. America, the rock against which Fascism crashed in the last century, may have begun to slide.

As regularly as we use the term, few current heads of government fully embody the spirit of Fascism. Mussolini remains in his grave and Hitler never had one. But that is no grounds for relaxed vigilance. Every step in the direction of Fascism—every plucked feather—causes damage to individuals and to society; each makes the next step shorter. To hold the line, we must recognise that despots rarely reveal their intentions and that leaders who start out well frequently become more authoritarian the longer they hold power. We must acknowledge, as well, that anti-democratic measures will often be welcomed by some of the people, some of the time—especially when those measures are deemed to favour their own.

It is important to remember that actions taken today depend largely on expectations about the future. If a foreign country feels abandoned by the United States, or uncertain about its leadership, that nation may see a need to act more forcefully—and perhaps unwisely—on its own. At a minimum, the country may see no choice but to invest in what amounts to foreign-policy insurance by strengthening ties to others, leaving the United States on the outside looking in. There is also the chance that intemperate words and ill-conceived threats will ramp up tensions suddenly, induce panic on the part of some, and lead everyone over the cliff to war. There are certainly enough trouble spots—beginning with the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula—to merit anxiety. During the Cold War, we installed hotlines so the US president could allay any misunderstandings by talking directly to a foreign leader. I’m not sure how much faith we would invest in that option today.

Finally, and even more seriously, I fear a return to the international climate that prevailed in the 1920s and 30s, when the United States withdrew from the global stage and countries everywhere pursued what they perceived to be their own interests without regard to larger and more enduring goals. When arguing that every age has its own Fascism, the Italian writer and Holocaust survivor Primo Levi added that the critical point can be reached “not just through the terror of police intimidation, but by denying and distorting information, by undermining systems of justice, by paralysing the education system, and by spreading in a myriad subtle ways nostalgia for a world where order reigned.” If he is right (and I think he is), we have reason to be concerned by the gathering array of political and social currents buffeting us today—currents propelled by the dark underside of the technological revolution, the corroding effects of power, the American president’s disrespect for truth and the widening acceptance of dehumanising insults, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism as being within the bounds of normal public debate. We are not there yet, but these feel like signposts on the road back to an era when Fascism found nourishment and individual tragedies were multiplied millions-fold.

Vir: Madelaine Albright ,”Fascism: A Warning(2018)

3 responses

  1. Hja, tipično sprenevedanje najbolj odgovornega za nastalo situacijo. Tako, kot je bil najbolj odgovoren za vzpon fašizma pred sto leti takratni imperializem, ki so ga najbolje predstavljali Angleži, je danes za to najbolj odgovorna Amerika s svojim globaliziranim kapitalizmom, ki ga najbolje predstavljajo mega korporacije.
    Očitno se tudi Američani (vsaj Albrightova) niso kaj dosti naučili iz zgodovine.

  2. Trumpizem je smrtni udarec narcizmu ameriške liberalne in konzervativne elite. Mitu o ameriški izjemnosti. Še v 1990-tih so elitni intelektualci od Fukuyame do Huntingtona in vse naokrog ta mit o svetovnem svetilniku svobode dnevno širili. In z njim opravičevali vse mogoče in nemogoče.

    Ameriška izjemnost je bila kajpak iluzija že takrat, danes pa sploh ni več možna. Trumpizem dokazuje, da je ameriška družba dovzetna za grdo demagogijo natanko tako kot ves preostali svet s katerim se nikoli ni hotela primerjati, kaj šele bratiti. “Barbarstvo” v centru sistema, ne le nekje na obrobju.

    Liberalne in koservativne elite so z dvigom te demagogije tako tesno povezane, da tega sploh ne zmorejo korenito analizirati, ker bi tam seveda našle same sebe. Zato je že takoj sumljivo, da se Albrigtova kar se fašizma tiče sklicuje na svoje otroštvo, ne pa na svojo vlogo v visoki politiki.

  3. Ameriške liberalne in konservativne elite imajo torej resen problem. Zlasti zunanjepolitične elite, katere del je bila in je še danes Albrightova. Kako bodo svetu še naprej zlahka vladali z izjemno silo, če je že vsakomur lahko jasno, da sploh niso izjemni?

    Če mene vprašaš je rešitev tega problema glavni razlog za izid te knjige, ne pa to da je Albrightova nekakšna dobričina, ki hoče rešiti ZDA in ves preostali svet pred strašnim fašizmom.

%d bloggers like this: