Fašizem je val prihodnosti

Edward Luttwak je ta komentar napisal pred 25 leti (1994). Napovedal je, da bo globalni “turbocharged” in regulacije sproščen kapitalizem v svojem hitrem “napredku” uničil socialno tkivo družbe in povzročil družbeno krizo identitete. Ker te krize  identitete v svojem kolaboracionizmu s kapitalom ne bosta uspela pokriti niti zmerna levica niti zmerna desnica, jo bo zapolnila stranka, ki bo kot odgovor ponudila nacionalno identiteto v socialnem kontekstu. Drugače rečeno, naraščajoči val političnega ekstremizma, ki smo mu priča po krizi iz 2008, je val fašizma na pohodu, kot ga je napovedal Luttwak. In smo šele na začetku tega vala.

That capitalism unobstructed by public regulations, cartels, monopolies, oligopolies, effective trade unions, cultural inhibitions or kinship obligations is the ultimate engine of economic growth is an old-hat truth now disputed only by a few cryogenically-preserved Gosplan enthusiasts and a fair number of poorly-paid Anglo-Saxon academics. That the capitalist engine achieves growth as well as it does because its relentless competition destroys old structures and methods, thus allowing more efficient structures and methods to rise in their place, is the most famous bit of Schumpeteriana, even better-known than the amorous escapades of the former University of Czernowitz professor.

And, finally, that structural change can inflict more disruption on working lives, firms, entire industries and their localities than individuals can absorb, or the connective tissue of friendships, families, clans, elective groupings, neighbourhoods, villages, towns, cities or even nations can withstand, is another old-hat truth more easily recognised than Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft can be spelled.

In this situation, what does the moderate Right – mainstream US Republicans, British Tories and all their counterparts elsewhere – have to offer? Only more free trade and globalisation, more deregulation and structural change, thus more dislocation of lives and social relations. It is only mildly amusing that nowadays the standard Republican/Tory after-dinner speech is a two-part affair, in which part one celebrates the virtues of unimpeded competition and dynamic structural change, while part two mourns the decline of the family and community ‘values’ that were eroded precisely by the forces commended in part one.

Thus at the present time the core of Republican/Tory beliefs is a perfect non-sequitur. And what does the moderate Left have to offer? Only more redistribution, more public assistance, and particularist concern for particular groups that can claim victim status, from the sublime peak of elderly, handicapped, black lesbians down to the merely poor.

Thus neither the moderate Right nor the moderate Left even recognises, let alone offers any solution for, the central problem of our days: the completely unprecedented personal economic insecurity of working people, from industrial workers and white-collar clerks to medium-high managers. None of them are poor and they therefore cannot benefit from the more generous welfare payments that the moderate Left is inclined to offer. Nor are they particularly envious of the rich, and they therefore tend to be uninterested in redistribution. Few of them are actually unemployed, and they are therefore unmoved by Republican/Tory promises of more growth and more jobs through the magic of the unfettered market: what they want is security in the jobs they already have – i.e. precisely what unfettered markets threaten.

A vast political space is thus left vacant by the Republican/Tory non-sequitur, on the one hand, and moderate Left particularism and assistentialism, on the other. That was the space briefly occupied in the USA by the 1992 election-year caprices of Ross Perot, and which Zhirinovsky’s bizarre excesses are now occupying in the peculiar conditions of Russia, where personal economic insecurity is the only problem that counts for most people (former professors of Marxism-Leninism residing in Latvia who have simultaneously lost their jobs, professions and nationalities may be rare, but most Russians still working now face at least the imminent loss of their jobs). And that is the space that remains wide open for a product-improved Fascist party, dedicated to the enhancement of the personal economic security of the broad masses of (mainly) white-collar working people. Such a party could even be as free of racism as Mussolini’s original was until the alliance with Hitler, because its real stock in trade would be corporativist restraints on corporate Darwinism, and delaying if not blocking barriers against globalisation. It is not necessary to know how to spell Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft to recognise the Fascist predisposition engendered by today’s turbocharged capitalism.

Vir: Edward Luttwak, London Review of Books

 

One response

  1. Če v grobem pogledamo globalno zgodovino zadnjih par stoletij, lahko ugotovimo, da je obdobje v katerem živimo zadnjih 30 let izjema in ne pravilo. Izjema je to, da je nacionalna država porinjena v ozadje tako kot je trenutno.

    Izjema je, da nam vlada mednarodna tehnokracija, ne pa nacionalna politika, izjema je, da nam vlada nekakšen (neo)liberalizem, ne pa nacionalizem, izjema je to, da obstaja toliko formalnih demokracij in ne bistveno več diktatur, itd…

    Številni pravijo, da se počutijo kot v nekakšnem postmodernem medvojnem obdobju. V resnici pa začenjamo živeti v obdobju, kjer je občutek podoben kot je bil velik del zgodovine zadnjih par stoletij, ne le v 1930ih.

%d bloggers like this: