This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I read a fascinating article on Jewish Tunisian intellectual Albert Memmi, with interesting takes on Anti-Colonialism and nationalism. Memmi was an odd man out of sorts. He was a secular left wing revolutionary in Tunisia who advocated for a secular tolerant left wing state. He was a staunch Anti-Colonialist, believing Anti-Colonialism was the true fulfillment of French values, as embodied by the French Revolution. He wanted a Tunisia that was tolerant of minorities, and believed himself to be an Arab Jew. This did ultimately, not pan out, as he was asked to leave Tunisia in either 1956 or 1952(its a really long article, so the location of the dates is inexact for me to find).
He started out life as a staunch Zionist, being from the poor Jewish ghettos of Tunisia. The Jews of Tunisia were Pro-French, and received numerous benefits over their Arab muslim neighbors. They did, according to Memmi, sympathize with the Arab Tunisian struggle for independence and freedom. The Pro-French attitude was entirely motivated by self preservation, as Jews in Tunisia(or at least poor Jews. Rich Jews believed a utopia of tolerance in a secular state would come about. Only Poor Jews recognized the true reality of what was to come....and poor Jews made up most Jews of Tunisia) believed that if the French left, they would be persecuted by their Arab Muslim neighbors. While Memmi started out as a Zionist, he transitioned to the Anti-Colonialist and Left Wing Socialist position as I stated above, coming to the belief that Jews could live in a tolerant Tunisia.
This idealism did not hold up with the contradictions of nationalism and national liberation. Albert Memmi and Jews of Tunisia were not well treated by the new independent Tunisian government. Anti Jewish decrees made it impossible for poor Jews to make a living.
As it turned out, Anti-Colonialist National Liberation movements were often religious, ethnic nationalist, conservative and violent. This shocking realization to Memmi would influence him towards Socialist Zionism, believing that Jews and Zionism must have a place in internationalist thoughts in a distinctly Jewish and independent position.
One of the interesting things to come from Memmi, is the Left's support of Third World Regimes that were intolerant, chauvinistic and conservative, under the name of Anti-Colonialism. Often times, the Left supported these regimes, and even worse, the violence they took, turning a blind eye to their acts. However, these regimes did not adopt the secular tolerant leftism of Memmi or the French Revolution. Memmi wrote "“discovers that there is no connection between the liberation of the colo- nized and the application of a left-wing program. And that, in fact, he is perhaps aiding the birth of a social order in which there is no room for a leftist as such."
He also came of the belief that the problems of Anti-Colonial Regimes were not problems that came from the Colonizers, but problems inherent in the populations themselves. While Colonialism perverted both Colonized and Colonizer, leaving psychological problems for both, that they are ultimately not the cause of the now independent and previously colonizeds problems.
I do not do the article justice. Id recommend reading it, for interesting takes on Leftist support of Anti-Colonialism and the anti-colonialist regime. https://fathomjournal.org/albert-memmi-zionism-as-national-liberation/
It seems self evident to me, that all national liberation movements, classified as left wing, are but a step away from nationalistic chauvinism, classified as mostly right wing. Nationalism as supported by the Left, will ultimately rebound and make authoritarian and Anti-left wing regimes.
One interesting example I can think of is Iraq under Baathism. For those who dont know, Baathism is basically Fascism. And I mean this quite literally, it has most of the distinctive characteristics of 1930s Italian Fascism, except in an Arab context. One primary belief of Baathism, is Arab Socialism, a non-marxist socialism dedicated to the national rejuvenation of Arab culture. Italian Fascism and National Socialism of the Nazis, predominantly believed in a Non-Marxist form of socialism in rhetoric, if more mixed and pragmatic in terms of practice. Baathism is not your average Far Right populist movement, but a distinctly fascist ideology. Although, there are many far right populists who are Post-Fascist in thought, like Brothers of Italy, from which the Prime Minister of Italy, Georgia Meloni, leads.
Ive done readings on Meloni herself and her post fascist thought. Interestingly, I've read that Ethnopluralism and Anti-Colonialism, along with socially conservative and Anti-immigration sentiments are major tenets of neo-fascist and post fascist far right movements in Italy. This is labeled as Third Positionism.
What does Italy and Third Positionism have to do with Albert Memmi? Italy and Third Positionism represent the kind of socially conservative, nationalistic and anti-internationalist beliefs that Memmi was against. Another interesting factor is how Third Position thought interacts with Zionism and Jews. The Likud and Far Right in Israel are unexpected outgrowths to Memmi. He believed that Zionism would cure the Jews of his neurotic diasporic characteristics, and that Zionism would be an end to Judaism in a sense, turning the Jews into a normal people. He was both right and wrong.
Like any normal people demonstrate, there is a predisposition towards nationalistic and socially conservative thought. His belief of a new tolerant left wing Zionist Jew has given way to Jews as now more religious, more nationalistic and more right wing people.
It is likely, given everything I have wrote and all the evidence, national liberation and the lefts defense of Anti-colonialism is self defeating. What are The Mottes thoughts?
Can anyone provide an example of Meloni being fascist, post-fascist or fascist-adjacent in practice?
Illegal immigration, mainly from Africa, doubled under her watch. She explicitly got into power on a promise of preventing it. Italy has a fairly large navy. It is an absolutely trivial matter for them to prevent illegal immigration by sea. Australia shows it can be done, Tony Abbott promised to stop the boats and then he just did it. The Italian government simply chooses not to. They choose not to send the boats back, they choose not to arrest the NGOs.
Fascism is all about action as opposed to theory. There's no talking the talk, just walking the walk - political violence is preferable to endless liberal-democratic debates. And it's hard to think of any political violence more politically correct (from a fascist POV) than expelling or blocking Africans entering the country. Meloni is a neoliberal in practice, indistinguishable from Boris Johnson, Macron or Merkel. Even Tony Abbott is a neoliberal (albeit slightly more sincere with voters), he was fine with legal mass immigration.
These politicians don't have any national concept more substantial than ideology. As far as they're concerned, as long as you believe in French values, you're French. Maybe you can't wear a burkha. But the core of fascism is a genuine biological nationalism: if you don't have that, then you can't be fascist.
Meloni was a vice president of Alleanza Nazionale between her first election in 2006 and AN merging into a big-tent right-wing party headed by Berlusconi in 2009. Her current party, Fratelli d'Italia, split out of said big tent in 2012, and mostly consists of former AN members.
Alleanza Nazionale were part of the capital-F Fascist political tradition, in the sense that they are the institutional successor of the MSI, which was explicitly founded after WW2 as a successor to Benito Mussolini's Fascist Party. The party had a complex relationship with the Mussolini family, which ended up with Allesandra Mussolini abandoning fascist politics and joining Forza Italia. The founding documents of the AN explicitly referred to the party as "post-fascist".
I am happy describing someone holding a leadership position in an explicitly post-fascist political party as post-fascist. I do not think this is controversial.
I am personally happy describing someone holding a leadership position a right-populist political party in the political tradition founded by Benito Mussolini as fascist without the "post", although reasonable people can disagree about this.
Yes but what fascist policy has she implemented? You're talking about classifications, I'm talking about action.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Obviously the modern left is extremely anti nationalist for its outgroups, calling fascist to oppose migration and supports to extreme degree the nationalism of is itsgroup. This does relate to decolonization movement but paints colonization of europe as decolonization.
Antifascism and opposition to nationalism has always attracted figures like Stalin, some of the worst mass murdering wanabees, and extremists who actually commited the worst attrocities. People like Lazar Kaganovich or Leon Trotsky, or Lenin were not fascist, and yet their legacy was monstrous. And so was of figures like Stalin.
The bad thing about extreme nationalism is complete disrespect of other group's rights, and support of your group dominating and mistreating others. This is the bad thing about fascism.
The antifascism that pathologilizes opposing being dominated, would perceive the people who were attacked by Italian fascist imperialism as acting fascistically when they nationalistically opposed it. Indeed this was the claim of the USSR originally that it was imperialism to opposeit.
Your comments about opposing migration being fascist is dangerous and offensive and nonsense. Especially when considering how the left supports the dehumanization if not the murder of those called fascists and large majorities of people oppose mass migration in many countries.
Much of its evil was done under the banner of antifascism and opposing chauvinists.
Oh, and zionism when the USSR and Israel was allowed and it was a more left wing movement commited its attrocities and was extreme nationalist a plenty. A significant part of the left is willing to make compromises with extreme nationalism and call this antifascism.
This applies to those who align to an extreme degree with third world nationalism and see Jews as white oppressors, or align with the zionists but are also very anti european.
You offered an extremely reductive take which is like reading communists in how constrained it is to your prejudices. This take does not provide a solution and misses the fact that national liberation can in fact liberate people from foreign oppression and tyranny.
There isn't a solution but the same pathological far leftism that self justifies itself through pretending anything else is fascist. In reality, it isn't the case whatsoever and moreover the actual historical fascists also opposed far left extremism, and if it didn't exist and cause the damage it did, their movement wouldn't have risen. The officially antifascistic regimes have been some of the most oppressive regimes to ever exist in human history and commited also genocides against ethnic groups. Part of their extremism has to do with pathologilizing as fascism the common national sentiments of peoples, and then seeing themselves falsely as superior beings who have the right to punish those who don't share their false vision.
What is the alternative? I think trying to take into consideration the interests of different ethnic groups and oppose one group being expansionist and dominating others makes sense. It is true that what rises as opposing oppression can eventually lead to extreme situation.
The template of international justice which unlike the left's extremist must make room for the human rights and continuing existence of also Europeans, but also non European ethnic groups, is a better alternative than what the far left has to offer. And is certainly not fascism.
The connection between supporting your own rights and then going further than that should not lead us to the stupid notion that is pathological by default for a group to do so. For seeking to lack any support for your rights, being afraid of being overzealous leads to pathological altruism and supporting zealotry for a different group. Which part of its zealotry includes their demand that their outgroup are complete pushovers. So I am afraid, there isn't a better alternative if we are interested in the best worldwide system that to seek some sort of compromise between different groups nationalisms.
From that perspective, one can have a problem with fascism and left wing decolonization, and third world marxist nationalism, and zionism, for failing to do that.
In general it isn't good and a case of moral excellence for a group to lack the healthy notions of what is right and wrong and to be apathetic to their own mistreatment.
We also should see extreme antinationalism, and extreme collectivism against identity, whether it is for atheism against religion, or any identity, as itself a dangerous collectivism. What Trotsky called approvingly collectivism of individualism has proven to be just as tyrannical and oppressive collective and tribe than any other. It is a self-delusion to believe that this path is a way to avoid the negatives of tribalism. To the contrary, it goes further against human nature and requires greater fanaticism to maintain and inspires greater resentment still as it has to pathologilize many millions of normal people who are in fact nationalistic.
In fact, I must again empathize that in terms of destructive legacy, this movement which carries the banner and label of antifascism far outshines fascism. They just have had the chutzpah to constantly point fingers at others and never self reflect.
It is also often a target of infiltration by nationalist subversives who try to promote the strategy of promoting extreme antinationalism to their outgroup, while pretending to be against nationalism dishonestly and also promoting the idea of (limitless) nationalism for oppressed and no rights for supposed oppressors. Part of this is because it is in fact quite easier to make a coalition to destroy nationalism (for group X), if you are to include actual nationalists who hate X group nationalism. So some of the supposed anti-nationalists compromise in such manner to identify the evils of nationalism with a particular group.
While opposing genuine oppression of foreign extreme nationalists can be legitimate, and genuine moral national liberation activity, this idea of dogmatically treating regardless of the facts groups as permanently fixed oppressors and oppressed is indeed nationalist chauvinism of worst type.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link