FASCISM AND THE "THIRD WAY"

A reader writes:

I agree with your analysis of the leftist roots of Nazism. Although in some ways the fascists are actually closer to the modern "Third Way" people like Clinton, Blair, the Australian Democrats than the traditional "working class" social democrats or revolutionary marxist communists. The third way people try to be all things to all people, they don't put one social class above all others, and yet insist on putting the collective interest above all. They don't wish to eliminate private enterprise but regulate it or better still co-opt it, usually through some kind of corporatist structure. Same with the unions, the churches, etc etc.

As I see it there are three main differences between the modern third wayers and the fascists. First, the fascists were advocates of revolution to replace constitutional government by what they saw as "more modern" and "efficient" system of national authoritarian dictatorship. Second modern third wayers are usually strong in their anti-racism, indeed they make anti-racism a centerpiece of their ideology. The anti-semitism of the Nazis, not equalled by the Italian fascists, has no equivalent amongst the modern third wayers. Thirdly, the the third wayers are not advocates of foreign military expansion to glorify their homeland nation state.

These three differences are major differences, and I certainly don't think we need to worry about Tony Blair setting himself up as Fuehrer, but we should note that the three differences aren't quite the rock solid barriers you'd might imagine.

Firstly, third wayers are generally "democratic centralists" and favour constitutional reforms of all kinds that enpower the central state at the expense of private power, local or state government. In someways they are worse than outright abolitionists as they prefer to maintain the facade but gut the real power from the private and local sectors. They are not strict constructionists of their respective constitutions and favour reforms (like the main Republican lobby group in Australia) that centralise power. They have no problems with using technical strategems to subvert their constitutions, for example, through the use of international treaty powers to extend their agenda. They prefer central national power and supra-national power (EU, UN, Kyoto, WTO etc) because they see it as more 'modern' and 'efficient' than the 'messier' alternatives of individual freedom and local autonomy.

I will concede that Blair has advanced the cause of Welsh and Scottish nationalism somewhat but this may be just a tactical concession. In most other countries, third wayers are opposed to traditional federal systems and sometimes advocate 'regional' government as a sop, with "overall direction" and all the financial powers retained by the central government.

Secondly, third wayers are genuine anti-racists for the most part, at least insofar as anyone can be labelled anti-racist. But then again neither Germany or Italy in the 1930s was exactly what we'd call a "multi-cultural" society today. Except for Nazi anti-semitism, the "official racialism" of those regimes was very much oriented to national unity around the central state, reducing regional, religious or class loyalties to benefit the central state. And of course the Italian fascists were nowhere near as anti-semitic as the Nazis.

In some ways today "multi-culturalism" (at least in it's more dogmatic versions) is used by the Third Wayers to advance their democratic centralist agenda. The dominant ethnic communities of their society are generally conservative and generally oppose centralization. Multiculturalism can be used to 'divide and rule' (a tactic the British used in India to maintain the Raj) to enpower the central authority, whilst building constituencies dependent on central government grants and privileges. So in some ways multiculturalism today can play a similar role for the third wayers as "official racialism" did for the Nazis and fascists. Both can be tactics that reinforce the central state.

There is no real third way equivalent to nazi anti-semitism, although "xenophobes" have been cast as scapegoats for policy failure by multiculturalist states and have been subject to extra-legal intimidation, often by ideologically motivated thugs. The irony of course is that 'xenophobia' as witnessed by Hansonism, Le Pen etc is almost always a populist protest movement, a late growing reaction to policy failures by the central state. A further irony is that in many cases these 'xenophobic reactionary' movements are at least as ethnically diverse in their membership as the third way and 'anti-racist' opponents.

Third, the third wayers today are not exactly demanding "lebensraum" overseas but they do not seem to be shrinking violets when foreign military adventures are called either. In particular they have had a major role in advocating and supporting the new wave of "humanitarian interventions" we have seen since the end of the Cold War. Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, East Timor. The list is getting quite long. Blair in a recent press conference let slip that he found the 'humanitarian mission' in Iraq more to his liking than the anti-WMD or anti-terror missions. Most of Blair's fellow third wayers would have supported the Iraq War unambiguously had UN blessing been wangled. Maybe had France had a socialist government rather than a conservative one they would have acted less 'nationalistically' and signed on with Les Anglo-Saxons. In Australia, Hawke was the first Labor PM to advocate overseas intervention, breaking a near century long Labor tradition of isolationism in his support for the first Gulf War.

Listening to many third wayers and they seem to favour foreign intervention the most when the national interests of the homeland are the least. This is the opposite of the conservative notion of foreign intervention only where clear national interests are at stake. To third wayers, it is almost sinful to pursue your national security interests abroad, but they reject both isolationism and pacifism. What they favour is multi-national and/or super-national power. And this power is to be projected to support their ideas of social reform and harmony. In fact this is merely projecting onto the world the same democratic centralist agenda they pursue at home. In short "imperialism without nationalism".

Should we be unduly alarmed at these third way trends? I don't think so, the third wayers are basically decent chaps, democrats and they support the rule of law, however we need to recognise that their ideology is not quite as benevolent as they would have us believe, and sometimes the worst case scenario prevails.

I think this is an interesting thesis but also think that it runs up against the problem of defining the "Third Way". This site gives one view of the matter but, as I see it, the term is used for a pretty disparate bunch of characters -- from what I would call authoritarians like Lee Kuan Yew to moderate conservatives like Tony Blair to amoral centrists like Bill Clinton to Leftist ignoramuses like Australia's Democrats. Though in general, I would think that ALL modern-day Leftists are "Third way" in some sense now that Communism is dead. Only the loonies now think that government ownership of industry is any answer to anything.

********************************

ELSEWHERE

Michael Darby has a review of a book of stories about Australian history.

Chris Brand thinks British academia is in a sadly declined state.

In my academic posting of April 25th. here, I review the research findings about stereotyping and show that what goes on in sterotyping is quite different from what is popularly believed.

*********************************

Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

**********************************