Introduction
Labelling groups in order
to denounce them outright is a feature of societies. This was a
problem faced by early Christians in its pre-Christian, European context, and
it is once again a problem in the post-Christian, Western context. Early
Christians were sometimes persecuted for wild accusations based on willful
misunderstandings. Christians used the familial terms of ‘brother’
and ‘sister’ for each other. They held their meetings before or
after work hours, which, in typical homes, were behind walls without outfacing
windows and, in winter, would have been in the dark. This led some
to believe that they practised incest and orgies. Rumors of their
Eucharistic services were misinterpreted as cannibalistic. Early
Christians were also the scapegoat for anything that went wrong—a flood or
earthquake, for example. After all, they did not worship the
ancestral gods, who required sacrifices and devotion for their protective
services. Imperial religion connected religion with patriotism. Caesar
was ‘Lord,’ and certain past emperors were elevated to divine
status. Christians, who only called Jesus Christ ‘Lord’ and held
that there was only one God, would not sacrifice to the
emperor. Simply being called a Christian and not denying it was
enough to be imprisoned or even killed, without any explanation for what about
being a Christian was against the law.
Labels and
mischaracterisations are very powerful tools to use against
others. Few have been as good at this than Donald Trump in the
Republican primaries of 2015. His petty name-calling was
despicable. The present essay will explore how the Democrat
socialists are now doing this by labelling their opponents as ‘fascists’—one of
the most powerful words for denouncing a group that there is. Since
most Christians (orthodox, Evangelical, and devout Catholics) oppose Democrat
social policies like abortion, anti-family policies, the redefinition of
marriage, the invention of genders, and so forth, the mislabelling by American
socialists of their opposition as ‘fascist’ spills over onto Christians as
well. We have good reason to worry about this recent trend in
American society. This is not exclusively a problem in America,
particularly since European countries oppose freedom of speech with laws about
hate speech that are turned against Christians, but the peculiar dynamics of
the American context are in view here, particularly around the label
‘fascist.’ One might conjecture that average Europeans have a better
understanding of fascism than Americans, and they are probably more careful to
use the label with greater precision.
The thesis of this essay
is that the growing interest in socialism in America is related to the recent
attempt to mischaracterise the opposition using the label ‘fascist.’ This
is a dangerous move that may evolve further as an attack on Christians merely
through labelling people. Ideologies take different forms, depending
on the context, and this American form of socialism is taking shape in a post-Christian,
Postmodern context that is still riding what is left of the wave of globalism
and that is driven by Marxist Critical Theory. Some Christians have been
attracted to socialism, since it wears the facemask of kind-hearted
economics. The narrative of socialism is that capitalism is a greedy,
cruel economic practice (which it can be but is not at all necessarily),
whereas socialism is altruistic and caring. Any student of history would
have to point out that such an understanding has never played out in reality.
One only has to think of the grand experiments of social revolution in places
like Russia, China, Cuba, and Venezuela. Yet the current version of
socialism in the American context is only partially economic and is linked to
Critical Theory more broadly, with a racial twist. This has already
become a powerful, anti-Christian movement. The rise of socialism in
America is directly related to post-Christian changes in society, not as a
result of Christian concern for economic justice. The Postmodern context
for this contributes further to anti-Christian social
forces. Postmodernity rejects truth, such as creational
absolutes. Like its Existentialist predecessor, it holds that existence
precedes essence, and therefore people may choose whatever identity they wish. As
a philosophical view, it is strongly ‘against nature,’ as the Stoics and early
Christians would have said.
A recent development in
American socialism has been to fashion its opposition as fascist. The
opposition of communists and fascists in the early 20th century is well known,
but to claim that everyday Americans are now fascists is probably more than
simply a political spin in the interest of securing votes in an upcoming
election. It also seems to be a result of a new view of society from a now
anti-Christian, socialist, and Postmodern vantage point. That is,
American socialists probably really believe that their opponents are, to some
degree, fascists. This requires not only a shift in perspective but also
a willingness to mischaracterise their opponents. This essay will explore
this possibility, using Umberto Eco's description of fascism in a 1995 essay
entitled ‘Ur-Fascism.’[1]
One further introductory
point needs to be made. Both Marxism and Nazism, the two great examples
of communism and fascism in Europe, were totalitarian and socialist movements.
The name, 'Nazi,' was an abbreviation for the National Socialist German
Workers' Party. The word 'Nazi' even gets used from time to time by
American socialists attempting to discredit their opposition--no doubt by
politicians and journalists who do not know very much about political science
or history. Be that as it may, American socialists need to realise that fascists are a version of socialism.
How
Post-Christian, Postmodern Socialists Can Come to Believe Their Opponents are
Fascists
With these introductory
comments, I next turn to explore why American socialists might actually believe
that their opponents are fascists. Umberto Eco's description of fascism
in 1995 had a certain force to it, since he grew up in fascist Italy and mixed
his own, childhood reflections with social commentary. He initially notes
that fascism has come in various forms, and so his agenda is to describe what
is in common with the different varieties and how it is always a tendency in
society that needs to be identified and opposed (by liberal democracy, not
socialism). This ever-present fascism in whatever variety he describes
as 'Ur-Fascism.' In the second part of Eco's article, he provides his
list of 14 characteristics of fascism.
Eco's article, it must be
said, suffers from several problems. Any list of points needs some
organization, but Eco lets his points stand with equal force. Also,
fascism is better described in comparison to capitalism in regard to economics
and socialism in regard to politics. In fact, fascism and socialism
have much in common. Both are totalitarian and have historically
killed millions under their authoritarian, strong arms of government. Both
centralise power in the government and require big government, which is often incompetent and corrupt, whatever their policies, but on occasion is a well-run machine of evil. (For Thomas Jefferson, note, the government that governs best is the government that governs least.) Eco's essay also needs
to pay far more attention to fascism's opposition to Christianity.
American socialists, like so many socialists (but less so in Europe), are largely anti-Christian, including those who pretend to be Christians, getting their photos with the pope while opposing the Catholic Church's teaching. Eco's description of fascism also needs to emphasise
more than it does how fascism's opposition to Christianity is partly motivated
by its interest in replacing Christianity with its own mythical folklore to
sustain its nationalism. This is partly why fascism's version of
nationalism is so different from the patriotism of liberal democratic
nations. My attempt is not, however, to work towards a better
definition of fascism (or socialism) but to explain how perceptions of fascism
explain the current, political rhetoric from American socialists.
First on Eco’s list
describing fascism is that it is a ‘cult of tradition.’ 'Tradition' is
definitely the wrong word, though the word 'cult' might have allowed Eco to
draw some distinctions between traditional societies and fascists. He
fails to do so. However, Nazism can hardly be defined as a
continuity with traditional German society, and the category of ‘tradition’ is
simply unhelpful. Yet American socialism does present itself in
opposition to traditional society, including American religious society.
From their perspective, socialists feel at ease claiming that conservatives are
fascist. Before matters got this far in mislabelling opponents,
Barak Obama had already set the stage by saying of working-class Americans, ‘it's
not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or
antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or
anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.’[2]
Eco further says that
fascists oppose anything modern. He immediately had to qualify himself,
since Nazi Germany was very interested in scientific study for its ideological,
not traditional, pursuits. They needed industrial development not only to bring
Germany out of its economic devastation after World War I and post-war
reparations, but they needed it to prepare for war. American
socialists, however, like to characterise their opposition as
anti-scientific. Their version of 'science,' all too often, has been an
ideological, unenquiring version of science. Scientists are pressured to
come to the 'right' conclusions and not raise any questions, whether it be in
gender or environmental studies or in how the corona virus was handled. Excessive power, big government, an insistence on assent and conformity, and a denial of enquiry in scientific matters characterise political socialism and fascism. These socialists, therefore, seek to
describe their opposition in ways that really characterise themselves.
Those opposed to true scientific enquiry accuse their opponents who raise
questions as anti-science.
One worrying dimension to
this is that, thanks to Modernity, religion and science are often seen as
opposed to one another. With notable historical counter-examples (such as in the case of Galileo), Christians are very pro-science precisely because they believe God made the world. Opposition to Christianity is typical of Marxism,
with Marx saying that religion is the opiate of the people. From
this confused perspective of both Modernity and Postmodernity, and from the
perspective of the Critical Theory version of socialism that extends far beyond
economics and politics, Christians are seen as anti-scientific. Is it
possible that these socialists will conclude that Christians are fascists,
despite the impossibility of any relationship between the two? Certainly,
many Christians find themselves in the Republican Party, and the latest move by
American socialists is to paint their opposing party as fascist. This is
very concerning for Christians, who should sit very loosely to political
parties but who cannot authentically or consistently vote with the many
anti-Christian agendas of the Democrat Party.
Eco also says that
Ur-Fascism views disagreement as treason. This gets much closer to a
description of fascism, but this was equally true of Communism. It
characterises any form of totalitarianism in any form, not least Islamic
states. Nevertheless, American socialists have attempted to describe
their opposition as those who shut down disagreement, probably because the
opposition has questioned the legitimacy of elections that took place under the
most peculiar circumstances. Yet that questioning is not an attempt to
oppose freedom and equality, as in the case of fascism, but to defend these American values, as in the case of liberal democracy.
Perhaps more helpful in
this analysis is to remember that Postmodernity does not believe in truth, only
perspectives and what is functionally valuable for the group. This is a
way to describe tribalism: anything outside the tribe is to be opposed, and
anything inside the tribe must be affirmed as a matter of loyalty. From a
Postmodern, tribal viewpoint, someone who believes in a truth transcending
tribes--objective truth--must be opposed. Those who believe that there is
objective truth discredit inventions of truth by local groups seeking to
advance their agendas. For this reason, however, the Postmodern tribal
group will characterise them as fascist when in fact they are the ones who say
that any disagreement with their politically correct wokeness must be cancelled
(is treasonous). They are not fascists and might be Communists, but
their actual perspective stems from Postmodern tribalism and is one of the best
examples in society today of a group that shuts down its opposition without
argument only by labelling it as treasonous.
Another descriptor for
fascism, says, Eco, is its opposition to diversity. Diversity, however,
has become a cardinal virtue for Postmodernity and, in this, it has actually
become an intolerant 'virtue.' If one opposes the post-Christian view of
gender fluidity--an invention that not even the most permissive societies of
the past ever advocated--or thinks that merit and equal opportunity rather than
identity politics and equal outcomes are hallmarks of justice --then one
rejects the Postmodern, tribal version of diversity. Yet, from the latter
group’s perspective, conservatives--including Christians--can be
(mis-)characterised as opponents of diversity and therefore labelled
fascists. Those Postmoderns who reject the possibility of holding an
alternative to their view, however, come much closer to the sort of opposition
to diversity that fascism holds, not because they are fascists but because
fascists and communists always make their opponents out to be criminals who
need to be eradicated. This is as true of Nazism’s opposition to
diversity as it is of Postmodern tribalists with their peculiar definition of
‘diversity.’
Eco develops this point about opposing diversity. He says that Ur-Fascism exploits the fear of difference. And he applies this to fascists’ opposition to outsiders, who are seen as intruders. Eco says that fascists are, therefore, racist by definition. This was certainly true of the Nazis, who not only opposed but killed Jews, as well as a number of other groups who did not fit their vision for what society should include. If one illogically applies this point to a concern for border integrity, orderly immigration, and citizenship, then one may relate these views to fascism. This has certainly been done in American politics. Christians, on the other hand, welcome an influx of fellow believers into the increasingly post-Christian America, regardless of their race. They are usually intelligent enough to want legal immigration, however.
Next, Eco says, '
Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of
the most typical features of historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated
middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of
political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social
groups.' One could see how Postmodern socialists could apply this point
to American conservatives. The frustration of the middle class is
increased when socialists are in political power, since their economic and
social policies never benefit the middle class and typically make all but an elite group poorer. Having created this
frustration, the socialists can then attack the middle class as fascist on this
point.
Another
characteristic of Ur-fascism is nationalism. Eco's description of this is
nuanced, though lacking in important distinctions. There is a nationalism
that seeks the best for its own citizens, seeing the purpose of government to
be to serve its own population. One might recall the Monroe Doctrine from
the time of President James Monroe that sought to keep America out of Europe's
wars. The rise of nationalism in Europe in the early 1800s was a mixed bag, but in some cases it opposed the power of empire and recognised the integrity of diverse peoples sharing a common language and culture. It could actually be an
improvement over ethnocentrism if various ethnicities lived within a particular nation state. Nationalism could be positive for Greece, dominated by Turkey, but it could take on dark forbodings, as in the unification of German states. It has, therefore, been construed to mean the superiority of one ‘people’ over others that extends even to the
level of extermination of undesirable persons within the border and of warfare with neighbours. Possibly
in most people’s minds today, ‘nationalism’ means the latter and is considered
an evil. Given this interpretation, Donald Trump's 'America First'
and 'Make America Great Again' policies were easily twisted into xenophobia and, as
always in America, racism. Without careful language--and this was
certainly not characteristic of the previous president--nationalism could be made
out as a fascist political policy, which it was not in the previous
administration. Exacerbating this situation was that this second meaning
of nationalism rode on the
heels of an affirmation of globalism in the context of Postmodern
multiculturalism and diversity. To oppose open borders can, on this
errant interpretation, be seen as nationalist, xenophobic, and racist and
therefore be mischaracterised as fascist. This poor logic has
been endlessly pursued in the interest of political gain by American socialists.
Several further
characteristics of fascism of interest from Eco's essay are his claim that life
is lived for some grand, apocalyptic struggle and that citizens are viewed as
an elite, militaristic group that despises the weak. Relatedly, the
fascist society loves its heroes, who are understood to be those who crave
heroic death. None of these apply to the current study.
A further comment about American nationalism seems in order. It can be somewhat overwhelming to someone coming from
outside the culture to live or visit, especially when there is an easy and
too-close connection between it and the Church. The German Church, except for the Dissenting Church and some free churches, did
support Nazi militarism and nationalism, and that should always be a warning to
any Christian. Even if one rejects aspects of American patriotism (such as prayer to 'God' but not the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ in public settings, a pledge of allegiance to a flag without qualifications, an inclusion of the national flag in church buildings, and especially unqualified support of Americas foreign wars) as a Christian, one should still be able to see a great
difference between it and German Nazism. However, for someone with a political
agenda, simplistic comparisons and rhetorical hyperboles are to be
expected: patriotism can be viewed as fascist nationalism. Still, American Christians need to understand their Christian
identities to be far greater than their national identities and should be
vigilant when the latter undermines the former, as it often does. The
problem for American socialists, however, is that they have no interest in a
Christian identity in the first place and therefore do not explore how
Christianity counters the negative form of nationalism. Nor do they
see how their internationalism or globalism is actually harmful to the nation’s citizens.
Eco's next
characteristic is strikingly odd. He says, ' Since both permanent war and
heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power
to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain
for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits,
from chastity to homosexuality).' The Christian world has always opposed
'nonstandard sexual habits,' advocated chastity, and said that homosexuality is
a sin. This does not make it fascist. Moreover, machismo culture
itself affirms 'nonstandard sexual habits,' as a student of cultures ought to
know. The reasoning here is inadequate, yet if one accepts this as true
of fascism, then the illogical mind could equate fascism with traditional views
of sexuality. While nothing could be further from the truth, if someone
of the stature of Eco could reason this way, we can see how American
post-Christian socialists might wish to describe their opposition, opposed to
homosexuality and transgenderism, as fascist. In point of fact, the opposite is true.[3]
In his next-to-last
characteristic of Ur-Fascism, Eco discusses populism. If one stopped
there and looked at the populism of Donald Trump, the illogical mind could then
equate the two. However, opposition to a powerful elite and a powerful, deep state hardly makes one a fascist. Eco continues by distinguishing democratic populism, in
which each individual has a voice, from fascist populism, in which only the
voice of the People as a single group counts. Traditional Americans have
held to a representative democracy from its origin as a nation separated from
England. The Founding Fathers were concerned about the tyranny of the
majority just as much as they were concerned about the tyranny of a monarch in
England, and they attempted to set up a government with checks and balances to
counter tyranny at every level. Indeed, the populism of a democratic
nation is nothing like that of a fascist one.
Eco, however,
continues by saying, 'There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in
which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented
and accepted as the Voice of the People.' This is a very real threat in
America, and this is precisely what the opponents of American socialists fear:
the singular, dominant voice of a Postmodern, Post-Christian, socialism that is
both ideological and political in the news and on social media. Yet this
also would define matters in Communist countries, not just fascists ones.
American conservatism is decidedly neither.
On this point of
populism, finally, Eco says, ' Wherever a politician casts doubt on the
legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the
People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.' Here, then, is how American socialists
might turn around their opposition's concern for truth in the media and serious
intellectual argumentation to claim that they are fascists. If wanting
honest debate rather than a party voice never interested in the facts but
always in a single, particular perspective can be described as opposition to elections
and rule, then one can turn around opposition to fascist tendencies and
describe it as fascist.
Only one of Eco's
points has so far been skipped over. The point of this essay is to show
how a description of fascism, even if true in certain aspects, can be used by
American socialists to describe their opponents as fascists. Eco's last
point, however, seems to make it rather difficult to do so. He says,
'Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak,' referring to George Orwell's famous dystopian
novel, 1984, in which certain words were eliminated from the vocabulary
and other words were redefined. If American socialists do anything, they
are constantly redefining words. They use words like 'democracy' and
'freedom' in new ways, let alone 'marriage.' They call the murder of the
unborn 'freedom of choice.' Yet even here, we can see how American
socialists manage to mischaracterise their opposition as fascists. Having
redefined terminology, they can then accuse their opposition of doing precisely
what they have done. Once you command the meaning of words, you can
use them as political weapons.
Eco's description
of 'fascism' is weak in several aspects, yet the point of this essay has been
to explore how an understanding of fascism such as his can be used by
post-Christian, Postmodern, globalist, American socialists to accuse their
opponents of fascism. It is very clever, but hopelessly
flawed. In fact, they accuse their opposition of being something
that the opposition better opposes than they themselves do. There are, to
be sure, problems with capitalism, and there are serious problems with the
Republican Party that a Christian only wishes could be addressed. Yet,
one does need to challenge mischaracterisations and false labelling like
calling someone a 'fascist' when one is not. If this rhetoric is
permitted, then the strong arm of the state can be used against the
opposition--the very opposition that is opposing the strong arm of a socialist,
big government, deep state with its own totalitarian inclinations.
Conclusion
As Christians, we
must remember that the Emperor Hadrian advised Pliny the Younger, governor of
Bithynia, to arrest Christians simply because they were Christians--without
inquiring whether they committed any crime. This injustice was based on
the sufficiency of labels to condemn others. While this essay is not
about the label ‘Christian,’ the point made here has been that Postmodern,
post-Christian, American socialists, especially with political interests, are
wildly misusing terms, particularly ‘fascism,’ to attack their opponents.
Fascism was nothing but evil and most people understand this, so to paint an
opponent with that brush would be a major victory. For American
socialists to do so is factually erroneous, but it is not only an
intellectual failure or political rhetoric. It is dangerous.
Indeed, like fascism itself, this American version of socialism leans eagerly
toward the very abuse of power of which it wishes to accuse its political
opponents and, perhaps, Christians as well. This essay has attempted to
understand how American socialists could possibly believe their rhetoric, which
makes their error all the more serious and dangerous for their opponents.
[1] Umberto Eco, ‘Ur-Fascism,’ The New York Review of Books (June 22,
1995); online https://archive.org/details/eco&ur-fascism.
[2] As quoted
in ‘Obama: “They Cling to guns or religion,’ Christianity Today (April
13, 2008); online https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2008/april/obama-they-cling-to-guns-or-religion.html.
[3] See, e.g., Brandan O'Neill, 'The Tyranny of Pride,' Spikes (4 September, 2022); online https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/09/04/the-tyranny-of-pride/.
Comments