Fascism as a form of postmodernism

 

At the level of economics and politics, I believe in a workers' movement for economic democracy: worker ownership and control of the means of production.  Culturally, I am not just pluralist and "libertarian": in my opinion, deviation from conformity should not only be tolerated, it should be actively promoted.  At the level of ideas, lifestyles, etc., we should have as much difference and variation as possible.  I consider the multiplicity of worldviews and forms of life an intrinsic good and a goal in and of itself.  I also think it has positive consequences, because, as Frank Zappa said, "Without deviation from the norm, progress is impossible" - in science, in literature, in art, in popular culture, and at just about every level.  If promotion of such cultural pluralism implies conflict, then conflict should be encouraged.

I do not consider postmodernism a reliable ally in either my economic/political aims, nor in my cultural aims.  On the contrary, modernism was, and is, a strong ally towards achieving these (endless) ends.  But to be postmodern is to give up on modernism.  In my vocabulary, a postmodernist is a hypocrite - a "renegade" as Lenin would say, that is, one who reneges on one's supposed, performed political principles.  (Though, it should be noted, even Lenin himself had some of these kinds of characteristics and thus was, himself, a bit of a renegade - and his political work laid the groundwork for postmodernism.)  Postmodernism is a kind of compromise, an adjustment to a pragmatic reality, and often a mass of hasty, post-facto rationalizations - which are never complete, never completely make sense, and thus require either further rationalization, indefinitely, or the simple acknowledgement of inconsistency, and arbitrariness - sometimes, proudly so, even defiantly.  The postmodernist is the one who has given up on the future and reconciles himself to dwelling endlessly on the past.  I see postmodernism as fundamentally conservative, indeed, often reactionary - and sometimes even fascist.

Of course, I am not saying that all postmodernists are fascists.  There are postmodernists with a wide variety of political commitments - or lack thereof.  But it is undeniable that the history of postmodernism and the history of fascism are profoundly intertwined - and it's not hard to see that the "spirit" of postmodernism, if I am permitted to speak of such a thing, is entirely compatible with the flourishing of fascism.

 

 

Sartre was right when he said, “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

What Sartre is pointing out here is the postmodern quality of much of the fascist ideology of his time.  Indeed, Sartre contributed greatly to pointing out the postmodern condition of the fascist society of his time and its theorists (including people like Heidegger) and that's, on a certain level, what a lot of his philosophy was about, though he wouldn't have used those exact terms.  In a sense, you might say that postmodernism is the becoming aware of the absurdity of one's own ideological commitments.  A person is postmodern to the extent that they recognize, however dimly, the absurdity of their own ideological projects and worldview and yet, regardless, they continue to defend them and impose them.  "I am dreaming! I will - continue dreaming!"