This weather vane - visible from my hotel room window - sends a very mixed message.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
To engage or not?
Anyone interested in general questions about human knowledge, about the scope and nature of science and related matters, is faced with a dilemma: whether or not to engage with recent work done by professional philosophers. For a strong case can be made that something is seriously wrong in contemporary philosophy which seems in many respects to have become a self-perpetuating enterprise divorced from the concerns both of the educated public and of practising scientists.
Furthermore, it is undeniable that many philosophers are motivated by religious or political agendas which are not always easy to identify. Although it has always been the case that philosophers have had ideological motivations, the professionalization of philosophy has encouraged the view that ideological and religious motivations are irrelevant to, and should not be discussed in the context of, a philosopher's professional work. Consequently, work which appears on the surface to involve the disinterested pursuit of truth may all too often be, in effect, disguised apologetics.
If one engages, one runs the risk of becoming caught up in a futile new form of scholasticism (if that is what it is). If one keeps one's distance, one is excluded from the conversation (such as it is).
And throwing the occasional hand grenade is not particularly productive. (See, for example, comment #14 - not mine! - on this post plugging a new philosophy journal.)
I'll have more to say on science and scientism, on physicalism and the limits of human knowledge in due course. I have strong intuitions in these areas, but I want to spend a bit of time reading and thinking before I commit myself to specific positions.
For the present, here is an interesting response by H. Allen Orr to E.O. Wilson's book Consilience: the Unity of Knowledge. (Massimo Pigliucci, who is preparing for a conference on Wilson's ideas, recently recommended Orr's review.)
And here is a transcript of an interview with Patricia Churchland in which this controversial, scientifically-oriented philosopher outlines her basic views. (Hat tip to Pete Mandik.)
Furthermore, it is undeniable that many philosophers are motivated by religious or political agendas which are not always easy to identify. Although it has always been the case that philosophers have had ideological motivations, the professionalization of philosophy has encouraged the view that ideological and religious motivations are irrelevant to, and should not be discussed in the context of, a philosopher's professional work. Consequently, work which appears on the surface to involve the disinterested pursuit of truth may all too often be, in effect, disguised apologetics.
If one engages, one runs the risk of becoming caught up in a futile new form of scholasticism (if that is what it is). If one keeps one's distance, one is excluded from the conversation (such as it is).
And throwing the occasional hand grenade is not particularly productive. (See, for example, comment #14 - not mine! - on this post plugging a new philosophy journal.)
I'll have more to say on science and scientism, on physicalism and the limits of human knowledge in due course. I have strong intuitions in these areas, but I want to spend a bit of time reading and thinking before I commit myself to specific positions.
For the present, here is an interesting response by H. Allen Orr to E.O. Wilson's book Consilience: the Unity of Knowledge. (Massimo Pigliucci, who is preparing for a conference on Wilson's ideas, recently recommended Orr's review.)
And here is a transcript of an interview with Patricia Churchland in which this controversial, scientifically-oriented philosopher outlines her basic views. (Hat tip to Pete Mandik.)
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Sinister influences
In a pluralistic society it seems sensible to let the market decide as far as possible who should be paid for doing what. The market may not itself be moral but ultimately it does reflect the values of market participants and in fact can provide fertile ground for the development and growth of many human virtues, such as prudence and a sense of responsibility.
It's all very well to say that someone should be paid to perform some (presumably worthwhile) activity, but if businesses or individuals are unwilling to fund them then any money must come from the state, from public resources. And - especially in these times of high government indebtedness - a strong case can be made that controversial or ideologically motivated activities or activities which are normally deemed to be inessential or which only benefit a small group should (whenever possible) be paid for directly by those involved.
Take sport and the arts. There is nothing to stop people getting together to play games if they want to. There is nothing to stop people putting on concerts or plays; and, if the product is popular, the audience will pay. Why should I subsidize writers or artists or performers in whom I have no interest and who, in many cases (given the left-leaning tendency of the arts community), are seeking to undermine the values I hold most dear?
I know that sports and the arts constitute only a small fraction of government budgets, but these areas are not discrete or easily defined, and they impinge on and merge into other more significant areas of government concern. For example, the arts merge into the media, advertising and propaganda. And sports funding is associated with community health initiatives. Nanny state, yes, but at least sport (unlike much activity in the arts) is not ideological.
Much arts funding is more about promoting multiculturalism (or, more cynically, about placating certain ethnic minorities) or winning votes from the broader 'arts community' than it is about encouraging artistic excellence (whatever that may be these days). But then, why should the state promote artistic excellence anyway? It is a good and worthwhile thing, but let it be left to artists to excel and to their followers to reward them.
At the elite end of the spectrum, both sport and the arts are used by governments to promote the 'national brand', an unfortunate tendency that appears - at least in respect of the arts in some European countries and in respect of sport just about everywhere - to have popular support.
Although the number of people directly employed by governments may be falling in some Western countries, the number who work for organizations which are dependent on government funding - including international organizations - is growing. And in areas such as health, education and aged care many mainstream churches and previously-independent welfare organizations have become mere 'service providers', following government rules and dependent on government largesse for their continued existence.
More insidious - if not sinister - is the way many groups espousing and promoting so-called progressive causes have inserted themselves, formally or informally, into the bureaucracy of national and local governments, redirecting resources and effectively reshaping the ethos of these bodies. Institutions and bureaucracies devoted to education are particularly culpable in this regard.
More broadly, laws and government regulations - promoted and encouraged by unions and other left-wing pressure groups - are making it increasingly difficult in many countries for businesses to make decisions about their own operations, including hiring and firing.
Similar constraints are being placed on professionals of all kinds. Once the professional-client relationship was, though essentially market-based, associated with well-understood and respected ethical standards. Direct and indirect government intrusions on this relationship are effectively undermining the very concept of the independent professional who maintains a direct relationship with clients based on trust and a sense of responsibility.
Freedom does not guarantee morality, but morality will only develop in the context of freedom, and withers in a highly regulated environment.
It's all very well to say that someone should be paid to perform some (presumably worthwhile) activity, but if businesses or individuals are unwilling to fund them then any money must come from the state, from public resources. And - especially in these times of high government indebtedness - a strong case can be made that controversial or ideologically motivated activities or activities which are normally deemed to be inessential or which only benefit a small group should (whenever possible) be paid for directly by those involved.
Take sport and the arts. There is nothing to stop people getting together to play games if they want to. There is nothing to stop people putting on concerts or plays; and, if the product is popular, the audience will pay. Why should I subsidize writers or artists or performers in whom I have no interest and who, in many cases (given the left-leaning tendency of the arts community), are seeking to undermine the values I hold most dear?
I know that sports and the arts constitute only a small fraction of government budgets, but these areas are not discrete or easily defined, and they impinge on and merge into other more significant areas of government concern. For example, the arts merge into the media, advertising and propaganda. And sports funding is associated with community health initiatives. Nanny state, yes, but at least sport (unlike much activity in the arts) is not ideological.
Much arts funding is more about promoting multiculturalism (or, more cynically, about placating certain ethnic minorities) or winning votes from the broader 'arts community' than it is about encouraging artistic excellence (whatever that may be these days). But then, why should the state promote artistic excellence anyway? It is a good and worthwhile thing, but let it be left to artists to excel and to their followers to reward them.
At the elite end of the spectrum, both sport and the arts are used by governments to promote the 'national brand', an unfortunate tendency that appears - at least in respect of the arts in some European countries and in respect of sport just about everywhere - to have popular support.
Although the number of people directly employed by governments may be falling in some Western countries, the number who work for organizations which are dependent on government funding - including international organizations - is growing. And in areas such as health, education and aged care many mainstream churches and previously-independent welfare organizations have become mere 'service providers', following government rules and dependent on government largesse for their continued existence.
More insidious - if not sinister - is the way many groups espousing and promoting so-called progressive causes have inserted themselves, formally or informally, into the bureaucracy of national and local governments, redirecting resources and effectively reshaping the ethos of these bodies. Institutions and bureaucracies devoted to education are particularly culpable in this regard.
More broadly, laws and government regulations - promoted and encouraged by unions and other left-wing pressure groups - are making it increasingly difficult in many countries for businesses to make decisions about their own operations, including hiring and firing.
Similar constraints are being placed on professionals of all kinds. Once the professional-client relationship was, though essentially market-based, associated with well-understood and respected ethical standards. Direct and indirect government intrusions on this relationship are effectively undermining the very concept of the independent professional who maintains a direct relationship with clients based on trust and a sense of responsibility.
Freedom does not guarantee morality, but morality will only develop in the context of freedom, and withers in a highly regulated environment.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
A few thoughts on ethnicity and identity
My recent post on Jewish immigration to England implicitly raised some issues which I thought I would try to make more explicit here. In that piece, I noted that large numbers of individuals and families with a Jewish background made their way to England in recent centuries and assimilated to the Christian mainstream, often adopting English names. Many descendants of these immigrants remain ignorant of their Jewish ancestors.
Of course, this could all be seen as rather trivial and unimportant, and such questions of family history - though often of interest to the families or individuals concerned - are of no particular significance. What is significant, however, is how we think about ethnicity or 'race'.
The word 'Jewish' can be used to refer to genetic factors or to the religion or to culture, and often to a combination of these elements. But I think the genetic or 'racial' aspect is problematic insofar as our racial categories are unlikely to correspond in any precise way with the pattern of actual genetic differences between different people and groups. For example, would Sephardi Jews whose ancestors lived in Spain be closer genetically to particular Spanish populations or to Jews from other parts of the world?
One possible result of the increasing use of DNA analysis is that, as complex patterns emerge, some of the ethnic categories which our languages just happen to have words for will be revealed as simplistic and in some cases perhaps completely unfounded.
This is a sensitive issue, in part because so many people base their sense of identity to a greater or lesser extent on their ethnic background. And, of course, this identification is often accompanied by an acceptance of cultural myths and stereotypes.
Of course, the word 'ethnic' is ambiguous. Like the word 'Jewish', it can refer solely to so-called racial factors. Or it may refer to cultural factors. Mostly it refers to both at once. The trouble is, this mixing of racial and ideological thought is the source of many of the world's most toxic and intractable problems.
My view is that it is good to be aware of where we came from, of who our forebears were. All of what we are - genetically speaking - we inherited from them. It may be interesting to know what they thought and believed, but those beliefs need in no way affect ours. On cultural matters we are free to make up our own minds.
Just because your parents and their parents and so on believed certain things and engaged in certain rituals associated with those beliefs - whether we are talking about Islam or forms of Christianity or Judaism or any other form of religion - there is no reason for you to feel any obligation to conform to this pattern.
Sure, one often feels solidarity with one's kin and respect for one's ancestors but this should never involve any intellectual or religious constraints.
Secular customs are another matter entirely. They do not in any way restrict one's freedom to think for oneself.
Group identity is inevitable to some extent, and many forms of group identity are based on kinship. But it is well to remember that there are no clear dividing lines in this matter, just degrees and complex patterns of relatedness which are unlikely to correspond in any simple way with conventional ethnic categories and stereotypes.
Of course, this could all be seen as rather trivial and unimportant, and such questions of family history - though often of interest to the families or individuals concerned - are of no particular significance. What is significant, however, is how we think about ethnicity or 'race'.
The word 'Jewish' can be used to refer to genetic factors or to the religion or to culture, and often to a combination of these elements. But I think the genetic or 'racial' aspect is problematic insofar as our racial categories are unlikely to correspond in any precise way with the pattern of actual genetic differences between different people and groups. For example, would Sephardi Jews whose ancestors lived in Spain be closer genetically to particular Spanish populations or to Jews from other parts of the world?
One possible result of the increasing use of DNA analysis is that, as complex patterns emerge, some of the ethnic categories which our languages just happen to have words for will be revealed as simplistic and in some cases perhaps completely unfounded.
This is a sensitive issue, in part because so many people base their sense of identity to a greater or lesser extent on their ethnic background. And, of course, this identification is often accompanied by an acceptance of cultural myths and stereotypes.
Of course, the word 'ethnic' is ambiguous. Like the word 'Jewish', it can refer solely to so-called racial factors. Or it may refer to cultural factors. Mostly it refers to both at once. The trouble is, this mixing of racial and ideological thought is the source of many of the world's most toxic and intractable problems.
My view is that it is good to be aware of where we came from, of who our forebears were. All of what we are - genetically speaking - we inherited from them. It may be interesting to know what they thought and believed, but those beliefs need in no way affect ours. On cultural matters we are free to make up our own minds.
Just because your parents and their parents and so on believed certain things and engaged in certain rituals associated with those beliefs - whether we are talking about Islam or forms of Christianity or Judaism or any other form of religion - there is no reason for you to feel any obligation to conform to this pattern.
Sure, one often feels solidarity with one's kin and respect for one's ancestors but this should never involve any intellectual or religious constraints.
Secular customs are another matter entirely. They do not in any way restrict one's freedom to think for oneself.
Group identity is inevitable to some extent, and many forms of group identity are based on kinship. But it is well to remember that there are no clear dividing lines in this matter, just degrees and complex patterns of relatedness which are unlikely to correspond in any simple way with conventional ethnic categories and stereotypes.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Retro rabbits
Though I am not a chocolate eater, this window display speaks to me. It conjures up a dimly remembered world run by rather distant but benevolent adults in which there was a place for everything and everything was in its place.
A world where movement was reassuringly constrained.
A pre-digital, pre-New Age world where machines were machines and people were people. Where parents were parents and children were children.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
English Jewish surnames revisited
[This page remains active with the names list being periodically updated and comments welcome.]
As I have mentioned previously, some of the names of my (English) forebears would seem to indicate Jewish origins, and I would like to make a few general comments on the topic of Jewish immigration and surnames in the English-speaking world.
It's difficult to find good information on the history of Jewish assimilation in England. Jewish leaders naturally see the preservation of their religious and cultural heritage as paramount and often speak disparagingly of those who, over the centuries, intermarried with Christians and adopted Christianity or drifted away from religion altogether. And many who write on Jewish history take a similar line: Jewish culture and tradition are what they are interested in.
The stigma associated with assimilation is understandable, as it was only a strong sense of community that kept Jewish beliefs and customs alive in a world which lacked a Jewish homeland. But, as a consequence of the focus on synagogues and communities which maintained their religious heritage, I suspect that the standard histories of Jews in England underestimate the real number of immigrants with Jewish origins, in particular those descended from Jews from the Iberian peninsula. There were particularly significant migrations during the 16th and 17th centuries.
Many people are interested not so much in Jewish religion and culture as in their own family histories, or, for that matter, in the ethnic history of their country. They see assimilated Jews not in terms of their ancestral religion or culture but rather as individuals who contributed to the broader culture of the country in which they chose to live.
New methods of genetic analysis* are revolutionizing the way we trace our ancestors. For the present, however, most of us rely on traditional records and, where records do not exist, on names and the clues that names can give of ethnic or geographic origins.
Unfortunately, Jewish naming practices make it very difficult for researchers. In many parts of Europe, Jews maintained their traditional practice of assigning patronymics and were slow to adopt the practice of giving permanent family names. For this and other reasons (such as the lack of a homeland, persecution and discrimination), Jews have been more inclined to adopt new or modified surnames than most other peoples.
Of course, in English-speaking countries, certain surnames - often German or Hebraic – are well-known as indicating Jewish origins. [A fairly good list is here. And here is a good explanatory article on the origins of Ashkenazic last names.] But Jewish immigrants often modified foreign-sounding names or chose English surnames, and some names were favored over others.
I have compiled a list of surnames based on my own (limited) knowledge and research. I emphasize that these names do not necessarily indicate Jewish origins, and some are more strongly indicative than others. I have excluded almost all Biblical (Hebrew), Polish and most German and other obviously non-English names and intend to refine the list over time, deleting names with only tenuous claims to be here and adding others. Comments and suggestions, either via this site or to my email address**, are welcome.
Abrams, Adams, Albert, Allen, Alexander, Alpert, Ames, Amsterdam, Angel, Ansell, Archer, Arnold, Asher, Asherson, Astley, Avery, Baker, Ball, Banks, Barber, Barkin, Barnard, Barnett, Baron, Barr, Barret, Barrett, Barron, Barrow (sometimes from Baruch), Bart, Barton, Bass, Batt, Beck, Becker, Beer, Belcher, Bell, Bellman, Belman, Belmont, Benedict, Bennet, Benson, Bentley, Bernard, Berry, Bickel, Bickell, Bickle, Bird, Bissell (from German Biesel, or Yiddish), Blond, Bloomfield, Black, Blacker, Blackman, Blackwell, Bland, Blank, Block, Blue, Bolton, Booker, Bookman, Bowman (from Bauman(n)), Brand, Bray, Brayer, Briar, Brice, Brier, Brill, Brilliant, Briscoe, Brock, Brody, Brooks, Broomfield, Brower, Brown, Buckley, Burstin, Bush, Byrd, Cain, Cap, Cape, Capp, Carpenter, Carr, Carter, Chandler, Chaplin, Chester, Chetwynd (an old English name adopted by some families), Cline, Cobb, Coe (from Cohen?), Cole, Coleman, Colman, Cook (from Koch?), Cooke, Cooper, Cope, Copeland (from Kaplan), Copland (from Kaplan), Cove, Cowan (from Cohen), Crane, Crawford, Cripps, Crossman, Crouch, Cutler, Darley, David, Davidson, Davies, Davis, Diamond, Dove, Draper, Durant, Eastman, Ellis, Ellman, Elman, Elton, Fain (from Feinman(n) or Feinstein), Faine (from Feinman(n) or Feinstein), Falk, Feldman, Finch, Fine (from Feinman(n) or Feinstein), Finniston (from Feinstein), Firestone (from Feuerstein), Fish, Fisher, Foreman, Forman, Forster, Foster, Fox, Frank, Franks, Fredman, Freedman, Freeman, Froman, Gardner, Garfield, Garland, Gilbert, Glass, Gold, Golden, Golding, Goldsmith, Good, Goodman, Goodwin, Gordon (from Grodno, Lithuania or from the Russian word gorodin (townsman)), Gould, Gray, Green, Greenfield, Greenwood, Grey, Gross, Hacker, Hale (as variant spelling of Ashkenazic Halle), Halperin (from Heilbronn, Germany), Halpern (see Halperin), Hancock, Harding, Harman, Harris, Harrison, Harlow, Hart, Hartman, Harvey, Harwood, Hayman, Heller (from Halle, Germany), Helman, Hendler, Henry, Hering, Herring, Hickman, Hill, Hiller, Hilton, Hodges, Holden, Holder, Holland, Hollander (from a town in Lithuania settled by the Dutch?), Holman, Holt, Holton, Hook, Hooker, Horn, Horne, Horner, Horton, Horwich (from town in Bohemia (Horowitz/Horovice)), Howard (from town in Bohemia (Horowitz/Horovice)), Hurwich (see Horwich), Hyams, Hyatt, Hyman, Ivory, Jackson, Jarvis (sometimes from the Eastern European Javitz, as in the case of the family of the American philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson), Jewel, Jewell, Jones (from Jonas or Jonah), Kane, Kay, Kaye, Kennard, Kerr, King (from Koenig), Kline, Knight (possibly from Sephardic names Cabalero/Caballero/Cabaliero = knight or horseman), Lambert, Landon, Landis, Lane, Lang, Langer, Langerman, Langley, Langman, Lawrence, Lawson, Leavit, Leavitt, Lee, Leigh, Leonard, Leslie, Lester, Levin, Levine, Levett, Levitt, Lewin, Lewis, Libson (eastern Ashkenazic metronymic), Lincoln, Lipson (eastern Ashkenazic patronymic or in some cases variation of Lipschitz (Polish town)), Lipton, Little, London, Long, Lott, Low, Lowe, Lowy, Lucas, Lyon, Lyons, Lytton, Mack, Mander, Manders, Mann, Manson (from Mankiewicz), Marchant, Marcus (from Marx), Marks (from Marx), Marlow, Marlowe, Marshall, Marty (Sephardic), Mason, Maurice, Maxwell, May, Mayman, Merchant, Michael, Michell, Miller, Millman, Milman, Milner, Mitchell, Montague, Morris, Moss, Moyse, Myer, Myers, Nelson, New, Newman, Newmark, Nichol, Nicholl, Nicholls, Nichols, Nobel, Norman, Oliver, Paley, Palmer, Park, Parker, Parrish, Parsons, Paul, Pavey, Pearl, Pearlman, Peavey, Peavy, Peck, Pember (from Pemper), Perkins, Perry (from Pereira), Pepper, Peters, Phillip, Phillips, Pine, Pinner, Pinter, Pittman, Platt, Polk, Pollard, Pollock, Pool, Poole, Porter, Portman, Posner, Powers, Price, Priest, Prince, Rae, Raine, Raines, Randall, Ray, Raye, Raymond, Raynor, Reed, Rees, Reid, Rendel, Rest, Rice, Rich, Robbins (see Robin), Robert, Roberts, Robertson, Robin (from Reuben, Rabinowitz, Rubinstein, etc.), Robins (see Robin), Robinson (see Robin), Ronson, Rose, Rosefield, Ross, Roth, Rothman, Rothwell, Ruby, Russell (sometimes indicative of Sephardic heritage), Sacks, Salmon, Salman, Sams, Sand, Sanders, Sandler, Sands, Sassoon, Saunders, Saville, Saxon, Sefton, Selwyn, Sharman, Sharp (from German Scharf (= sharp-witted); or perhaps Shapiro), Sharpe (see Sharp), Shaw, Shayne, Sher (Ashkenazic, from word for scissors or shears as used by tailors), Sherman, Sherwood, Shields, Shinwell, Shore (from Schorr), Short, Silk, Sills, Silver, Silverstone, Simkin, Simkins, Simmonds, Simmons, Simon, Simons, Simpkin, Simpkins, Sims, Sinclair, Singer, Singleton, Sless, Sloman, Smith, Snell (from the German name Schnell), Snider (from word for tailor), Snyder (from word for tailor), Somers, Sommer, Sommers, Speed (from the German name Schnell), Spelling, Sperling, Spurling, Stainer (from Steiner?), Stanley, Stark (from Yiddish Shtark = strong), Starr, Sterling, Stone, Strong (translation of Yiddish Shtark?), Sugar, Summers, Sumner, Swan, Swann, Swanson, Syme, Symes, Symonds, Taft (from Tugendhaft), Tate, Taylor, Temple, Trilling, Tucker, Turner, Uren, Vale, Waddell, Walker, Wall, Waller, Walt, Walter, Walters, Ward, Wardle, Waterman (from Wascherman or Wasserman(n)), Watt, Watts, Webber, Weller, Whaley, White, Whiteman, Whitman, Wideman, Wiley, Winner, Winston, Winters, Winton, Wise, Wolf, Wolfson, Woolf, Worley, Yarrow (from Yaroshavitz), Yates, Young, Younger.
* I suspect that DNA analysis is going to present an unwelcome and challenging picture for those who wish to maintain a simple concept of Jewish ethnicity. Of course, it is well known that the population groups which have formed the Jewish people over the centuries have been geographically divided and genetically diverse, so it will come as no surprise if there are no clear genetic markers for Jewish ethnicity. What DNA analysis will do, however, is to indicate how particular populations have maintained continuity or merged with neighbouring populations.
** engmar3 at gmail dot com.
*** It is difficult to know whether to include here such common English names as 'Harris' which in the majority of cases is not Jewish, but which has been adopted by Jews. Preliminary Y-DNA results may be of interest. Y-DNA results for Harris (based on 465 samples) reflect standard Western European/Scandinavian patterns (haplogroups R1b1 and I1), though there are also instances of haplotypes characteristic of Eastern European, Mediterranean, Middle Eastern and African populations. But even names which are more identifiably Jewish (e.g. Silver) are often associated with the R1b1 haplogroup.
**** Note an interesting surname change in the late nineteenth century from Raby to Simmonds.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Right-wing alternatives to free-market capitalism
Most critiques of capitalism are inspired by leftist ideas, but not all approaches accept the Marxist emphasis on class struggle and some have little interest in egalitarian ideals.
Chinese radicalism, for example, is first and foremost nationalistic and focuses now on the need for social harmony. Strong Confucian values - which have proved more resilient than the early revolutionaries foresaw - are incompatible not only with class conflict but also with strict egalitarianism.
In Europe, there has been a revival of right-wing radicalism, driven largely by economic upheavals and the perceived problems of mass immigration. In fact, I suspect the radical right will become more significant in the years to come as the economic situation worsens.
In France, the theorists and activists of the far right draw on a tradition of French and European thought expounded amongst others by Maurice Bardèche in the post World War II period. Bardèche wrote an essay* on 'fascist socialism', reprising a theme previously taken up in France by the novelist Pierre Drieu La Rochelle. Bardèche freely admits it's an idea which has never really been tested or implemented and his whole approach is romantic and revolutionary rather than pragmatic and conservative. He is essentially a literary figure, having written highly regarded works on French writers (notably on Proust) and on the history of cinema.
Bardèche believed that every new vision of social relations which rejects Marxism rests on a number of postulates. Only an authoritarian regime, he thought, can protect the national interest against the power of global capital. It is a key function of the state to protect the nation's economy which is such a crucial part of the social fabric.
In fact, modern nations are politico-economic enterprises and power lies just as much with those who control the economy as with those who make political decisions. Bardèche recognized, however, that the instruments appropriate to the exercise of such integrated power were yet to be invented.
He thought there should be loyal collaboration between different groups and classes rather than class struggle. The latter leads to the sabotage of the nation's economy and to a bureaucratic dictatorship. It is a function of the state to encourage and promote labor-capital collaboration.
Unfortunately, the emphasis on nationalism on the part of the radical right is inevitably associated with racism and the tendency to blame foreigners (whether they be non-European immigrants or the supposed - and inevitably 'Jewish' - agents of international capital) for the nation's problems.
My personal view is that European neo-fascism is little more than a quasi-literary fantasy, albeit a dangerous one (because it can give a cloak of sophistication and respectability to thuggish groups and causes). Chinese state capitalism will have a far greater global impact, but to what extent it will adapt to the current global economic system and to what extent it will change it remains to be seen.
* Socialisme fasciste. Waterloo: Editions de Javelot, 1991.
Chinese radicalism, for example, is first and foremost nationalistic and focuses now on the need for social harmony. Strong Confucian values - which have proved more resilient than the early revolutionaries foresaw - are incompatible not only with class conflict but also with strict egalitarianism.
In Europe, there has been a revival of right-wing radicalism, driven largely by economic upheavals and the perceived problems of mass immigration. In fact, I suspect the radical right will become more significant in the years to come as the economic situation worsens.
In France, the theorists and activists of the far right draw on a tradition of French and European thought expounded amongst others by Maurice Bardèche in the post World War II period. Bardèche wrote an essay* on 'fascist socialism', reprising a theme previously taken up in France by the novelist Pierre Drieu La Rochelle. Bardèche freely admits it's an idea which has never really been tested or implemented and his whole approach is romantic and revolutionary rather than pragmatic and conservative. He is essentially a literary figure, having written highly regarded works on French writers (notably on Proust) and on the history of cinema.
Bardèche believed that every new vision of social relations which rejects Marxism rests on a number of postulates. Only an authoritarian regime, he thought, can protect the national interest against the power of global capital. It is a key function of the state to protect the nation's economy which is such a crucial part of the social fabric.
In fact, modern nations are politico-economic enterprises and power lies just as much with those who control the economy as with those who make political decisions. Bardèche recognized, however, that the instruments appropriate to the exercise of such integrated power were yet to be invented.
He thought there should be loyal collaboration between different groups and classes rather than class struggle. The latter leads to the sabotage of the nation's economy and to a bureaucratic dictatorship. It is a function of the state to encourage and promote labor-capital collaboration.
Unfortunately, the emphasis on nationalism on the part of the radical right is inevitably associated with racism and the tendency to blame foreigners (whether they be non-European immigrants or the supposed - and inevitably 'Jewish' - agents of international capital) for the nation's problems.
My personal view is that European neo-fascism is little more than a quasi-literary fantasy, albeit a dangerous one (because it can give a cloak of sophistication and respectability to thuggish groups and causes). Chinese state capitalism will have a far greater global impact, but to what extent it will adapt to the current global economic system and to what extent it will change it remains to be seen.
* Socialisme fasciste. Waterloo: Editions de Javelot, 1991.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)