I've written before about how the "Neo-liberal model" emerged from the Second World War, and thirty years ago became the established method of financing government.
I've just read an informative article about the hidden, but massive, influence that the private company Serco has over many parts of government services across the Anglo-Saxon world, especially in the UK. Serco is an example of what happens when Ayn Rand's idea of having private companies carrying out government services is put into practice. In short, it's a disaster.
Like the infamous Halliburton in the USA, Serco is what is euphemistically-called a "public service company". It is the privatisation of government. The concept, following Rand's belief in private sector near-infallibility, is that private companies are supposed to do the carry out former government operations with lower costs to government and more efficiently, due to a combination of the profit motive and competition. This thought has become almost gospel in the last thirty years, especially in the Anglosphere.
The reality is that government often ends up handing over wholesale segments of government services to publicly-unaccountable private monopolies. Following all the failings of the Fascist economic model, government monopolistic control is transformed into the monopolistic control of government by corporate behemoths, with the public purse of government (i.e. the taxpayer) still taking the tab, but the private sector taking all the profit. The excuse for this is that the private sector need some form of incentive to become involved in the awkward work of government services; the reality is that politicians are either too ideologically-blinkered and ignorant to see when they're being robbed blind, too weak-willed in the face of corporate might, or there is something more corrupt going on. The question of where these political parties get the funding from also may help to explain things.
Whatever the truth, under this model, government is therefore ran with private-sector unaccountable, monopolistic inefficiency. Costs are transferred to the consumer and the workforce; to ensure profits are maximised to maintain the company's share value, employees working conditions and salaries are pared down to the minimum, with overheads reduced through squeezing the most out of the smallest-possible workforce. As this creates greater unemployment, this creates even more reason to reduce salaries further, boosting profits again, which creates more greater expectations on the share price. This downward spiral is what happens when government services are transferred to the private sector. And as already mentioned, any losses are covered by the government as a condition of these companies agreeing to provide the services in the first place. Such financial vampirism might but smoothed-over with euphemisms like "subsidies", but the result is the same.
This aspect of the Neo-liberal model effectively ensures the worst of all worlds for the taxpayer. Fascism was the parent to National Socialism in Germany; the Neo-liberal model in the contemporary world has given birth to "Corporate Socialism", which is, economically-speaking, much the same thing.
When companies are "too big to fail", like the banks were five years ago, this really means they are too big to exist. Not allowing companies to fail because they are too big, by definition tells you there is no market in a real sense; at best, a cartel. The outsourcing of government services to huge public service companies goes against the principle of the free market; Ayn Rand knows this best of all, because small companies cannot possibly hope to compete with the huge barriers to entry for these kinds of services. This is because these services are not designed to be in the domain of the private sector; when they are, the result is always a rapid cartelisation of the service - or monopoly in the cases of Serco and Halliburton.
Cartels are synonymous with crime for a reason: because they are, by definition, corrupt. So it goes with outsourcing and privatisation in general. These practices breed corruption and inefficiency, with the largest loss of all going to the consumer - or in the case of outsourced government services, the taxpayer. There is a reason why the USA happens to have the most financially-inefficient and yet the most expensive health care service in the developed world; because it is ran by the private sector.
Fascism is therefore the psychology of the Mafia put into economic practice. Like the Mafia in the control of rackets and criminal markets, the Neo-liberal model's creation of "Corporate Socialism" has created a vampire on the public purse. Neo-liberalism's fetishisation of the merits of the private sector over the public sector has simply created a modern version of Fascism, only these days it's called "Corporate Socialism".
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Fascism, marketing and the "confidence trick": why Iain Duncan Smith says "I believe I am right"
I wrote last week about the link between marketing and Fascism, and how these links have been modified to adapt to an age of almost limitless technology. The language of marketing is used to encourage people to give up masses of personal information to their governments, via online companies like "Facebook", who willingly co-operate with the surveillance state.
This is an example of how Fascism operates in the 21st century: where surrendering privacy is transformed by marketing language into an "opportunity" for the individual, rather than a (very real) threat. Mussolini's Fascist state was contemporaneous with the rise of "marketing" as an institution in the West; to an extent, this was then extended after the Second World War in post-war USA, as consumerism was equated with patriotism and helping to preserve the "American way of life"; technological advances in the late '90s and early 21st century have enabled the kind of mass surveillance, with the consent of the individual, that was impossible before.
Politics has always had a difficult relationship with facts, and all politicians are guilty of manipulating the facts for their own purposes, at one time or another. However, the rise of propaganda in politics and the manipulation of language for political purposes occurred in tandem with the rise of marketing as a "science". The manipulation of facts and language for the purpose of propaganda became almost a science, with a philosophy in its own right; although began by Mussolini, Hitler's Nazi regime, under the guidance of Joseph Goebbels, were the real pioneers in manipulating language for political purposes in the modern era.
Using one example, the word "fanatical" became manipulated in meaning in the early days of the Nazi regime; from its previous (widely-understood) negative meaning, "fanatical" was transformed into a positive attribute - Hermann Goering, was described as a "fanatical" animal lover, for example. The Nazi regime talked of "fanatical" beliefs as being a positive asset, rather than a sign of ideological extremism. Al-Qaeda would surely recognise and agree with such a sentiment today, and Political Islam in general shares much of this ideological thinking. In other words, the strength of your beliefs is is manipulated into being more important that the realism of your ideas - this is in the crux of Fascist psychology.
"I believe I am right"
Bringing this up-to-date, the manipulation of language and a disregarding of "facts" is seen in Conservative politicians in the UK Coalition government.
The five most dangerous words that can come out of a politician's mouth are "I believe I am right"; words spoken recently by government minister, Iain Duncan Smith. His portfolio is "Work and Pensions", which includes government policy towards distribution of government benefits for the needy. In spite of him being told by official statistic agency, the ONS, that he is abusing statistics in an dishonest way for political purposes, and that his ideas were essentially lies, his response was "I believe I am right". In other words, faced with the facts, he was able to simply ignore the truth and state that he was no longer bound to reality, and that reality is what he said it was. Such behaviour would easily be found within the Nazi regime.
These five words are so terrifying because it means that a politician can make his own reality, unbound by rules. Hitler also believed what he was doing was "right"; Osama Bin Laden also believed what he was doing was "right". It is the signature of an authoritarian, and a Fascist who uses the language of morality to equate himself with God.
Austerity in the UK and Europe is also explained using the language of marketing and Fascism. Hitler said that if you repeat the lie long enough, people will believe it. Psychologically, the bigger the lie is, the more difficult it is to dispel, because the reality of a "big lie" becomes so horrifying for people that it is much easier not to think about it.
So there is a reason why Cameron says "There is no alternative!". If you repeat this enough times, people will believe it: it is a marketing strategy of carpet-bombing a product's slogan. Also, it gives people an easy answer to having to think of another economic strategy (such as the successful growth-led strategy of the Obama administration, or a long-term production-led strategy of Germany's government).
George Osborne does the same, as combined economic government strategist, and electoral strategist for the Conservative Party. The language he uses is even more nakedly divisive and compelling: that of "strivers versus skivers", implying (without any facts to support it, of course), that the economy's ails are a result of the government giving too much money to the "undeserving" poor. The massive bank bail-out (that effectively created the new concept of "Corporate Socialism") is not mentioned. Neither is it mentioned that by far the largest amount of public spending goes on pensions, rather than benefits on the "undeserving" poor; but the government doesn't want to declare war on the elderly - the defenceless poor are a much easier scapegoat. But scapegoating is a very well-worn Fascist strategy as well.
Confidence is the key to holding power. If a politician appears confident in his beliefs, then regardless of the facts, he has the ability to hoodwink the electorate very convincingly. George Osborne's confidence in the growth of the British economy goes against all the facts, when you compare it to other countries' experiences. But the government has been able to ignore sensible comparison.
David Cameron may be the most incompetent premier that Britain was seen for years, but the fact that he exudes self-confidence, makes people have confidence that he knows what he is doing.
This is why the opposition seem to have an incoherent strategy compared to the Conservatives; it's difficult to be coherent when you're fighting against a self-confident opponent that doesn't follow any rules.
This is an example of how Fascism operates in the 21st century: where surrendering privacy is transformed by marketing language into an "opportunity" for the individual, rather than a (very real) threat. Mussolini's Fascist state was contemporaneous with the rise of "marketing" as an institution in the West; to an extent, this was then extended after the Second World War in post-war USA, as consumerism was equated with patriotism and helping to preserve the "American way of life"; technological advances in the late '90s and early 21st century have enabled the kind of mass surveillance, with the consent of the individual, that was impossible before.
Politics has always had a difficult relationship with facts, and all politicians are guilty of manipulating the facts for their own purposes, at one time or another. However, the rise of propaganda in politics and the manipulation of language for political purposes occurred in tandem with the rise of marketing as a "science". The manipulation of facts and language for the purpose of propaganda became almost a science, with a philosophy in its own right; although began by Mussolini, Hitler's Nazi regime, under the guidance of Joseph Goebbels, were the real pioneers in manipulating language for political purposes in the modern era.
Using one example, the word "fanatical" became manipulated in meaning in the early days of the Nazi regime; from its previous (widely-understood) negative meaning, "fanatical" was transformed into a positive attribute - Hermann Goering, was described as a "fanatical" animal lover, for example. The Nazi regime talked of "fanatical" beliefs as being a positive asset, rather than a sign of ideological extremism. Al-Qaeda would surely recognise and agree with such a sentiment today, and Political Islam in general shares much of this ideological thinking. In other words, the strength of your beliefs is is manipulated into being more important that the realism of your ideas - this is in the crux of Fascist psychology.
"I believe I am right"
Bringing this up-to-date, the manipulation of language and a disregarding of "facts" is seen in Conservative politicians in the UK Coalition government.
The five most dangerous words that can come out of a politician's mouth are "I believe I am right"; words spoken recently by government minister, Iain Duncan Smith. His portfolio is "Work and Pensions", which includes government policy towards distribution of government benefits for the needy. In spite of him being told by official statistic agency, the ONS, that he is abusing statistics in an dishonest way for political purposes, and that his ideas were essentially lies, his response was "I believe I am right". In other words, faced with the facts, he was able to simply ignore the truth and state that he was no longer bound to reality, and that reality is what he said it was. Such behaviour would easily be found within the Nazi regime.
These five words are so terrifying because it means that a politician can make his own reality, unbound by rules. Hitler also believed what he was doing was "right"; Osama Bin Laden also believed what he was doing was "right". It is the signature of an authoritarian, and a Fascist who uses the language of morality to equate himself with God.
Austerity in the UK and Europe is also explained using the language of marketing and Fascism. Hitler said that if you repeat the lie long enough, people will believe it. Psychologically, the bigger the lie is, the more difficult it is to dispel, because the reality of a "big lie" becomes so horrifying for people that it is much easier not to think about it.
So there is a reason why Cameron says "There is no alternative!". If you repeat this enough times, people will believe it: it is a marketing strategy of carpet-bombing a product's slogan. Also, it gives people an easy answer to having to think of another economic strategy (such as the successful growth-led strategy of the Obama administration, or a long-term production-led strategy of Germany's government).
George Osborne does the same, as combined economic government strategist, and electoral strategist for the Conservative Party. The language he uses is even more nakedly divisive and compelling: that of "strivers versus skivers", implying (without any facts to support it, of course), that the economy's ails are a result of the government giving too much money to the "undeserving" poor. The massive bank bail-out (that effectively created the new concept of "Corporate Socialism") is not mentioned. Neither is it mentioned that by far the largest amount of public spending goes on pensions, rather than benefits on the "undeserving" poor; but the government doesn't want to declare war on the elderly - the defenceless poor are a much easier scapegoat. But scapegoating is a very well-worn Fascist strategy as well.
Confidence is the key to holding power. If a politician appears confident in his beliefs, then regardless of the facts, he has the ability to hoodwink the electorate very convincingly. George Osborne's confidence in the growth of the British economy goes against all the facts, when you compare it to other countries' experiences. But the government has been able to ignore sensible comparison.
David Cameron may be the most incompetent premier that Britain was seen for years, but the fact that he exudes self-confidence, makes people have confidence that he knows what he is doing.
This is why the opposition seem to have an incoherent strategy compared to the Conservatives; it's difficult to be coherent when you're fighting against a self-confident opponent that doesn't follow any rules.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Cameron's war on pornography, and the strange destruction of privacy in the 21st century
I wrote a few months ago about the misconception of humanity living in an unprecedented age of freedom. Censorship and the restriction of freedom of speech is alive and well, and is used extensively by the state, the private sector, and the religious fanatics when they can get away with it (which is often).
That misconstrued sense of freedom is further destroyed when you think about the erosion of individual privacy that has taken place over the last twenty years. You need look no further than David Cameron's recent declaration of war on pornography. Here the British Prime Minister wants to introduce control over what British individuals watch on the internet; effectively have people "tagged" as porn users, and ban all forms of child pornography and "violent" pornography.
I'm not here to make a blanket defence of all forms of pornography; instead I'll simply state there being no proven causal link between porn and sex crimes (violent crime has gone down in recent years, and there has never been a coinciding rise in sexual violence with the massive surge in available online porn; besides, if you are going to ban porn, then why not violent movies, and so on). This is just another example of intrusion into individual privacy for the sake of it.
More cynically, it is a blatant piece of opportunist populism for the purposes of diversion. More seriously, it is another weapon of control against the individual. As a classic tactic of Fascist propaganda, it fits the bill, as Cameron's "war on porn" is a) superficially-popular b) gives greater powers to the government, and c) has only a negligible effect to the actual target of the policy.
Propaganda as a political tool was mastered by the Fascists in the 1920s (which coincided, not coincidentally, with the rise of marketing and advertising as a social tool - more on that later). Fascist tactics are to concentrate power to the central government, while at the same time appearing popular, and having a useful scapegoat. Using "moral panics" about phantom social threats is recurring theme in authoritarianism.
Ever since the widespread use of CCTV across the world began twenty years ago (The UK being the worst offender), privacy has become so eroded in so many ways it's difficult to remember.
CCTV is trumpeted as a great weapon against crime: well, it is true that it theoretically should make it easier for the police to catch criminals after the event, it does little to actually prevent crimes from happening. Even so, most of the cameras installed around the world are not even really used for crime prevention purposes, let alone used by the police. The vast majority of cameras are not owned by the state, but by private companies, who are therefore much less accountable to the public, and the technology much more open for abuse. The fact that we take all this for granted is simply a sign that people have learned to mentally block out the fact that their every move is recorded on cameras mostly owned by private companies.
Apart from the surveillance society, we know that the internet is watched by governments around the world. The Edward Snowden scandal showed us that there are no limits to what the US government is capable of if it is given unchecked power to watch humanity online. The British government is little better. These days, it's better (and more accurate) for people to assume that everything they do online is recorded somewhere, regardless of how trivial or utterly useless the data is. As cynicism has increased as we entered into the 21st century from a more idealistic 20th century, people are no longer surprised that governments flout the law and any individual's rights: as true cynics, many people assume that the worst will happen, most of the time.
While governments around the world gather data on people en masse simply for the sake of it (in case it is useful later), it is private companies who are the some of the worst offenders of all.
Technology has allowed people to communicate as never before; it has therefore also allowed technology companies to gather masses of an individual's communications and data as never before. The most obvious example is "Facebook".
What's worse about this is that private (online) technology companies like Facebook use marketing techniques to gain more and more information on people, to allow individuals to "customise" or "tailor" their personal webpages. People are encouraged to add more and more data to these companies' records for the supposed purpose of giving these individuals a "more complete service"; this is Orwellian Doublespeak at its best, and encourages individuals to freely give information to an unaccountable private company that they would never dream of giving to their government.
This is what makes this erosion of privacy so dangerous. Governments are at least (theoretically) accountable. Private companies are only accountable to their shareholders; no one else. Even worse, the information that individuals do give to these private companies is often shared with government anyway, as the Snowden scandal has exposed. So this makes the whole charade even more absurd.
But the strange erosion of privacy in the 21st century seems to snowball ever larger. The Orwellian dystopia he predicted in "Nineteen Eighty-Four" in many ways already exists. Technology has been used for the purposes of greater and greater surveillance, and people are happy to shrug their shoulders and continue to freely offer up the contents of their lives to private companies like "Facebook"; myself included!
Teenagers and children now raised in the "Facebook and Twitter Generation" think nothing of sharing every thought in their head online, to be recorded for all eternity. Technology and data retention online means that "Facebook" has an even greater hold on your life after your death that even the government; when you die, you no longer exist on the tax records, but you'll always be on "Facebook". You are never dead on the internet.
On a psychological level, part of this generational shift in the attitudes towards privacy may well come down to a more narcissistic attitude of the newest generation - I've said more about this elsewhere. "Facebook" is the kind of online service that appeals to anyone with a weakness for self-promotion. As Individualism has increased in society, especially over the last thirty years, these advances in technology and communications are now being used as vehicles for gathering unprecedented amounts of information on humanity, while at the same time indulging post-modern humanity's joy of Individualistic Narcissism. It is a clever ploy.
As I said earlier, marketing as a social tool coincided with the rise of Fascism. The clever "marketing/propaganda" behind "Facebook" is that feeds the perception of granting people greater scope to express their Individualism/Narcissism, while at the same time sucking masses of data from individuals to a central database, which can be transferred onto government on demand. The Snowden scandal has put meat to the bones of this theory. So this is how Fascism and marketing have fused in the 21st century, through the advances in technology. Whereas Communist/impersonal regimes find it difficult to obtain individuals' data without using coercion, Fascism's symbiotic link to the unregulated private sector means that individuals can be easily persuaded of their own free will to give up their own right to privacy. The Neo-liberal world we are living in is one where Fascism has morphed into something bigger, smarter, and more adaptable than its pre-Second World War origins.
"Privacy" has almost become a dirty word; that is certainly the suggestion implied by Cameron's "war on pornography", and the mass use of technology for sharing information.
If you want to have a private life, it means you must have something to hide!
That misconstrued sense of freedom is further destroyed when you think about the erosion of individual privacy that has taken place over the last twenty years. You need look no further than David Cameron's recent declaration of war on pornography. Here the British Prime Minister wants to introduce control over what British individuals watch on the internet; effectively have people "tagged" as porn users, and ban all forms of child pornography and "violent" pornography.
I'm not here to make a blanket defence of all forms of pornography; instead I'll simply state there being no proven causal link between porn and sex crimes (violent crime has gone down in recent years, and there has never been a coinciding rise in sexual violence with the massive surge in available online porn; besides, if you are going to ban porn, then why not violent movies, and so on). This is just another example of intrusion into individual privacy for the sake of it.
More cynically, it is a blatant piece of opportunist populism for the purposes of diversion. More seriously, it is another weapon of control against the individual. As a classic tactic of Fascist propaganda, it fits the bill, as Cameron's "war on porn" is a) superficially-popular b) gives greater powers to the government, and c) has only a negligible effect to the actual target of the policy.
Propaganda as a political tool was mastered by the Fascists in the 1920s (which coincided, not coincidentally, with the rise of marketing and advertising as a social tool - more on that later). Fascist tactics are to concentrate power to the central government, while at the same time appearing popular, and having a useful scapegoat. Using "moral panics" about phantom social threats is recurring theme in authoritarianism.
Ever since the widespread use of CCTV across the world began twenty years ago (The UK being the worst offender), privacy has become so eroded in so many ways it's difficult to remember.
CCTV is trumpeted as a great weapon against crime: well, it is true that it theoretically should make it easier for the police to catch criminals after the event, it does little to actually prevent crimes from happening. Even so, most of the cameras installed around the world are not even really used for crime prevention purposes, let alone used by the police. The vast majority of cameras are not owned by the state, but by private companies, who are therefore much less accountable to the public, and the technology much more open for abuse. The fact that we take all this for granted is simply a sign that people have learned to mentally block out the fact that their every move is recorded on cameras mostly owned by private companies.
Apart from the surveillance society, we know that the internet is watched by governments around the world. The Edward Snowden scandal showed us that there are no limits to what the US government is capable of if it is given unchecked power to watch humanity online. The British government is little better. These days, it's better (and more accurate) for people to assume that everything they do online is recorded somewhere, regardless of how trivial or utterly useless the data is. As cynicism has increased as we entered into the 21st century from a more idealistic 20th century, people are no longer surprised that governments flout the law and any individual's rights: as true cynics, many people assume that the worst will happen, most of the time.
While governments around the world gather data on people en masse simply for the sake of it (in case it is useful later), it is private companies who are the some of the worst offenders of all.
Technology has allowed people to communicate as never before; it has therefore also allowed technology companies to gather masses of an individual's communications and data as never before. The most obvious example is "Facebook".
What's worse about this is that private (online) technology companies like Facebook use marketing techniques to gain more and more information on people, to allow individuals to "customise" or "tailor" their personal webpages. People are encouraged to add more and more data to these companies' records for the supposed purpose of giving these individuals a "more complete service"; this is Orwellian Doublespeak at its best, and encourages individuals to freely give information to an unaccountable private company that they would never dream of giving to their government.
This is what makes this erosion of privacy so dangerous. Governments are at least (theoretically) accountable. Private companies are only accountable to their shareholders; no one else. Even worse, the information that individuals do give to these private companies is often shared with government anyway, as the Snowden scandal has exposed. So this makes the whole charade even more absurd.
But the strange erosion of privacy in the 21st century seems to snowball ever larger. The Orwellian dystopia he predicted in "Nineteen Eighty-Four" in many ways already exists. Technology has been used for the purposes of greater and greater surveillance, and people are happy to shrug their shoulders and continue to freely offer up the contents of their lives to private companies like "Facebook"; myself included!
Teenagers and children now raised in the "Facebook and Twitter Generation" think nothing of sharing every thought in their head online, to be recorded for all eternity. Technology and data retention online means that "Facebook" has an even greater hold on your life after your death that even the government; when you die, you no longer exist on the tax records, but you'll always be on "Facebook". You are never dead on the internet.
On a psychological level, part of this generational shift in the attitudes towards privacy may well come down to a more narcissistic attitude of the newest generation - I've said more about this elsewhere. "Facebook" is the kind of online service that appeals to anyone with a weakness for self-promotion. As Individualism has increased in society, especially over the last thirty years, these advances in technology and communications are now being used as vehicles for gathering unprecedented amounts of information on humanity, while at the same time indulging post-modern humanity's joy of Individualistic Narcissism. It is a clever ploy.
As I said earlier, marketing as a social tool coincided with the rise of Fascism. The clever "marketing/propaganda" behind "Facebook" is that feeds the perception of granting people greater scope to express their Individualism/Narcissism, while at the same time sucking masses of data from individuals to a central database, which can be transferred onto government on demand. The Snowden scandal has put meat to the bones of this theory. So this is how Fascism and marketing have fused in the 21st century, through the advances in technology. Whereas Communist/impersonal regimes find it difficult to obtain individuals' data without using coercion, Fascism's symbiotic link to the unregulated private sector means that individuals can be easily persuaded of their own free will to give up their own right to privacy. The Neo-liberal world we are living in is one where Fascism has morphed into something bigger, smarter, and more adaptable than its pre-Second World War origins.
"Privacy" has almost become a dirty word; that is certainly the suggestion implied by Cameron's "war on pornography", and the mass use of technology for sharing information.
If you want to have a private life, it means you must have something to hide!
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Psychopathy, Capitalism, and the definition of evil
What it means to be "evil", or carry out "evil" acts, is a morally-loaded question, but the most generally-accepted answer is that "evil" behaviour deliberately harms other people, and humanity in general.
It is commonplace to describe people such as Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, and Pol Pot as "evil", because they deliberately sought to kill and persecute people. But what is more specific is that these individuals had a skewed view of morality that allowed them to justify acts that any sane person would instantly call evil and immoral. In other words, these individuals were all psychopaths, because their view of morality was either absent entirely, or so far from the norm as to be unrecognisable.
I talked recently about two types of sadism. Firstly, the sadism of an amoral psychopath, who makes decisions based purely on their relative merit to themselves, regardless of the consequence on others; this is simple amorality, where "morality" doesn't enter the equation, and decisions are a simple and heartless cost-benefit "calculation".
Secondly, I talked about a more malignant sadism, which combines "sadism" with "pleasure": the enjoyment of others' suffering. This is another form of psychopathic sadism, but where the suffering the psychopaths causes is to create personal satisfaction (like Hitler's persecution of the Jews, or OBL's desire for "jihad" against the West).
I bring this point up again to clarify what I therefore see as two forms of "evil" (or sadism) that exist, and how they are implemented; one whose basis is largely ideological, and another that it largely emotional.
Amoral Sadism as an Ideology
It's said by some that Capitalism is "evil". But what this really means is that Capitalism is amoral. There is no "moral code" written into the economic theory, because the purpose of Capitalism is the pursuit of profit. While some have made some mealy-mouthed attempts at justifying its effect on humanity, its most famous contemporary ideological thinker, Ayn Rand, was much more straightforward in the clarity of her logic. And in spite of Capitalism's obvious amorality, she counter-intuitively argued that Capitalism was the only moral form of economic ideology because it best represented the principle of human freedom at its zenith.
Rand's perspective turned morality on its head, as well as inside out, as I've said before. For Rand, any ideology that imposed limits on a person's personal freedom of choice was immoral. Using this thinking, it made almost all government actions immoral by definition, except for the role of defence against invasion and applying an agreed rule of law. Paying taxes for any other government service, therefore, was an immoral act, according to Rand, as it forced people to pay for services they didn't knowingly choose (as government would here choose how to spend the money, not the individual); in other words, tax was equated with theft.
Not only that, but Rand said that altruism was evil, because any "help" from outside imposed another's will on individuals, and took away the chance for someone to find money by their own means (as was therefore psychologically damaging to a person's self-confidence). So not only does this ideology pit the individual against the collective will, it also turns selfishness into a virtue, and charity into a vice.
Rand's view was that improvement in society came about only through the actions and decisions of individuals, and that the only rational way of living was to view everything through self-interest. Doing things for the benefit of others was not only illogical, in her view; it was also immoral. Like the cynicism of a psychopath, Rand believe that a rational person would only do something if it was for their benefit; the only "morality" of a decision was if it was advantageous or not, not what its effects on others would be. This is how Capitalism is comparable with amoral Sadism: Rand made Capitalism's mindset equivalent to that of a psychopath.
In Rand's view, poverty caused as a result of Capitalism was therefore inevitable, but also government or collective action to alleviate poverty was wrong because it took away the individual's chance for self-improvement. Better that a poor person learn through their own errors than be given a hand-out. Rand saw American Capitalism as the exemplar of this system, as it had thrived on the back of unrestrained Capitalism, but also fed an ethic of proud self-reliance into even the poorest.
The irony here is that it makes the poor celebrate the rich as Ubermensch, while the rich have no incentive to care about the poor.
The supposed "ethics" of Rand's ideology (Objectivism) are simple cause-and-effect: a self-reliant person in a self-reliant system would quickly want to improve himself, as his empty belly would quickly remind him. For all Rand's clever words and counter-intuitive logic, the system she is advocating is only one step higher than anarchy, except that the government maintains basic law and order. With the rich already secured in this system, it is therefore almost equivalent to the preconditions for Fascism.
Rand was a vociferous critic of Communism (as well as Fascism, even though her ideology has resulted in more-or-less the same effect). But what Rand shares with Communism is an amorally Sadistic mindset. What the CEO of a multi-national company and Stalin have in common is an amoral focus on goals. Whether the goal is to maximise profit or maximise grain production, the mindset is the name; the only difference is in the detail of the method. While a sane CEO wouldn't set about systematically eliminating his workforce (like Stalin did when he slaughtered millions of rebellious peasants), he certainly wouldn't flinch at firing them if it was financially prudent to do so.
Besides, in many ways, a private company is no different from a dictatorship. The most important thing is keeping the stock prices up and the shareholders happy; both these are achieved through the maximisation of profits and minimising costs. Morality doesn't come into it, unless it's advantageous for the company's image (when "enlightened self-interest" comes into the equation). All that differs are the details; the principles are the same. This is where the skills gained from business become relevant in the field of politics and government.
Malignant Sadism as a mass emotion
I've said that Amoral Sadism, as a form of evil, is evident in Capitalism as well as Communism. Malignant Sadism, on the other hand, is a more emotional and hate-filled form of evil. While Amoral Sadism is cold and heartless, Malignant Sadism is angry and vicious, filled with blood-lust.
This form of "evil" comes from a more primal root; the love of the self and the hatred of the "other", as well as a fetishisation of violence itself. Bound up in this is the sense of victimhood, tugging on the emotional aspects of the brain. Whereas Amoral Sadism is more ideological, Malignant Sadism as a mass emotion stems from the ideas of nationalism and religion.
"Morality" in this form is interpreted in more emotional terms, so therefore requires little intellectual justification. Amoral Sadism is able to bypass this issue of "right and wrong" by saying that it is irrelevant; this type of mass Malignant Sadism bypasses the intellectual issues over "right and wrong" based on simple nationality and creed.
Hitler is the most famous example of this in the 20th century, using nationalism as an excuse for evil. More recently, massacres have occurred in Rwanda based on nationalism, as well as in the former Yugoslavia, based on nationality and religion.
Then there are the countless religious wars over the centuries, justifying evil in the name of God. Osama Bin Laden is but the latest example of this, as Al-Qaeda and its affiliates use the religious scripture as justification for mass murder, deprivation and tyranny. The Catholic Inquisition was responsible for mass torture, and so on.
Nationalism and religious fanaticism are the main exemplars of mass Malignant Sadism, as they are both inherently narcissistic creeds, and enjoy visiting violence upon their enemies. For them, violence against the enemy is righteous, and therefore to be encouraged and praised. This is the difference between this form of "evil" and amorally-sadistic Capitalism, for example.
But evil will always find a name for itself.
It is commonplace to describe people such as Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, and Pol Pot as "evil", because they deliberately sought to kill and persecute people. But what is more specific is that these individuals had a skewed view of morality that allowed them to justify acts that any sane person would instantly call evil and immoral. In other words, these individuals were all psychopaths, because their view of morality was either absent entirely, or so far from the norm as to be unrecognisable.
I talked recently about two types of sadism. Firstly, the sadism of an amoral psychopath, who makes decisions based purely on their relative merit to themselves, regardless of the consequence on others; this is simple amorality, where "morality" doesn't enter the equation, and decisions are a simple and heartless cost-benefit "calculation".
Secondly, I talked about a more malignant sadism, which combines "sadism" with "pleasure": the enjoyment of others' suffering. This is another form of psychopathic sadism, but where the suffering the psychopaths causes is to create personal satisfaction (like Hitler's persecution of the Jews, or OBL's desire for "jihad" against the West).
I bring this point up again to clarify what I therefore see as two forms of "evil" (or sadism) that exist, and how they are implemented; one whose basis is largely ideological, and another that it largely emotional.
Amoral Sadism as an Ideology
It's said by some that Capitalism is "evil". But what this really means is that Capitalism is amoral. There is no "moral code" written into the economic theory, because the purpose of Capitalism is the pursuit of profit. While some have made some mealy-mouthed attempts at justifying its effect on humanity, its most famous contemporary ideological thinker, Ayn Rand, was much more straightforward in the clarity of her logic. And in spite of Capitalism's obvious amorality, she counter-intuitively argued that Capitalism was the only moral form of economic ideology because it best represented the principle of human freedom at its zenith.
Rand's perspective turned morality on its head, as well as inside out, as I've said before. For Rand, any ideology that imposed limits on a person's personal freedom of choice was immoral. Using this thinking, it made almost all government actions immoral by definition, except for the role of defence against invasion and applying an agreed rule of law. Paying taxes for any other government service, therefore, was an immoral act, according to Rand, as it forced people to pay for services they didn't knowingly choose (as government would here choose how to spend the money, not the individual); in other words, tax was equated with theft.
Not only that, but Rand said that altruism was evil, because any "help" from outside imposed another's will on individuals, and took away the chance for someone to find money by their own means (as was therefore psychologically damaging to a person's self-confidence). So not only does this ideology pit the individual against the collective will, it also turns selfishness into a virtue, and charity into a vice.
Rand's view was that improvement in society came about only through the actions and decisions of individuals, and that the only rational way of living was to view everything through self-interest. Doing things for the benefit of others was not only illogical, in her view; it was also immoral. Like the cynicism of a psychopath, Rand believe that a rational person would only do something if it was for their benefit; the only "morality" of a decision was if it was advantageous or not, not what its effects on others would be. This is how Capitalism is comparable with amoral Sadism: Rand made Capitalism's mindset equivalent to that of a psychopath.
In Rand's view, poverty caused as a result of Capitalism was therefore inevitable, but also government or collective action to alleviate poverty was wrong because it took away the individual's chance for self-improvement. Better that a poor person learn through their own errors than be given a hand-out. Rand saw American Capitalism as the exemplar of this system, as it had thrived on the back of unrestrained Capitalism, but also fed an ethic of proud self-reliance into even the poorest.
The irony here is that it makes the poor celebrate the rich as Ubermensch, while the rich have no incentive to care about the poor.
The supposed "ethics" of Rand's ideology (Objectivism) are simple cause-and-effect: a self-reliant person in a self-reliant system would quickly want to improve himself, as his empty belly would quickly remind him. For all Rand's clever words and counter-intuitive logic, the system she is advocating is only one step higher than anarchy, except that the government maintains basic law and order. With the rich already secured in this system, it is therefore almost equivalent to the preconditions for Fascism.
Rand was a vociferous critic of Communism (as well as Fascism, even though her ideology has resulted in more-or-less the same effect). But what Rand shares with Communism is an amorally Sadistic mindset. What the CEO of a multi-national company and Stalin have in common is an amoral focus on goals. Whether the goal is to maximise profit or maximise grain production, the mindset is the name; the only difference is in the detail of the method. While a sane CEO wouldn't set about systematically eliminating his workforce (like Stalin did when he slaughtered millions of rebellious peasants), he certainly wouldn't flinch at firing them if it was financially prudent to do so.
Besides, in many ways, a private company is no different from a dictatorship. The most important thing is keeping the stock prices up and the shareholders happy; both these are achieved through the maximisation of profits and minimising costs. Morality doesn't come into it, unless it's advantageous for the company's image (when "enlightened self-interest" comes into the equation). All that differs are the details; the principles are the same. This is where the skills gained from business become relevant in the field of politics and government.
Malignant Sadism as a mass emotion
I've said that Amoral Sadism, as a form of evil, is evident in Capitalism as well as Communism. Malignant Sadism, on the other hand, is a more emotional and hate-filled form of evil. While Amoral Sadism is cold and heartless, Malignant Sadism is angry and vicious, filled with blood-lust.
This form of "evil" comes from a more primal root; the love of the self and the hatred of the "other", as well as a fetishisation of violence itself. Bound up in this is the sense of victimhood, tugging on the emotional aspects of the brain. Whereas Amoral Sadism is more ideological, Malignant Sadism as a mass emotion stems from the ideas of nationalism and religion.
"Morality" in this form is interpreted in more emotional terms, so therefore requires little intellectual justification. Amoral Sadism is able to bypass this issue of "right and wrong" by saying that it is irrelevant; this type of mass Malignant Sadism bypasses the intellectual issues over "right and wrong" based on simple nationality and creed.
Hitler is the most famous example of this in the 20th century, using nationalism as an excuse for evil. More recently, massacres have occurred in Rwanda based on nationalism, as well as in the former Yugoslavia, based on nationality and religion.
Then there are the countless religious wars over the centuries, justifying evil in the name of God. Osama Bin Laden is but the latest example of this, as Al-Qaeda and its affiliates use the religious scripture as justification for mass murder, deprivation and tyranny. The Catholic Inquisition was responsible for mass torture, and so on.
Nationalism and religious fanaticism are the main exemplars of mass Malignant Sadism, as they are both inherently narcissistic creeds, and enjoy visiting violence upon their enemies. For them, violence against the enemy is righteous, and therefore to be encouraged and praised. This is the difference between this form of "evil" and amorally-sadistic Capitalism, for example.
But evil will always find a name for itself.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Globalisation, neo-liberalism and Fascism
Last year I wrote an article describing the links between neo-liberalism and the creed of Fascism. More recently, I wrote about the ideological links between Fascism and Political Islam.
What is Fascism? Apart from its ideological beliefs, it is, primarily, an economic system. Its economic aim is to consolidate economic and political power into the hands of an unaccountable elite of private interests, who use the government as an instrument for their aims. This also involves the erosion of employee rights, and the destruction of union power. This is then enforced through a total control over the use of force and psychological control over any opponents, by the use of state authority (e.g. police and the manipulation of the law) when necessary, or by covert surveillance and political marginalisation.
I explained last month about how authoritarianism has morphed over time. Before the Second World War, those on the political left decried authoritarians as Fascists, while those on the right decried the authoritarianism of Communism. But what is more telling is the definition that the left and right give for Fascism. When the right decry Fascism, they talk about total state control of the economy and the population; when the left decry Fascism, they talk about a corrupt elite taking control of the state and the population.
While those on the right decry Fascism when it means the private sector loses control of the economy and influence over the state, those of the left decry Fascism when democratic accountability is lost in the running of the state and the economy.
The reality is that it is the left's definition of Fascism that is much closer to the truth; the right's historical "fear of Fascism" was simply anger at losing their position of primacy.
From Fascism to Neo-liberalism
After the Second World War, economic Fascism in the developed world learned to adapt. While the USA defeated Fascism in Europe, it emerged as the world's military and economic superpower, challenged only by the Soviet Union.
The end of the Second World War saw the USA draw up the rules for the world to follow. With the other Allies financially crippled and dependent on American loans, there was no other option. The main financial institutions that run the world's economy are all children of this post-war economic settlement drawn up by the USA: these include the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO's predecessor, the GATT.
The main purpose of these changes was to free up the world market to reduce tariffs between states, making international trade much easier, and to help the economies of the Third World through the use of loans to restructure their economies better.
These aims are euphemisms for the destruction of the "old order": where Imperial and wannabe-Imperial powers (such as the British Empire, in the first case, and Nazi Germany, in the second) were rendered obsolete by a neo-liberal system that allowed the first stage of the process towards what is now called Globalisation. In other words, nation-states would become vehicles of world prosperity; which would massively benefit big business. The old system of protective tariffs that was favoured by the old Imperial Powers was over; as would be the old idea of Colonialism.
The breaking of tariffs most benefitted companies that were eager to expand their operations abroad, so it was no surprise that big business was pro-American in its stance on free trade. The same was true with big business' attitude to old-style Colonialism; much better for big business that Africa (for example) was a mish-mash of unconnected and squabbling countries rather than belong to just a few Imperial Powers, as it made it easier for multi-national companies to deal with them. And when this occurred, it meant that post-Colonial Africa (and elsewhere) became a living laboratory for this new form of economic Fascism; when entire nation-states were dependant on the whim of a multi-national CEO, or the IMF.
Colonialism by a number of nation-states became replaced by multi-national economic Fascism.
So while there was a "post-war consensus" in much of the developed world that ostensibly caused a temporary reduction in the amount of control big business had over industries and state services, the first steps towards Globalisation as we understand it today were started after the Second World War in the post-Colonial world
The ideological basis for this "neo-liberal" system received a boost with the tract "The Virtue Of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand, and her philosophy called Objectivism. She, and the "Chicago School" economist Milton Friedman, were largely responsible for the creation of Monetarism, which was a huge advocate of free markets, low taxation and the erosion of state intervention. This also included a scepticism towards employee rights and unions, which they both believed were responsible for the ills in the economy. More generally, they were passionate advocates of individualism and against all forms of "collectivism" (such as socialised medicine).
They were both contemporaries who reached the height of their fame in the post-war era in the USA, but their ideas became more commonplace by the sixties and seventies, especially in the Anglosphere. Both Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were fans of Rand and Monetarism, as were big business. So when these two came to power, "neo-liberalism" was free to be put into practice as never before.
A Neo-liberal world
The past thirty years has seen an unprecedented leap in the gap between rich and poor across the world. This is a direct consequence of the economics of Neo-liberalism. While the average person in the developed world may feel "rich" due to advances in technology, the reality is that across the developed world people are poorer in real terms that they were thirty years ago.
Having an iPhone doesn't make you "rich"; being able to use Facebook doesn't mean you are "free". These concepts are all absolutes that can be measured to compared to what existed previously. The fact that you have an iPhone, and can use Facebook, but have a job that is an internship and cannot afford to buy your own house, tells you that you are poor in absolute terms. If you cannot save money each month, it means you are poor. If you barely have enough money to pay bills, it means you are poor.
Consumerism and advances in technology help feed the illusion that this "neo-liberal" model brings prosperity to everyone, when the opposite is true: Neo-liberalism concentrates power and influence into the hands of fewer and fewer people, none of whom are accountable to the public. I wrote in my article "Neo-liberalism is the new Fascism" that the financial crisis was a direct result of this economic system: a system where the rules are written by those who have the most to gain from it. Politicians around the world have bought into this system either because they have a personal interest in it, or are too intimidated by the alternative (the withdrawal of multi-national's investment) that they go along with it. In other words, the political establishment is tied to whim of this private sector elite.
In this way, "Neo-liberalism" is the extension of the idea of economic Fascism because it transfers effective government power to a private sector elite who are unaccountable to the public. Privatisation of former state services is a key method of neutering the role of the government in the economy, and transferring it to the private sector; meanwhile, the private sector act as economic vampires on the government, by ensuring that while all profits of privatised industries go to the private sector, any losses are picked up by the government. In the UK, PFI is ran using this model, as are the railways and other privatised industries: it is the economics of Fascism down to a tee.
This ensures that the government becomes more and more loaded with private sector debt, and then encourages the government that the only way to lessen the debt is to either privatise either more services, reduce state spending on the population, or increase taxes on the poor, thus continuing the vicious circle of corruption. It is the perfect formula to binding a government to Fascism.
The growth of China as a world power and economy grew precisely when, thirty years ago, the leadership decided to buy into the "neo-liberal" model: foreign investment poured in, and the country grew rich. But again, China is successful because it has found a way for "neo-liberalism" to work for them. It is a one-party neo-liberal state, ideal for the purpose.
In the West, "neo-liberalism" has become the only accepted form of economic system; all others are open to ridicule, and dismissed by the political establishment. Neo-liberalism, as a refined form of Fascism, also learned to adapt to a world where freedom of expression cannot be so easily silenced. Therefore, freedom of expression is accepted (at least publicly), but is only indulged for the sake of maintaining democratic legitimacy. You are free to say what you like, as long as those thoughts and words are not put into actions (such as protest). When they are, people find the tools of state power will rapidly fall against them. Any kind of change that the government makes against its own interests, it may accept a small concession simply for the sake of its public image and longer-term survival.
Yet even this "indulgence" of free speech is relative, as people are finding out. The "War On Terror" was used as way to criminalise words that could be interpreted as inciting hatred or violence; in some parts of the world, government criticism can be called illegal by citing any number of obscure laws. In Turkey, as a result of the crackdown after the Gezi park protests, people can be arrested for simply standing still.
Political Islam is simply another branch of the same Fascist tendency, as I wrote earlier this month. The AKP in Turkey is more pro-Capitalist than its secular rivals; again, buying into the "neo-liberal" model for its own purposes, while many of the governing party's leading lights have favourable links to Turkey's "new rich".
These days, it appears that Globalisation has brought the world together as never before. But it's also true that Globalisation has allowed the world to be parcelled-off into spheres of influence, in ways that even former Imperial Powers couldn't quite manage.
Like in George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-four", there are a number of spheres of influence that effectively carve up the world, which are in turn effectively controlled by unaccountable elites. Annually, many of these figures meet at the "Bilderberg conference", which has been going on since 1954 (two-thirds of whom are from business, and one-third from government). While those who attend publicly state that what occurs is not consequential, what is discussed remains strictly confidential. So you can draw your own conclusions: to discuss long-term strategy? That remains the most likely answer.
And if the "Bilderberg Group" represents the elite of "neo-liberalism", how does its unaccountable nature make it any different from how Fascism operates?
What is Fascism? Apart from its ideological beliefs, it is, primarily, an economic system. Its economic aim is to consolidate economic and political power into the hands of an unaccountable elite of private interests, who use the government as an instrument for their aims. This also involves the erosion of employee rights, and the destruction of union power. This is then enforced through a total control over the use of force and psychological control over any opponents, by the use of state authority (e.g. police and the manipulation of the law) when necessary, or by covert surveillance and political marginalisation.
I explained last month about how authoritarianism has morphed over time. Before the Second World War, those on the political left decried authoritarians as Fascists, while those on the right decried the authoritarianism of Communism. But what is more telling is the definition that the left and right give for Fascism. When the right decry Fascism, they talk about total state control of the economy and the population; when the left decry Fascism, they talk about a corrupt elite taking control of the state and the population.
While those on the right decry Fascism when it means the private sector loses control of the economy and influence over the state, those of the left decry Fascism when democratic accountability is lost in the running of the state and the economy.
The reality is that it is the left's definition of Fascism that is much closer to the truth; the right's historical "fear of Fascism" was simply anger at losing their position of primacy.
From Fascism to Neo-liberalism
After the Second World War, economic Fascism in the developed world learned to adapt. While the USA defeated Fascism in Europe, it emerged as the world's military and economic superpower, challenged only by the Soviet Union.
The end of the Second World War saw the USA draw up the rules for the world to follow. With the other Allies financially crippled and dependent on American loans, there was no other option. The main financial institutions that run the world's economy are all children of this post-war economic settlement drawn up by the USA: these include the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO's predecessor, the GATT.
The main purpose of these changes was to free up the world market to reduce tariffs between states, making international trade much easier, and to help the economies of the Third World through the use of loans to restructure their economies better.
These aims are euphemisms for the destruction of the "old order": where Imperial and wannabe-Imperial powers (such as the British Empire, in the first case, and Nazi Germany, in the second) were rendered obsolete by a neo-liberal system that allowed the first stage of the process towards what is now called Globalisation. In other words, nation-states would become vehicles of world prosperity; which would massively benefit big business. The old system of protective tariffs that was favoured by the old Imperial Powers was over; as would be the old idea of Colonialism.
The breaking of tariffs most benefitted companies that were eager to expand their operations abroad, so it was no surprise that big business was pro-American in its stance on free trade. The same was true with big business' attitude to old-style Colonialism; much better for big business that Africa (for example) was a mish-mash of unconnected and squabbling countries rather than belong to just a few Imperial Powers, as it made it easier for multi-national companies to deal with them. And when this occurred, it meant that post-Colonial Africa (and elsewhere) became a living laboratory for this new form of economic Fascism; when entire nation-states were dependant on the whim of a multi-national CEO, or the IMF.
Colonialism by a number of nation-states became replaced by multi-national economic Fascism.
So while there was a "post-war consensus" in much of the developed world that ostensibly caused a temporary reduction in the amount of control big business had over industries and state services, the first steps towards Globalisation as we understand it today were started after the Second World War in the post-Colonial world
The ideological basis for this "neo-liberal" system received a boost with the tract "The Virtue Of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand, and her philosophy called Objectivism. She, and the "Chicago School" economist Milton Friedman, were largely responsible for the creation of Monetarism, which was a huge advocate of free markets, low taxation and the erosion of state intervention. This also included a scepticism towards employee rights and unions, which they both believed were responsible for the ills in the economy. More generally, they were passionate advocates of individualism and against all forms of "collectivism" (such as socialised medicine).
They were both contemporaries who reached the height of their fame in the post-war era in the USA, but their ideas became more commonplace by the sixties and seventies, especially in the Anglosphere. Both Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were fans of Rand and Monetarism, as were big business. So when these two came to power, "neo-liberalism" was free to be put into practice as never before.
A Neo-liberal world
The past thirty years has seen an unprecedented leap in the gap between rich and poor across the world. This is a direct consequence of the economics of Neo-liberalism. While the average person in the developed world may feel "rich" due to advances in technology, the reality is that across the developed world people are poorer in real terms that they were thirty years ago.
Having an iPhone doesn't make you "rich"; being able to use Facebook doesn't mean you are "free". These concepts are all absolutes that can be measured to compared to what existed previously. The fact that you have an iPhone, and can use Facebook, but have a job that is an internship and cannot afford to buy your own house, tells you that you are poor in absolute terms. If you cannot save money each month, it means you are poor. If you barely have enough money to pay bills, it means you are poor.
Consumerism and advances in technology help feed the illusion that this "neo-liberal" model brings prosperity to everyone, when the opposite is true: Neo-liberalism concentrates power and influence into the hands of fewer and fewer people, none of whom are accountable to the public. I wrote in my article "Neo-liberalism is the new Fascism" that the financial crisis was a direct result of this economic system: a system where the rules are written by those who have the most to gain from it. Politicians around the world have bought into this system either because they have a personal interest in it, or are too intimidated by the alternative (the withdrawal of multi-national's investment) that they go along with it. In other words, the political establishment is tied to whim of this private sector elite.
In this way, "Neo-liberalism" is the extension of the idea of economic Fascism because it transfers effective government power to a private sector elite who are unaccountable to the public. Privatisation of former state services is a key method of neutering the role of the government in the economy, and transferring it to the private sector; meanwhile, the private sector act as economic vampires on the government, by ensuring that while all profits of privatised industries go to the private sector, any losses are picked up by the government. In the UK, PFI is ran using this model, as are the railways and other privatised industries: it is the economics of Fascism down to a tee.
This ensures that the government becomes more and more loaded with private sector debt, and then encourages the government that the only way to lessen the debt is to either privatise either more services, reduce state spending on the population, or increase taxes on the poor, thus continuing the vicious circle of corruption. It is the perfect formula to binding a government to Fascism.
The growth of China as a world power and economy grew precisely when, thirty years ago, the leadership decided to buy into the "neo-liberal" model: foreign investment poured in, and the country grew rich. But again, China is successful because it has found a way for "neo-liberalism" to work for them. It is a one-party neo-liberal state, ideal for the purpose.
In the West, "neo-liberalism" has become the only accepted form of economic system; all others are open to ridicule, and dismissed by the political establishment. Neo-liberalism, as a refined form of Fascism, also learned to adapt to a world where freedom of expression cannot be so easily silenced. Therefore, freedom of expression is accepted (at least publicly), but is only indulged for the sake of maintaining democratic legitimacy. You are free to say what you like, as long as those thoughts and words are not put into actions (such as protest). When they are, people find the tools of state power will rapidly fall against them. Any kind of change that the government makes against its own interests, it may accept a small concession simply for the sake of its public image and longer-term survival.
Yet even this "indulgence" of free speech is relative, as people are finding out. The "War On Terror" was used as way to criminalise words that could be interpreted as inciting hatred or violence; in some parts of the world, government criticism can be called illegal by citing any number of obscure laws. In Turkey, as a result of the crackdown after the Gezi park protests, people can be arrested for simply standing still.
Political Islam is simply another branch of the same Fascist tendency, as I wrote earlier this month. The AKP in Turkey is more pro-Capitalist than its secular rivals; again, buying into the "neo-liberal" model for its own purposes, while many of the governing party's leading lights have favourable links to Turkey's "new rich".
These days, it appears that Globalisation has brought the world together as never before. But it's also true that Globalisation has allowed the world to be parcelled-off into spheres of influence, in ways that even former Imperial Powers couldn't quite manage.
Like in George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-four", there are a number of spheres of influence that effectively carve up the world, which are in turn effectively controlled by unaccountable elites. Annually, many of these figures meet at the "Bilderberg conference", which has been going on since 1954 (two-thirds of whom are from business, and one-third from government). While those who attend publicly state that what occurs is not consequential, what is discussed remains strictly confidential. So you can draw your own conclusions: to discuss long-term strategy? That remains the most likely answer.
And if the "Bilderberg Group" represents the elite of "neo-liberalism", how does its unaccountable nature make it any different from how Fascism operates?
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Headscarves, banning the burqa, Islam, "Femen" and Feminism
A number of European countries have now banned the wearing of the burqa, saying that it is against European and Western values, and is a sign of the female oppression.
While this may be true in some cases, it's also true that many Muslim women wear the headscarf (or the burqa) of their own free will. Some Muslim women in France therefore make the counter-argument that banning the wearing of the burqa is a step against the rights of women's choice, let alone a piece of cultural authoritarianism.
What's interesting in this logic is the use of Feminist ideology. Women who wear a hijab or burqa are, according to these women, practising their own form of Feminism; they argue that the veil is simply a Muslim woman's method of displaying her femininity. Whereas in the West, Feminists like the group "Femen" display their ideology by displaying their body nakedly to challenge society's aversion to nudity, Muslim "Feminists" display their Feminism in the opposite way, by controlling how little of their body society can see.
Feminism and sexuality
This logic is worth thinking about more carefully, and the differing approaches to Feminism that "Femen" and a veil-wearing Muslim woman has. What do these two approaches to Feminism really say?
The crucial difference here is the relationship that a Western Feminist and Muslim Feminist has to her body. In the West, "extremist" Feminists like "Femen" see no shame in hiding their bodies; indeed, they display their body to provoke and to challenge social stereotypes.
Socrates once argued that men and women should walk together naked in order to remove any sexual stigma that the human body has: his point being that the human body in itself is not inherently sexual; sexuality comes from how you use your body. Femen seems to come from that line of thinking: what is sexual about the body? Nothing. This is the point they are making with their nude protests. Western Feminists like "Femen" challenge the view that women should need be "modest" or careful about how they display their bodies in public, to avoid attention from men. After the shocking gang rape case in India recently, one protester wrote a sign that stated: "Don't tell us (women) what to wear; teach men not to rape women".
The point the Indian protester makes is clear: the problem is with men, not with women. Therefore, why should women have to feel restricted in their choices simply because the other half of society cannot implement self-control?
When a Western woman makes the choice to wear what she wants (and as little as she wants) without thinking about the social consequences, this is also a sign that she displays trust and openness towards society. The more of her body she displays in public, the more trust she shows in society; this is also a point that "Femen" are making. Apart from challenging social norms, feeling comfortable with displaying your body in public is a sign of how relaxed you are towards others. It assumes that you trust others not to take advantage of you; you are giving an outward sign that you are living in a civilised country where people's body's are respected.
In other words, by feeling comfortable to display your body in public, you are encouraging a positive view of society and human nature. And the more this is done, the more this positive view (and mutual respect) will be reciprocated.
I can back this up even with anecdotal evidence. In Azerbaijan, until recently, very few women (or men for that matter!) wore shorts in summer, as it was not considered socially-acceptable. "Shorts" had a certain stigma, and that if you wore them, others made unsavoury assumptions about you; in the past, this had led to unpleasant remarks towards women from men, and ridiculing remarks towards men wearing shorts even from other men. These days, however, as the trend towards wearing shorts has become much more common in the summer, those remarks (or open stares) have disappeared.
Thus society in Azerbaijan has become more tolerant and less judgemental than before, to the benefit of everyone: people are generally more laid-back and carefree.
Muslim Feminism
While Western Feminists like "Femen" address this issue by trying to tackle it head-on, Muslim veil-wearing "Feminists" address this issue in the opposite way.
By choosing to wear a veil and hide their body (or hair) from public view, a Muslim "Feminist" therefore gives the message that she does not trust society, and men in particular. She chooses to cover her body to avoid attention from men; but this also makes negative assumptions about men in general. Rather than trying to challenge those negative assumptions (and behaviour), she instead reinforces them. This Muslim "Feminism" is not a force for the purpose of positively changing social interaction, but a force that restricts an opportunity for positively changing social interactions.#
Even if you assume that a woman is wearing a hijab or burqa or her own free will, anyone who sees her will assume that she does so to avoid attention, and this gives the underlying view that "I don't trust you". The use of the veil also inadvertently sexualises all parts of the female body. By covering a woman's hair, that automatically attaches a sexual stigma to hair; it assumes that men somehow find a woman's hair innately sexually-attractive (i.e. that men will become sexually aroused). The same with a Muslim woman who even just wears clothes that cover over her elbows and knees: it implies that somehow seeing a woman's elbows or knees is sexually-arousing to men!
This attitude of attaching sexual value to parts of the body therefore has the opposite effect; by hiding some part of the body from society, it automatically gives it an added sexual value, because it suggests that if it is hidden, it is hidden because it must be worth hiding. When you are open with society about your body, you are saying I have nothing to hide, and there is no extra sexual value to be attached to my body. Therefore, the body loses any extra sexual value to society (or men), and becomes something that can be judged without sexual thought.
This explains why conservative Muslim society displays an attitude of inherent distrust towards each other, and why conservative Muslim society is sexually repressed, and consequently, a disproportionate amount of it is sexually perverted. It is no coincidence that Saudi men have such an appalling reputation towards women, especially foreign women; or that Afghanistan has a massive problem with under-age male prostitution.
Islam, Children and False Modesty
Worse than that is when Muslim "Feminists" teach their own pre-pubescent daughters to wear a veil. For what purpose? If the purpose of wearing a veil is to protect a woman's modesty, then why does a pre-pubescent girl need to protect her modesty? From whom? If a Muslim "Feminist" wears a veil because, inherently, she doesn't trust men, then what attitude is she giving her pre-pubescent daughter who has to wear it? It suggests that all men are paedophiles.
Worse than that, is that it actually makes the poor "hijab-wearing" girl more sexualised. It draws more attention from men towards the girl, because the act of wearing the veil suggests that the girl has something of sexual value that is worth covering up! In other words, it counter-intuitively could make men sexually interested in the veil-wearing girl (i.e. generate paedophile thoughts), simply because she is wearing a veil. By making the pre-pubescent girl wear a veil, her mother is inherently teaching her daughter about sex, and making her daughter a sexual object.
Lastly, there is the "false modesty" that some veil-wearing Muslim "Feminists" display: those that wear their veils elaborately, and/or with excessive make-up (a common sight in the Gulf States, for example). They may be covering their hair and body, but everything else about them screams sexuality. As said before, sexuality comes from how you use your body, not just how much or little of your body you display.
In that respect, although women who wear burqas may show a complete distrust for society, at least there is a kind of consistency there (even if it is counter-productive).
While this may be true in some cases, it's also true that many Muslim women wear the headscarf (or the burqa) of their own free will. Some Muslim women in France therefore make the counter-argument that banning the wearing of the burqa is a step against the rights of women's choice, let alone a piece of cultural authoritarianism.
What's interesting in this logic is the use of Feminist ideology. Women who wear a hijab or burqa are, according to these women, practising their own form of Feminism; they argue that the veil is simply a Muslim woman's method of displaying her femininity. Whereas in the West, Feminists like the group "Femen" display their ideology by displaying their body nakedly to challenge society's aversion to nudity, Muslim "Feminists" display their Feminism in the opposite way, by controlling how little of their body society can see.
Feminism and sexuality
This logic is worth thinking about more carefully, and the differing approaches to Feminism that "Femen" and a veil-wearing Muslim woman has. What do these two approaches to Feminism really say?
The crucial difference here is the relationship that a Western Feminist and Muslim Feminist has to her body. In the West, "extremist" Feminists like "Femen" see no shame in hiding their bodies; indeed, they display their body to provoke and to challenge social stereotypes.
Socrates once argued that men and women should walk together naked in order to remove any sexual stigma that the human body has: his point being that the human body in itself is not inherently sexual; sexuality comes from how you use your body. Femen seems to come from that line of thinking: what is sexual about the body? Nothing. This is the point they are making with their nude protests. Western Feminists like "Femen" challenge the view that women should need be "modest" or careful about how they display their bodies in public, to avoid attention from men. After the shocking gang rape case in India recently, one protester wrote a sign that stated: "Don't tell us (women) what to wear; teach men not to rape women".
The point the Indian protester makes is clear: the problem is with men, not with women. Therefore, why should women have to feel restricted in their choices simply because the other half of society cannot implement self-control?
When a Western woman makes the choice to wear what she wants (and as little as she wants) without thinking about the social consequences, this is also a sign that she displays trust and openness towards society. The more of her body she displays in public, the more trust she shows in society; this is also a point that "Femen" are making. Apart from challenging social norms, feeling comfortable with displaying your body in public is a sign of how relaxed you are towards others. It assumes that you trust others not to take advantage of you; you are giving an outward sign that you are living in a civilised country where people's body's are respected.
In other words, by feeling comfortable to display your body in public, you are encouraging a positive view of society and human nature. And the more this is done, the more this positive view (and mutual respect) will be reciprocated.
I can back this up even with anecdotal evidence. In Azerbaijan, until recently, very few women (or men for that matter!) wore shorts in summer, as it was not considered socially-acceptable. "Shorts" had a certain stigma, and that if you wore them, others made unsavoury assumptions about you; in the past, this had led to unpleasant remarks towards women from men, and ridiculing remarks towards men wearing shorts even from other men. These days, however, as the trend towards wearing shorts has become much more common in the summer, those remarks (or open stares) have disappeared.
Thus society in Azerbaijan has become more tolerant and less judgemental than before, to the benefit of everyone: people are generally more laid-back and carefree.
Muslim Feminism
While Western Feminists like "Femen" address this issue by trying to tackle it head-on, Muslim veil-wearing "Feminists" address this issue in the opposite way.
By choosing to wear a veil and hide their body (or hair) from public view, a Muslim "Feminist" therefore gives the message that she does not trust society, and men in particular. She chooses to cover her body to avoid attention from men; but this also makes negative assumptions about men in general. Rather than trying to challenge those negative assumptions (and behaviour), she instead reinforces them. This Muslim "Feminism" is not a force for the purpose of positively changing social interaction, but a force that restricts an opportunity for positively changing social interactions.#
Even if you assume that a woman is wearing a hijab or burqa or her own free will, anyone who sees her will assume that she does so to avoid attention, and this gives the underlying view that "I don't trust you". The use of the veil also inadvertently sexualises all parts of the female body. By covering a woman's hair, that automatically attaches a sexual stigma to hair; it assumes that men somehow find a woman's hair innately sexually-attractive (i.e. that men will become sexually aroused). The same with a Muslim woman who even just wears clothes that cover over her elbows and knees: it implies that somehow seeing a woman's elbows or knees is sexually-arousing to men!
This attitude of attaching sexual value to parts of the body therefore has the opposite effect; by hiding some part of the body from society, it automatically gives it an added sexual value, because it suggests that if it is hidden, it is hidden because it must be worth hiding. When you are open with society about your body, you are saying I have nothing to hide, and there is no extra sexual value to be attached to my body. Therefore, the body loses any extra sexual value to society (or men), and becomes something that can be judged without sexual thought.
This explains why conservative Muslim society displays an attitude of inherent distrust towards each other, and why conservative Muslim society is sexually repressed, and consequently, a disproportionate amount of it is sexually perverted. It is no coincidence that Saudi men have such an appalling reputation towards women, especially foreign women; or that Afghanistan has a massive problem with under-age male prostitution.
Islam, Children and False Modesty
Worse than that is when Muslim "Feminists" teach their own pre-pubescent daughters to wear a veil. For what purpose? If the purpose of wearing a veil is to protect a woman's modesty, then why does a pre-pubescent girl need to protect her modesty? From whom? If a Muslim "Feminist" wears a veil because, inherently, she doesn't trust men, then what attitude is she giving her pre-pubescent daughter who has to wear it? It suggests that all men are paedophiles.
Worse than that, is that it actually makes the poor "hijab-wearing" girl more sexualised. It draws more attention from men towards the girl, because the act of wearing the veil suggests that the girl has something of sexual value that is worth covering up! In other words, it counter-intuitively could make men sexually interested in the veil-wearing girl (i.e. generate paedophile thoughts), simply because she is wearing a veil. By making the pre-pubescent girl wear a veil, her mother is inherently teaching her daughter about sex, and making her daughter a sexual object.
Lastly, there is the "false modesty" that some veil-wearing Muslim "Feminists" display: those that wear their veils elaborately, and/or with excessive make-up (a common sight in the Gulf States, for example). They may be covering their hair and body, but everything else about them screams sexuality. As said before, sexuality comes from how you use your body, not just how much or little of your body you display.
In that respect, although women who wear burqas may show a complete distrust for society, at least there is a kind of consistency there (even if it is counter-productive).
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Erdogan's Neo-Ottomanism, Political Islam, Fascism and Anti-Semitism
Last month I wrote about some of the divisive and fear-mongering language that Erdogan and his ministers have used since the rise of the "Gezi Park" movement.
Over the last few weeks, the language has become more aggressive and paranoid: the latest salvo from the AKP is the accusation from the Deputy Prime Minister is that the "Jewish diaspora" is also involved with foreign conspirators in a plot to destroy Turkey's economy.
As well as blaming the foreign media (and even threatening legal action against CNN), Erdogan himself has rounded on his those Turkish journalists who have reported on the protests, using the example of Selen Girit, a Turkish BBC correspondent, who he called a "traitor". The purpose of such appallingly-aggressive language is clear - to threaten all domestic journalists into not daring to criticise the government. So while critical foreign media are called "conspirators" who want to destabilise Turkey, critical native journalists are called traitors.
As well as the war on the media, there is a clear trend of victimising foreigners. In the last two weeks, a British teenager was attacked until unconsciousness by Turkish men in the tourist resort of Marmaris because he was seen kissing a Turkish girl in a bar.
Apart from such vigilante attacks, the state itself has deported two foreign women for being involved in the protests, even if only incidentally: a Swedish tourist was deported for being seen to chant along with anti-government slogans; while a French foreign student was deported for being in a DSP (Democratic Left Party) building during mass disturbances with the police.
The message here is clear: for foreigners to mind their own business, and not interfere with Erdogan's "national will".
I wrote last year about Kaiser Wilhelm's plan to ally himself with the Ottomans in order to raise a "jihad" against the British and the Russians. Linked to this is the rise of anti-Semitism, which was first exported from Imperial Russia (using the propaganda tract "The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion"), to post-war Germany, where it quickly got the attention of would-be Nazis. Anti-Semitism then spread to the Middle East, the Nazis (and other Fascist movements) taking up Kaiser Wilhelm's old cause of raising trouble with the West through the force of Islam, by forming loose alliances.
The gradual rise of Political Islam
Like Fascism, the rise of Political Islam in the Middle East in the inter-war period grew through a perceived "victim complex", and a desire to purge society of impurity.
Most of the Middle East had been under the power of the Ottoman Turks for centuries, but hadn't had power in their own right. Similarly, Egypt had been under the power of the British Empire. Organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood grew in the 1930s, as Fascism was becoming a force to be reckoned with in Europe. They had spread across much of the Middle East by the Second World War. Both political creeds were viciously anti-Semitic and against what they saw as Western immorality; their answer was pure authoritarianism and tight social control. Both creeds blamed the Jews for much of their plight.
Political Islam was kept under close watch by the various regimes around the Middle East, so as Fascism was defeated in Europe, Political Islam and organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood were not allowed to spread. Meanwhile, the Jewish state of Israel was created out of the ashes of old Palestine, adding further insult to injury. The Cold War gave another reason for the West to financially prop up secular dictators in the Middle East, in competition with the Soviet Union. Neither "The Great Satan" or the atheist Soviet Union wanted anything to do with Political Islam. While Nasser of Egypt was the nearest thing that the "Arab Street" had to an "anti-Semitic idol" in the Cold War, it all ended in humiliation in the Six Day War of 1967. The re-match, the Yom Kippur War six years later, fared little better, leaving Arabs feeling humiliated and impotent.
That idea received a shock with the Islamic Revolution in Iran, making the West realise its complacency in thinking that Political Islam could be forever kept down on a diet of bullying and political marginalisation. Yet, there was still no other method that anyone could think of. While the Arabs remained divided by borders drawn up after the First World War, the strongest Arab state in the Middle East was Saudi Arabia, followed by Egypt. As one was a hardline Islamic state, and the other a secular dictatorship, the chance of the two ever getting their act together seemed remote in the extreme. It would take a revolution to bring Political Islam to the fore, and no expert thought that was conceivable.
Turkey, another Muslim secular state, provided the answer. As I've described before, Recep Tayyip Erdogan was able to "break the mould" in Turkish politics in 2002, becoming the first party of Political Islam to gain a foothold in a Middle Eastern country.
Erdogan's path to power, and his manner of maintaining it, became an exemplar to other would-be parties of Political Islam across the Middle East. For ten years, he had successfully deceived the West into thinking he was a true democrat, gradually consolidating his grip on power through a smokescreen of "democratic reforms" on a path to eventual EU membership - destroying the influence of the military, judiciary, opposing parties and the media in turn. At the same time, he has taken baby-step after baby-step towards an Islamic state in Turkey, so that by the time of the Arab Spring, Erdogan was the benchmark that Arabs could use to bring Political Islam to power across the Middle East.
In Egypt, Political Islam's biggest "success story" in the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood has overstepped its mark. Unlike in Turkey, Egypt's military had not been yet "neutralised". let alone filled with government sympathisers, so it would have been much wiser had the Muslim Brotherhood's President Morsi taken a much more careful and gradual approach like Erdogan. Instead, the Muslim Brotherhood showed their cards far too early, and it is difficult to say what the next step for them will be.
Neo-Ottomanism, the main force of Political Islam
In the meantime, Erdogan's "Neo-Ottomanism" is more and more becoming a force to be reckoned with. With Egypt's future still uncertain, the other Arab governments dominated by Political Islam will continue to look to Erdogan as their mentor.
Erdogan and his ministers are increasingly looking back to the old Ottoman Empire as their inspiration. The secular symbols of Turkey are, one by one, subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) being discarded, and being replaced by an increasing affection for the "old ways". Erdogan himself had implied years ago that he was keen to restore some of the old symbolism. The replacing of Gezi park with an Ottoman-era barracks is but one small sign of that.
The expansion of Turkey's ties and alliances with the Middle East, and the rapid frosting of relations with the West is a statement of Neo-Ottoman geopolitics put into practice: to restore Turkey's relations, power and influence so that it is comparable with that before the First World War, when the Turks controlled much of the Middle East. "Neo-Ottomanism" is therefore a kind of localised neo-colonialism; except that while Western Neo-Colonialism is resisted by its erstwhile "colonies", the contemporary Middle East is largely embracing Neo-Ottomanism, as a means to an end: as the coming-together into an informal alliance of a restored "Ottoman Muslim" power that protects the conjoined interests of Political Islam in the Middle East.
"Neo-Ottomanism" as the main agent of Political Islam in the Middle East might therefore be more similar to the politics of Fascism than one might think. Neo-Ottomanism might not threaten the political integrity of Europe, but it does put the Arab Spring in a new light. The Syrian Civil War can be seen as a battle between a (failed) "secular" regime and a militant force of Political Islam. In this way, Neo-Ottomanism has the same kind of stake in the Syrian Civil War as the Fascists had in the Spanish Civil War.
The battle for Syria has become a symbol of the wider future of the Middle east: "Neo Ottoman" Political Islam (and supported by the Gulf States), or Iranian-backed satellite? Iraq is another toy for the larger forces nearby to play with, squeezed between Turkey's Neo-Ottomanism and Iran's Shia theocracy in one direction, and with the Syrian Civil War boiling over in another.
Europe in the 1930s was an ideological battleground between the forces of Fascism and liberal democracy; but also behind that was the threat of Communism, which tempted liberals to indulge Fascism as the "lesser of two evils", and then allowed Fascists to claim "democratic" support.
The Middle East in the 2010s faces a similar ideological battle between the forces of Political Islam, and the varied regimes of the "old order" still allied to the West; but also behind that is the threat of Iran. Thus in the Middle East of the 2010s, Iran has become the bogeyman that Communism was to Europe in the 1930s. While in the Europe in the 1930s it was Fascism versus Communism, in the Middle East in the 2010s it is "Sunni" Muslim Political Islam versus "Shia" Islam Iranian-style theocracy; ideological battles in Europe are instead sectarian battles for control in the Middle East, with liberals used as pawns in the same manner.
Thus the initial indulgence of Political Islam by Westernised liberal Arabs compares with European liberals' indulgence of Fascism in the 1930s.
Following this comparative logic, as Mussolini pre-dated Hitler's rise to power by a decade, so Erdogan pre-dated the rise of Political Islam in the Middle East (i.e. The Arab Spring) by a decade. Hitler learned from Mussolini's example. However, Morsi failed to learn the proper lessons from Erdogan's careful, incremental approach to applying Political Islam (and, fatally, never had the support of the army), leaving Erdogan as the unopposed ideological leader of Political Islam in the Middle East, with no near-comparable rival in the scene.
Thus, in an ironic way, Erdogan may actually benefit politically from Morsi's fall from power: giving greater ammunition to the "victim complex" trait that Political Islam shares with Fascism, sowing further unrest in Egypt, and giving Erdogan further scapegoats to use for his own advantage. The fact that Erdogan's AKP supporters have so clearly allied themselves with Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood tells you how closely-linked the two are.
The rise of Political Islam back in the 'thirties was originally intended to restore the old Islamic caliphate, which had resided for five centuries in Istanbul. Day by day, the Islamist Turkish government distances itself from the West, and opens its arms more and more to the East. Turkey is building a hospital in Gaza, in partnership with the Hamas government (and doubtless to Israel's fury); Turkey is looking to buy a missile system from China instead of the West, that would render it incompatible with NATO.
To what end are these symbolic moves?
The anti-Semitism coming from Erdogan's ministers is more likely opportunism rather than paranoia, but whatever its reason, its purpose is to cement the divisions in Turkish society, between an "us" and "them"; leaving it unspoken but obvious that "they" are not "real" Turks.
And in the cynical numbers game that Erdogan and his ministers are playing, they hold all the trump cards. And if "they" don't like it, it goes without saying, "they" know where the door pointing West is: in the other direction, the East beckons with open arms.
Over the last few weeks, the language has become more aggressive and paranoid: the latest salvo from the AKP is the accusation from the Deputy Prime Minister is that the "Jewish diaspora" is also involved with foreign conspirators in a plot to destroy Turkey's economy.
As well as blaming the foreign media (and even threatening legal action against CNN), Erdogan himself has rounded on his those Turkish journalists who have reported on the protests, using the example of Selen Girit, a Turkish BBC correspondent, who he called a "traitor". The purpose of such appallingly-aggressive language is clear - to threaten all domestic journalists into not daring to criticise the government. So while critical foreign media are called "conspirators" who want to destabilise Turkey, critical native journalists are called traitors.
As well as the war on the media, there is a clear trend of victimising foreigners. In the last two weeks, a British teenager was attacked until unconsciousness by Turkish men in the tourist resort of Marmaris because he was seen kissing a Turkish girl in a bar.
Apart from such vigilante attacks, the state itself has deported two foreign women for being involved in the protests, even if only incidentally: a Swedish tourist was deported for being seen to chant along with anti-government slogans; while a French foreign student was deported for being in a DSP (Democratic Left Party) building during mass disturbances with the police.
The message here is clear: for foreigners to mind their own business, and not interfere with Erdogan's "national will".
I wrote last year about Kaiser Wilhelm's plan to ally himself with the Ottomans in order to raise a "jihad" against the British and the Russians. Linked to this is the rise of anti-Semitism, which was first exported from Imperial Russia (using the propaganda tract "The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion"), to post-war Germany, where it quickly got the attention of would-be Nazis. Anti-Semitism then spread to the Middle East, the Nazis (and other Fascist movements) taking up Kaiser Wilhelm's old cause of raising trouble with the West through the force of Islam, by forming loose alliances.
The gradual rise of Political Islam
Like Fascism, the rise of Political Islam in the Middle East in the inter-war period grew through a perceived "victim complex", and a desire to purge society of impurity.
Most of the Middle East had been under the power of the Ottoman Turks for centuries, but hadn't had power in their own right. Similarly, Egypt had been under the power of the British Empire. Organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood grew in the 1930s, as Fascism was becoming a force to be reckoned with in Europe. They had spread across much of the Middle East by the Second World War. Both political creeds were viciously anti-Semitic and against what they saw as Western immorality; their answer was pure authoritarianism and tight social control. Both creeds blamed the Jews for much of their plight.
Political Islam was kept under close watch by the various regimes around the Middle East, so as Fascism was defeated in Europe, Political Islam and organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood were not allowed to spread. Meanwhile, the Jewish state of Israel was created out of the ashes of old Palestine, adding further insult to injury. The Cold War gave another reason for the West to financially prop up secular dictators in the Middle East, in competition with the Soviet Union. Neither "The Great Satan" or the atheist Soviet Union wanted anything to do with Political Islam. While Nasser of Egypt was the nearest thing that the "Arab Street" had to an "anti-Semitic idol" in the Cold War, it all ended in humiliation in the Six Day War of 1967. The re-match, the Yom Kippur War six years later, fared little better, leaving Arabs feeling humiliated and impotent.
That idea received a shock with the Islamic Revolution in Iran, making the West realise its complacency in thinking that Political Islam could be forever kept down on a diet of bullying and political marginalisation. Yet, there was still no other method that anyone could think of. While the Arabs remained divided by borders drawn up after the First World War, the strongest Arab state in the Middle East was Saudi Arabia, followed by Egypt. As one was a hardline Islamic state, and the other a secular dictatorship, the chance of the two ever getting their act together seemed remote in the extreme. It would take a revolution to bring Political Islam to the fore, and no expert thought that was conceivable.
Turkey, another Muslim secular state, provided the answer. As I've described before, Recep Tayyip Erdogan was able to "break the mould" in Turkish politics in 2002, becoming the first party of Political Islam to gain a foothold in a Middle Eastern country.
Erdogan's path to power, and his manner of maintaining it, became an exemplar to other would-be parties of Political Islam across the Middle East. For ten years, he had successfully deceived the West into thinking he was a true democrat, gradually consolidating his grip on power through a smokescreen of "democratic reforms" on a path to eventual EU membership - destroying the influence of the military, judiciary, opposing parties and the media in turn. At the same time, he has taken baby-step after baby-step towards an Islamic state in Turkey, so that by the time of the Arab Spring, Erdogan was the benchmark that Arabs could use to bring Political Islam to power across the Middle East.
In Egypt, Political Islam's biggest "success story" in the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood has overstepped its mark. Unlike in Turkey, Egypt's military had not been yet "neutralised". let alone filled with government sympathisers, so it would have been much wiser had the Muslim Brotherhood's President Morsi taken a much more careful and gradual approach like Erdogan. Instead, the Muslim Brotherhood showed their cards far too early, and it is difficult to say what the next step for them will be.
Neo-Ottomanism, the main force of Political Islam
In the meantime, Erdogan's "Neo-Ottomanism" is more and more becoming a force to be reckoned with. With Egypt's future still uncertain, the other Arab governments dominated by Political Islam will continue to look to Erdogan as their mentor.
Erdogan and his ministers are increasingly looking back to the old Ottoman Empire as their inspiration. The secular symbols of Turkey are, one by one, subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) being discarded, and being replaced by an increasing affection for the "old ways". Erdogan himself had implied years ago that he was keen to restore some of the old symbolism. The replacing of Gezi park with an Ottoman-era barracks is but one small sign of that.
The expansion of Turkey's ties and alliances with the Middle East, and the rapid frosting of relations with the West is a statement of Neo-Ottoman geopolitics put into practice: to restore Turkey's relations, power and influence so that it is comparable with that before the First World War, when the Turks controlled much of the Middle East. "Neo-Ottomanism" is therefore a kind of localised neo-colonialism; except that while Western Neo-Colonialism is resisted by its erstwhile "colonies", the contemporary Middle East is largely embracing Neo-Ottomanism, as a means to an end: as the coming-together into an informal alliance of a restored "Ottoman Muslim" power that protects the conjoined interests of Political Islam in the Middle East.
"Neo-Ottomanism" as the main agent of Political Islam in the Middle East might therefore be more similar to the politics of Fascism than one might think. Neo-Ottomanism might not threaten the political integrity of Europe, but it does put the Arab Spring in a new light. The Syrian Civil War can be seen as a battle between a (failed) "secular" regime and a militant force of Political Islam. In this way, Neo-Ottomanism has the same kind of stake in the Syrian Civil War as the Fascists had in the Spanish Civil War.
The battle for Syria has become a symbol of the wider future of the Middle east: "Neo Ottoman" Political Islam (and supported by the Gulf States), or Iranian-backed satellite? Iraq is another toy for the larger forces nearby to play with, squeezed between Turkey's Neo-Ottomanism and Iran's Shia theocracy in one direction, and with the Syrian Civil War boiling over in another.
Europe in the 1930s was an ideological battleground between the forces of Fascism and liberal democracy; but also behind that was the threat of Communism, which tempted liberals to indulge Fascism as the "lesser of two evils", and then allowed Fascists to claim "democratic" support.
The Middle East in the 2010s faces a similar ideological battle between the forces of Political Islam, and the varied regimes of the "old order" still allied to the West; but also behind that is the threat of Iran. Thus in the Middle East of the 2010s, Iran has become the bogeyman that Communism was to Europe in the 1930s. While in the Europe in the 1930s it was Fascism versus Communism, in the Middle East in the 2010s it is "Sunni" Muslim Political Islam versus "Shia" Islam Iranian-style theocracy; ideological battles in Europe are instead sectarian battles for control in the Middle East, with liberals used as pawns in the same manner.
Thus the initial indulgence of Political Islam by Westernised liberal Arabs compares with European liberals' indulgence of Fascism in the 1930s.
Following this comparative logic, as Mussolini pre-dated Hitler's rise to power by a decade, so Erdogan pre-dated the rise of Political Islam in the Middle East (i.e. The Arab Spring) by a decade. Hitler learned from Mussolini's example. However, Morsi failed to learn the proper lessons from Erdogan's careful, incremental approach to applying Political Islam (and, fatally, never had the support of the army), leaving Erdogan as the unopposed ideological leader of Political Islam in the Middle East, with no near-comparable rival in the scene.
Thus, in an ironic way, Erdogan may actually benefit politically from Morsi's fall from power: giving greater ammunition to the "victim complex" trait that Political Islam shares with Fascism, sowing further unrest in Egypt, and giving Erdogan further scapegoats to use for his own advantage. The fact that Erdogan's AKP supporters have so clearly allied themselves with Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood tells you how closely-linked the two are.
The rise of Political Islam back in the 'thirties was originally intended to restore the old Islamic caliphate, which had resided for five centuries in Istanbul. Day by day, the Islamist Turkish government distances itself from the West, and opens its arms more and more to the East. Turkey is building a hospital in Gaza, in partnership with the Hamas government (and doubtless to Israel's fury); Turkey is looking to buy a missile system from China instead of the West, that would render it incompatible with NATO.
To what end are these symbolic moves?
The anti-Semitism coming from Erdogan's ministers is more likely opportunism rather than paranoia, but whatever its reason, its purpose is to cement the divisions in Turkish society, between an "us" and "them"; leaving it unspoken but obvious that "they" are not "real" Turks.
And in the cynical numbers game that Erdogan and his ministers are playing, they hold all the trump cards. And if "they" don't like it, it goes without saying, "they" know where the door pointing West is: in the other direction, the East beckons with open arms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)