YDS: The Clare Spark Blog

December 22, 2016

“Angry white male” explanation for the Trump victory

Bill Track50

Bill Track50

Since November 9, 2016, it has become apparent that social democrats (the Hillary Clinton supporters) are going into permanent campaign mode, playing the same tune over and over: The “angry white males” were responsible for their crushing defeat in the electoral college.

There were not weaknesses in the policies espoused by the Democratic Party since the Kennedy administration—for instance, affirmative action as undoing the sin of prior exclusion of minorities from power. Nor was the imposition of political correctness, so the ‘liberal’ argument goes, an inappropriate response to discrimination. Indeed, many Republicans and conservatives mistakenly blame critical theorists and other alleged leftists, for foisting PC on an unwitting public, and not seeing that the Democratic move was a symptom of a failed strategy to vanquish the red specter. (See https://clarespark.com/2013/07/31/the-nefarious-cultural-marxists/.)

But what are the “angry white males” supposed to be upset and vindictive about? Obviously, they are supposed to be resisting “fairness,” “inclusion” and “diversity.” As is their (inherited?) wont, the GOP leads the pack in promoting racism and sexism: Underneath their (imputed) rage, their “fascism” stands revealed, just as it did in the late 1930s as liberals were united in blaming opponents of the New Deal for creating “mob society” in Hannah Arendt’s famous phrase.

(Don’t look for economic interest as a motive impelling such finger-pointing: such an imperative would be too much like a focus on class antagonism, a method of analysis that social democrats have done their best to denounce as ‘reductive,’ unlike their more holistic, compassionate approach.)

What social democrats (i.e., the ‘Left’ these days) refuse to face is their record of statist bungling in the interest of stability (i.e., group-think). White males– angry or not– as a cohesive category simply do not exist, except in the imaginations of the Party aiming, it claims, to halt the slide toward disintegration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_white_male.

Cartoon by Monte Wolverton

Cartoon by Monte Wolverton




August 19, 2016

What _____ “Community”?

Filed under: Uncategorized — clarelspark @ 7:20 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

communityThis blog is about 1. What the establishment means by “community”; and 2. How the New Left generation erased “class” in favor of “race” (a deviation from early 1930s’ Communist ideology and practice).

All the trendy movements since the late 1960s have collaborated in the New Left project: feminism (i.e.,“the woman’s movement” privileges gender above all, hence the tears rolling down the cheeks of many Democrats as Hillary Clinton clinched the nomination); Greens; rock ‘n roll (primitivism); and all the cultural nationalisms approved by “ethnic” minorities.

For instance, here I mentioned that the black masses/underclass have been left behind by their upwardly mobile families and friends (https://clarespark.com/2016/07/09/understanding-black-lives-matter/), but I didn’t mention the erasure of class consciousness in the so-called “black community”  (https://clarespark.com/2014/11/27/what-black-community/). Such a dramatic change from “class” to “race” didn’t happen overnight; rather it happened as multiculturalism’s took hold in the late 1960s under the tutelage of such as Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan and the white liberal establishment (and all social democrats), aided and abetted by the aging [Stalinist] generation suffering from a failure of nerve, supporting such nonsense as “white supremacy.”

Such a move blended well with New Left anti-war movements and student strikes. But their predecessors in the radical movement of the 1930s, would have condemned organicism (the blessed union of Man and Nature) and “race” as bogus terms, rejected by liberal and radical anthropologists alike as excrescences of far right nationalism (i.e., fascism). Above all, the few true red radicals among them focused on the lack of “community” in any sense, for there was a structural class conflict, impeding any community of interests.

Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal class collaborationist programs were termed “social fascism” until the Popular Front against fascism was instituted after 1935. The Reds partook of the post-Enlightenment innovation of “dialectical materialism” by which they meant that the enlightened working class would take the vanguard of social change; history was inexorably moving toward working class rule. The “mechanical materialism” of the big bad bourgeoisie was a ruse, but their technology would provide for all in the new dispensation.

Neither political party in the US will talk about this history. The “far Left” is now occupied almost solely by social democrats, arguably the most proto-fascist movement in world history.

“Welcome to the future” as the television commercial promises. “Race” and “ethnicity” have been rehabilitated.

Differ two.com. image

Differ two.com. image

July 26, 2014

Darren Mulloy and the John Birch Society

mulloyJBS.jpgThe author is quoted in the Vanderbilt University Press handout for reviewers, quoting the author: “I don’t see the John Birch Society as some part of the ‘lunatic fringe’ of American society, but as a part of the wider culture of the Cold War and as a bridge to the contemporary conservatism of the Tea Party.” VUP: “The John Birch Society played a significant role in the development of the conservative movement as we know it in the U.S.” This statement ignores that the book states unequivocally that it covers the period 1958-1968, with no materials justifying this p.r. guide to potential reviewers, who, presumably will take this book to establish the continuity claimed between the conspiratorial, demonized, and fantastical Welch and his followers and the current disparate foes to “big government.”

D. J. Mulloy is an associate professor in a Canadian university, where he is a member of the history department.A historian is peer-reviewed by the originality of his research and the novelty of the primary sources used. Here are the “primary sources” listed by Professor Mulloy [not one of these is considered to be a primary source comparable to private papers, letters, and diaries, though these must exist in the papers of chief actors in the postwar period from Eisenhower on through Nixon and Ford, not to speak of Buckley and other right-wing characters described in the book: CS ]:
1. John Birch Society periodicals, pamphlets, and speeches
2. Website for JBS.
3. Books (written by eight authors, including Robert W. Welch, Jr.)
4. Newspapers and periodicals
5. Official documents and reports

This is an astounding publication to have emanated from an academic press (Vanderbilt UP, 2014). There are zero examples of either Welch diaries, his correspondence, or the diaries and private correspondence of the chief actors in the melodrama limned by Mulloy. One can only conclude that VUP published a hatchet job directed against all Republicans and conservatives. This despite the evidence supplied by the Venona documents, and the material unearthed by scholars allowed to examine the briefly opened Soviet archives, that did provide proof of Soviet sabotage and spying, as reported by established and more cautious scholars such as John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, Mark Kramer, Ron Radosh, Alexander Vassiliev, and Allen Weinstein.

Moreover, where extremely controversial events are concerned, Mulloy will often cite one book, rather than a variety of interpretations, including those that disagree with whatever claim he makes at the moment in his mad dash through the postwar period.

Chief among his targets is those who claim that the US military budget was justified in light of the fighting strength of the Soviet Union. This is one of the contentions of those Stalinists who accuse [fascist] Americans of starting the Cold War, and of exaggerating the Soviet military threat. Indeed, one prominent New Leftist alerted me to recently declassified CIA documents ‘proving’ that the US was guilty as charged by the Left. But when I looked at these documents, I saw no such materials, but rather, in reviewing the documents treating the Psychological Strategy Board of the 1950s (under the Truman and Eisenhower administrations), I found only disagreement and confusion in high government circles regarding the best approach to dealing with Soviet expansionism. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Strategy_Board, and my detailed article “Who’s Crazy Now? An Essay Dedicated to Christopher Hill,” UCLA Historical Journal Vol. 10, 1990.)

Another of Mulloy’s professional lapses is his failure to distinguish between class interest and his imprecisely rendered notion of “conspiracy.” Nor is there even an entry in his index for the Popular Front, which might have explained why it was difficult for “extremist” conservatives such as Welch to distinguish between communists and social democrats, a problem that persists today as more and more professed revolutionary socialists deploy the argot of the counter-revolutionary social democrats. (Eric Hobsbawm is one example: see https://clarespark.com/2013/10/28/hobsbawm-israel-the-totalitarian-idea/.)

Moreover, what Mulloy never explains to the reader is this: Marx was never a conspiracy theorist; this was a theoretical point that the JBS didn’t understand, nor probably William F. Buckley either. Socialist revolution would not come from a small group of fanatical terrorists barking out orders from Moscow, but would result from working class revolt, owing to their increasing immiseration under capitalism (resulting from declining rates of profit—a prediction that failed to materialize as Marx had predicted). (Bureaucratic centralism and statism were “Marxist-Leninist” innovations.)

I suppose Mulloy is yet another social democrat who projects his elitism upon a social movement that it does not resemble at all. The populists described in Mulloy’s book were first and foremost suspicious of statist elites, and still are (https://clarespark.com/2009/09/19/populism-progressivism-and-corporatist-liberalism-in-the-nation-1919/ which is indeed elitist).

Working class agency/the labor movement is entirely invisible in Mulloy’s mural of postwar Amerikkka, the land of the easily duped.


April 6, 2014

Standing up to bullying social democrats (2)




Yesterday (4-5-14) I posted a popular blog. https://clarespark.com/2014/04/05/standing-up-to-bullying-social-democrats/. There is no way of knowing why so many viewers came to it: was it the enticing title, the provocative illustration of a plump lady’s posterior flanked by fat cats, or the revelation that Ernest Bevin’s “socialism” was directed against finance capital (the Jews)? (The latter motivation could have fed into neo-Nazi fantasies that “the Jews” are to blame for the plight of the working class, everywhere.)

This is my advice in part two of this series, for I speak out of long experience with Democrats and leftists (who now seem to be inseparable, see https://clarespark.com/2012/07/19/communist-ideas-go-mainstream/):

Unless you have an independent income and/or are in a family that is exceptionally tolerant and libertarian, it is best to hold your tongue. Do not expose yourself to more strife and rejection. SDs, in their own minds, have, since the mid-nineteenth century, identified with an updated, paternalistic aristocracy (the Disraelian type of Christian Socialist). Witness the educated audience for Downton Abbey.

No amount of facts or rational arguments will persuade SDs to stop their 1. state-worship; or 2. “anti-Zionism.” In their compassionate hearts, they “know” they are correct. They believe in the statistics that other progressives have compiled, even though such statistics render them ciphers, lacking individuality and an appropriately curious, questing mind. As members of volunteer groups or the “healing” professions, they are invested in group identities (“we are the good people”) and such soothing perks as academic tenure. Moreover, the SDs believe that they are standing up to bullies of the Neanderthal Right!


Conclusion: it should be obvious that SDs must be defeated at the polling place—venues that may be fraudulent. So it should be the primary task of libertarian believers in capitalism, equal opportunity, equality before the law for rich and poor alike, and limited government, to make their votes count. (For statistics and other issues see http://tinyurl.com/p3k3quh.)

Save your breath, unless you are talking to your pre-adolescent children or advocating for charter schools with curricula that encourage critical thought: no amount of pop cultural appropriation, father-led families, or overt attempts at persuasion will lure the dependent population away from the welfare state.

We are running out of time.

January 13, 2010

Three moderates: Judt, Posner, Ware

Caroline War shows labor friendly hands to U.S. Senate

[From Evan R. Goldstein, “The Trials of Tony Judt,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan.6, 2010]  “In Judt’s mind… his “greatest achievement” is his book Postwar. In 1945, Europe lay in ruins. Some 36.5 million of its inhabitants died between 1939 and 1945. Most of those who survived were starving or without shelter; Germany had lost 40 percent of its homes, Britain 30 percent, France 20 percent. Yet in the next 60 years, Judt writes, Europe had improbably become “a paragon of the international virtues,” and its social model—free or nearly free medical care, early retirement, robust social and public services—stood as “an exemplar for all to emulate.”

Postwar tells the story of how that happened. The book is ambitiously organized to combine the whole of the postwar history of Europe—Western and Eastern—into a single conceptual framework. The result is not a work of dispassionate scholarship. In the preface, Judt describes his approach as an “avowedly personal interpretation” of the recent European past. “In a word that has acquired undeservedly pejorative connotations,” he writes, Postwar is “opinionated.” Judt’s thesis, developed through 900 pages, is this: Europe remade itself by forgetting its past. “The first postwar Europe was built upon deliberate mis-memory—upon forgetting as a way of life.” And there was much to forget: collaboration, genocide, extreme deprivation.” [end Goldstein quote]

    What Judt has forgotten, if Goldstein’s report is accurate,  is the invention of social democracy by 19th and early 20th century organic conservatives, fearful of the looming political power of  the industrialized masses, and later, of the Soviet Union. But then that has been the tactic of moderates since the second world war: to imagine the Western social democracies as the political and moral antitheses of fascists and Nazis, rather than as countries fighting the same radical specters, and often with similar statist strategies.

   Moreover, Judt revels in his subjectivity, for he is an activist scholar and a prominent public intellectual. In his book Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline (Harvard UP, 2001), jurist and professor of law Richard Posner, cited Tony Judt’s writings frequently. Posner railed against academic public intellectuals who were straying far afield from their academic specialties, either as authors of crossover books appealing to an educated public and specialists, or as expert witnesses at various trials: Posner wants to expose and punish them for over-reaching. Although a bit fanatical himself, Posner was especially hard on extremists of any sort, for instance abolitionists, or those 1930s-type literary critics (yawn) who made moral judgments on works of art, rather than hewing to the New Critic, “art for art’s sake” line. Posner, a pragmatist, doesn’t like fanatics of any stripe, finding “political truth” in compromise. (Oddly, Posner did not object to the domination of leftists in departments of the humanities in the major universities, though he is a strong believer in balance.)

   Physician, heal thyself. Posner is not trained in intellectual history, and obviously did not research the ideology of the New Critics, who were also “moderates” of a sort, and who reformed the humanities curriculum in the late 1930s and early 1940s. I wrote about them as protofascists/ organic conservatives here: https://clarespark.com/2009/11/22/on-literariness-and-the-ethical-state/, and before that in Hunting Captain Ahab: Psychological Warfare and the Melville Revival. Some of these New Critics were contributors to the pro-fascist American Review, but what matters to our argument that moderates are not above suspicion, is the New Critic notion of the exemplary poem: it should hold opposing qualities in tension, and embody paradox, ambiguity, and irony. Such matters as the personal biography of the author or his ideology were off limits to the literary critic or historian. Might the author be a racist and antisemite? Not to worry. Such poetic perfection should be a model for the improved society, including its students, mired in moralism (a.k.a. New England style rationalistic, individualistic Puritanism) and romantic adolescent defiance (qualities linked by Talcott Parsons in his article on the sources of Nazism). New Critics aped the Southern Agrarian strategy with their allergy to modernism and educated black folk.  Of course, Melville (who once declared “I write as I please” inside one of his texts–in blackface?–) had exposed such neoclassical perfectionism as crazy-making, so, either deliberately or unconsciously, included a certain incoherence to much of his writing.  I suppose such insight into “America’s greatest writer” was outside Posner’s skill set, though he couldn’t have seen that, being emotionally wedded to his own omniscience,  and a confidence in his versatility that I almost envy.

   Turn now to our illustrated moderate, historian Caroline Farrar Ware, devoted progressive reformer and wife of New Deal economist Gardiner Means. I have quoted Dr. Ware’s adjurations on behalf of interdisciplinarity and community cohesion in prior blogs and in http://hnn.us/articles/4533.html. , but here is her most significant pronouncement for our purposes: “Writing on behalf of the American Historical Association in 1939, Carolyn Ware advised that the cultural historian should not ‘rest upon the prescription of the scientific historians to let the facts speak and to be guided wherever the material may lead.’” Dr. Ware welcomed the culturalist turn in history, evacuating the radical Enlightenment and science in one fell swoop. There were no more autonomous individuals: they were relics of the bad old days of laissez-faire. In the new progressive dispensation, the [selfish, narcissistic] individual disappeared, transmuted into “the individual-in-society,” and no longer a threat to order.* Look at her extended (mannish, soiled?**) hands, she is obviously not an aristocratic libertine or fashion plate: rather she will give a hand and a lift to labor.   [This illustration is from Harvard Magazine, May-June 2009, and accompanies historian Anne Firor Scott’s article, “Caroline Farrar Ware: Brief life of a multifaceted public citizen: 1899-1990,” 38-39]

*This is my reading of her introduction to her book The Cultural Approach to History  (1940), a book promoted by the American Historical Association. I don’t think she was resolving the nature-nurture controversy by noting that environmental influences constantly interact with inherited characteristics, but rather replacing empirical or scientific history with the new cultural anthropology, a discipline that such political scientists or anthropologists as Ralph Bunche and Melville Herskovits deplored as lacking economic savvy. 

** Her left hand looks gloved, while the right hand is bare, but the body language is priceless. The resemblance to Eleanor Roosevelt is perhaps a coincidence.

November 24, 2009

Perceptions of the enemy

Cindy Sherman, Untitled (1990)


I have reformatted this blog and added material: see https://clarespark.com/2009/12/16/perceptions-of-the-enemy-the-left-looks-at-the-right-and-vice-versa/. Ignore this version.


Some mistaken identities. I don’t think that some “Right-wing” partisans understand Leftists, often conflating revolutionary socialists, anarchists, and [anticommunist] social democrats. And yet media pundits constantly refer to “the Left” as if it still existed in its historic 19th and 20th century red-hot formulations and in the same numbers. What is lost is the memory of moderate conservatives or conservative reformers like FDR (descendants of New Dealers, now called “the Left”) and their practices of lopping off those who were to their left, that is, the structural reformers, unless there was a “Popular Front” against looming internal and external fascism, as did exist from 1935 until the Hitler-Stalin Pact in 1939.  At what point did these “moderate conservatives” as they called themselves  metamorphose into “the Left” as sole defenders of the little guy? I am guessing around 1919. More on that another time, or see chapter two of my book on the Melville revival. 

From long experience with leftists and the entire socialist-communist-social democratic traditions, however, despite their sharp differences in goals and tactics, I can generalize about them as follows:  All factions of “the Left” believe themselves to be the true bearers of morality and that conservatives are heartless fascist* murderers. By contrast, as progressives they see themselves as sacrificing their own personalities, economic interests, and happiness for “the public good” or “suffering humanity”; to be one of them, you must “stand with the oppressed,” even if that means helping Hamas. In other words, they seek to uplift those whom “the Right” (e.g. Israel) knowingly and viciously victimizes. And unless they follow Kant and Rosa Luxemberg, they may accomplish this grand goal “by any means necessary.” (e.g. see Trey Ellis in HuffPo, 12-16: “The Obama administration needs to course-correct immediately. He needs to make a series of bold, muscular, ruthlessly political moves immediately (reconciliation anyone?) to put the fear of god into all those puny adversaries out there that have been pushing him around with impunity.”)  So they are the true humanitarians in their own eyes and the antitheses of the “fascists” they valiantly oppose.

 Also, do not minimize both continuities and ruptures between the factions of what is loosely called “the Left.” Anyone who has studied or had contact with revolutionary socialists knows about their history of sectarianism. It makes Protestantism look demure and pure. They have killed or sacrificed  each other without hesitation: just look at what the Stalinists did to Trotskyists and Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War, or the notorious Stalin purges of his former comrades, not to speak of other communists with Jewish backgrounds, a process that ceased only with his death in 1953. But mixing them in with social democrats is absurd, for the motley Marxist-Leninists inhabit mostly such outposts as Pacifica Radio, a few journals, and increasingly-criticized departments of comparative literature and other humanities.
 But most crucially, “right-wing social democrats” (as some Leftists call them, distinguishing them from the Second International left-wing social democrats favoring incremental reforms) have an entirely different lineage from the Marxist-Leninists.  As I have shown in other blogs, European aristocrats, following Bismarck and before that, reformers in Great Britain, “christianized” the new [“jewified”] industrial society with social insurance that we now call the welfare state. (See my blog The Enigmatic Face of Philosemitism https://clarespark.com/2009/10/29/the-enigmatic-face-of-philosemitism/.) 
As for those artists who once were reds in the 1930s, many of them shifted to populism/progressivism when they saw that the Communist Party wanted to control their work. Budd Schulberg and Elia Kazan are two examples. I was particularly disturbed by their film, A Face in the Crowd (1957), that pinned fascism on the media-worshipping mass audience that had elevated the loutish “Lonesome Rhodes,” whose meteoric career had been aided and abetted by a female sentimental liberal–a stand-in for the moral mother, perhaps the figure who had driven them into the arms of the 1930s authoritarian Left. In other words, though Schulberg and Kazan  professed themselves to be progressives, they replicated the aristocratic explanation for fascism as “the revolt of the masses,” bamboozled by the new mass media (radio and television), and shadowed by anti-progressive old money, particularly as embodied in immoral and hidebound Southern politicians.
    Here are some quotes from the screenplay: Lonesome Rhodes (the demagogue who has risen from the People):  “You made me, Marcia.  You made me, Marcia, I owe it all to you.” [Marcia, the arty, sentimental Liberal]:”I know it.”  Marcia, explicitly linked to “marshes” (i.e., quagmires) and ever the guilty mother, finally aware of the duplicity of her monstrous birth, opens the microphone to expose Lonesome’s secret contempt for the TV audience (the common folk) who adore him and who would turn the State over to his fascist backers. [Lonesome Rhodes is ruined:]  “It was the sound man.  I’ll get that dirty stinking little mechanical genius [who did this to me].”  [Marcia:] “It was me.”  The Muckraker’s last words rectify the sentiment of Lonesome’s banner (“There’s nothing so trustworthy as the ordinary mind of the ordinary man.”)  [Muckraking journalist to Marcia:] “You were taken in.  But we get wise to him [the Lonesome/Hitler type]; that’s our strength.”  Mama’s boy, a.k.a. Lonesome’s last words wailed from a balcony (and the night) as Marcia and muckraker depart:  “Marcia, don’t leave me…come back.” That Marcia destroyed her monstrous birth is missing from Nicholas Beck’s “bio-bibliography” of Schulberg, where Lonesome is supposed to be the agent of his own destruction (p.59, fn4, quoting Donald Chase).
Stand-ins for the controlling parent? Conservatives must read their antagonists without caricatures and without mistaking their objectives.  Revolutionary socialists and social democrats are not simply “elitists” who think they know what is best for others (though many think that “the Right” is not only monolithic, but selfish, square, dumb, and fanatical, unlike, say, those who run National Public Radio, while many on the Right return the favor, lumping all leftists and social democrats together as elitist conspirators/fascists). It is more complicated than that, though reds and “liberals” do favor various degrees of statism to rectify social inequities and achieve what all call “social justice.” In the end, we could make the public discourse on politics more rational by specifying competing theories of the good society:
Libertarians find wealth creation through free markets a good thing and, in the case of the better educated, believe that the state should protect this process through sound monetary policy. The social democratic Left (a.k.a. the moderate men) sees the state as planning rationally to compensate for what they believe to be a weak and unstable system: capitalism. Nothing is so scary as great gaps between rich and poor, for that portends another bloody French Revolution. If that means that everyone is relatively poor in the quasi-socialist utopia, such asceticism is better than the suffering of the victims du jour while the ever libertine rich feast and thoughtlessly indulge their animal appetites for glitter and other luxuries, hence “bourgeoisifying,” i.e., corrupting, the tastes and desires of the working-class. And some conservatives, angry combatants in the culture wars, even as they invoke the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, seek to impose their own morality on those who don’t share the same “values,” (e.g. pro-life, anti-gay marriage, opposition to stem-cell research using frozen embryos, creationism or intelligent design, the superiority of a rural way of life), thus nullifying the separation of Church and State that has served us so well. But I caution my readers who remain somewhere on “the Left” that conservatives are not evil or demented when they find such developments as the hyper-sexualization of women and children to be dangerous and destructive, or wonder, as I do, how it happened that sadomasochism became acceptable, even fashionable. And remember that Lord Maynard Keynes thought that his measures to relieve a depression were not to be permanently institutionalized. 
POPULISM. According to Rasmussen Reports, 55% of the American public is populist, i.e., they believe that government and big business are in cahoots, which makes sense if you understand that small business and big business are in conflict. Interestingly given our generally anticommunist polity, this is the analysis of the Marxist-Leninist Left: the state is an executive committee of the big bourgeoisie (as opposed to the state being an independent institution with its own interests, see sociologist Michael Mann’s books). Populism is a subject I have written about extensively on this website. It claims to speak for “the people” against “the special interests” or “Wall Street” or “the military-industrial complex” or some other dread agglomeration such as “the Jews” or “white males.”As such, it speaks to class resentments and is irrational. Whether of the Left or of the Right, populism is not good for analyzing concrete institutions and their policies. Moreover, as indicated above, it does not distinguish between fractions of those who make decisions for the rest of us, each of which has different and possibly clashing interests with others in the so-called “ruling class.” Populists are incapable of writing accurate histories, but seem content to follow their leaders. And their leaders, insofar as they resort to demagoguery, don’t really care about the folks.
*Contending defintions of “fascism.” By “fascists” the social democratic ‘left’ means a society practicing “laissez-faire” economics, militarism, hypernationalism (“national chauvinism”), the manipulation of public opinion through heavy-handed propaganda, and imperialism/racism. This absolves social democracy of continuities or comparisons with statist fascism and Nazism, not to speak of their zealousness in attacking “rugged individualism,” the American unpardonable sin that is imagined to persist beyond the pioneer period. By contrast, revolutionary socialists generally refer to the rule of finance capital or monopoly capital or “late capitalism” when they write of fascism and Nazism. Social democrats, true to their Platonic Guardian-philosopher-king heritage, tend to see fascism as the revolt of the masses, as noted above. Much psychiatry/psychoanalysis seeks to manage these “id-forces” and may be more powerful than we think in influencing the medical culture of postwar America. For more on the practice of psychoanalysis at a distance, see https://clarespark.com/2009/12/13/klara-hitlers-son-and-jewish-blood/. The importance of the father as leader and as commander of a tight militarized family unit with high morale cannot be overemphasized, a point forcefully made in the last section of the blog just cited, where I analyze the politics of The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.