Dilip Simeon asks-
Is the term “fascism” relevant to India?
Simian and his ilk are not relevant to India. Terms they use are meaningless.
The rhetorical use of the word has led to a semantic devaluation which is regrettable, because it can lead to a refusal to confront the reality of a fascist movement.
Academics like Simeon, can't confront, as opposed to attempt to suck the cock of, any sort of reality.
In addition to this overused rhetoric, there is another problem, the reduction of politics to the platforms or doctrines of existent political parties.
Who is this a problem for? Anybody who matters? Or just cunts like Simian? Nobody thinks politics is about what political parties say. In any case, they mostly just say the same thing. The try to sell their leaders as better at delivering what the voters want. Other than that, politics is about making deals and building coalition and dividing up spoils.
Simian, an ex-Naxalite, wants to go on repeating ad nauseam the sort of infantile rhetoric about 'Fascism' which was only cool if Commies could beat the fuck out of anyone on the streets. But Mamta's goons beat the fuck out of the CPM in Bengal. There's little point being 'antifa' if your people are whimpering in fear.
This essay is an effort to go beyond such rhetoric, to understand the origins, forms and activity of authoritarian politics in India,
India has never been ruled save in an authoritarian manner. 'Danda', the stick, is what endows one with authority. It is a different matter that those with sticks may do deals with each other.
and to examine whether they approximate to the fascist phenomenon. Historically, fascism has three aspects to it, viz., ideas, movements and regimes. I use “fascism/fascist” to refer to right-wing populist dictatorships
though Mussolini was a Socialist and Hitler headed a 'National Socialist' Party which Stalin allied with.
marked by ultra-nationalist ideologies,
Like that of Mao- or Xi's- China?
the abolition of the rule of law (or its subjugation to ideology and/or the will of a supreme leader),
Absolutist monarchies had this quality. So did 'Ba'athist' regimes or other dictatorships like that of Gaddafi. On the other hand, an authoritarian leader with a free market ideology will ensure that there is a strong rule of law at least where this relates to property and contracts and other commercial matters.
and the destruction of democratic institutions.
which are quite capable of destroying themselves in the same way that Academic institutions destroy themselves.
I also use it to refer to movements that aspire to such regimes,
like the Gandhian movement or the Nehruvian movement or every Socialist or Communist movement
and the ideologies that propel and accompany such movements.
But which are irrelevant. You can always pay some hack to shit out an 'ideology'.
In some ways the movement and its ideas count for more than the regime, because fascist activity depends upon overt or covert official support for its successes,
The British Union of Fascists was pretty active at one time. It received no 'overt or covert' official support. Moseley had been a Labour MP. Stanley Baldwin thought him a 'cad and a wrong 'un.'
and its complete or partial control of organs of state power only accentuates tendencies that were already present beforehand.
In the opinion of a cretin.
These tendencies– dynamism,
a good thing
the substitution of ideas by propaganda,
Propaganda is a word invented by the Catholic Church which is still around
the constant deployment of violence,
By the police against gangsters.
the worship of power
God is very powerful. We should worship a powerless turd instead.
and a capacity for self-destruction
which Simian is sadly not properly exercising
– can lead the state itself towards disintegration.
Only if it loses a war. Franco did just fine.
Which political interests benefit from this? Why does society allow this to happen? How are these matters related to Indian political reality? These are complex questions, admitting of no easy answers.
These are simple questions easily answered. We back Fascism over Communism because the former is less shit. Society is wrong to let death continue to happen. It should have made immortality compulsory. The Indian 'political reality' is wholly unconnected to Simian's ravings.
The notion that fascism may be properly recognised only when it seizes absolute power is dangerously misleading.
It was recognised before it ceased power because its adherents kept saying 'We're Fascists. We think Mussolini is cool'.
This is because its hold on power arises primarily from intimidation and ideological influence,
like Communism which it was created to combat. In India, it was Mamta's goons who beat the shit out of the Commies.
and is exhibited at the very first moment that organs of state tolerate or enable illegal and violent activities of fanatical cadre or crowds.
The Tzar encouraged pogroms. But he wasn't a Fascist. He was a hereditary monarch. Simian is ignorant of the subject he used to teach.
Fascism invades the public sphere with controlled mobs.
Trade Unions did that. So did Suffragettes and guys protesting the high price of petrol or whatever.
It represents an assault on politics, a replacement of democratic dialogue by violent intimidation, spectacular acclamation and automatic behaviour patterns.
Like Communism. Naxalites, of course, are all barristers who engage in polite debate with the kulaks whose heads they are cutting off.
It is a cult of struggle, violence and war;
That's Naxalism. Sensible Commies understand that they can get rich by entering Parliament or, at least, splitting the vote in select constituencies.
a perversion of democracy towards ‘directed’ and theatrical activism
this nutter's activism was pure theatrics.
in which charismatic leadership, perpetual motion and myth are essential ingredients.
That's Naxalism in a nutshell.
A further peculiarity is that fascist ideology is a mixture of archaic and modern elements -
Marx is fucking archaic. The modern element is blogging instead of blowing up police stations.
but nevertheless, one that could arise only within mass democratic politics.
Unless it doesn't at all. There were no Fascist movements in countries without a Communist threat.
This politics faces the question of legitimation in an age when the state is no longer grounded in the notion of divine right.
Why then did such politics not emerge after the English Glorious Revolution or the American or French Revolutions?
Any state that appeals to this (divine) concept of sovereignty is faced with the problem of defining the agent who ‘properly’ represents divine law.
The Monarch.
Such an agent will automatically be above and beyond the control of the demos, or people, and hence such a polity will be something less than a democracy.
Unless that is what it is- like the UK, Sweden, Denmark etc. Why did Japan have Fascism under a Divine Emperor but Democracy after he renounced his divinity? Simian knows no history whatsoever. Apparently he taught it at Ramjas College. If so, he must have been more ignorant than his students plenty of whom got into the IAS.
In the absence of divine legitimation, conservative politics can take a populist turn which seemingly embraces democracy, but perverts it by means of a mythic ideal of the People, of the Nation, seen as a monolith with a unique world mission.
Any type of politics can be populist. No Nation does not think its own People aint the cat's whiskers. Simian does not approve of this at all. Why doesn't Biden- supposedly a 'Democrat'- change the official name of his country to the United States of Shitty Cunts?
Nationalism here takes on the aspect of prayer.
No it doesn't. It takes on the aspect of kicking foreign overlords out of the country.
The more it assumes such an aspect, the more it, too, moves away from democracy.
Simian thinks democracy means saying 'We the people are totes shitty'.
Historically speaking, fascist leaders have tended to be those who are successful at deploying myths and sentiments as a means of defining the Nation.
Nope. They have been successful in beating the fuck out of Commies. In India, it is Mamta who has been best at it. Is the TMC Fascist? Simian is smart enough to keep mum on this topic otherwise Mahua Moitra might rape him and steal his dog.
Such myths are generally militarist in nature
if the country thinks it can get richer or more secure by conquest- sure.
and interpret history as a saga of victories and defeats.
as opposed to what? Braiding each other's hair?
Nationalism, then, is the principal ideological ground of fascism.
Thus the Indian National Congress was Fascist.
In an era of nation-states, fascism has emerged as an immanent tendency – not always successful – of so-called nation-building projects.
Nope. It only existed in countries where there was a clear and present danger of Commies taking over. It was better that Fascists fought Commies in the street than take the risk that the police or army would refuse orders to fire on poor people like themselves. This danger existed in Italy and Germany but not England or France or America. Nehru, it is true, did take a tough line with the Commies but was sweet to them once they gave up their dream of wading through an ocean of blood to gain power. Naxalites repeated this error when Simian was young but some Naxal off-shoots- e.g. CPI (ML)L- have done well in electoral politics. It currently has about 10 Assembly seats and 2 MPs and is part of the INDIA alliance. Meanwhile nutters like Simian just got more and more senile and useless. I believe the fellow is now a visiting professor at Ashoka. If he weren't so utterly shit, he could have made some drama about being forced to resign like Pratap Bhanu Mehta.
No comments:
Post a Comment