by The Other Žižek @fashyzizek
(1/5) Was having a chat with a friend about the status of the modern political theories in their relation to Christianity and—though I still think liberalism, communism & fascism are best understood as Christian heresies—my friend did point out something important.
(2/5) Liberalism is truer to Christianity in that it proceeds from a similar ‘starting point’. Both communism & fascism, owing to certain philosophical developments on the continent (chiefly the insights of Hegel), proceed from a different starting point.
(3/5) The typology could be set down as follows:
Christianity—the Individual & his moral powers
Liberalism—the Individual & his cognitive powers
Communism—Society as historical & material totality
Fascism—Society as historical & spiritual totality
(4/5) Obviously, the individual’s moral & cognitive powers are deeply implicated in one another bc of the history of European philosophy; Christian theology & liberal philosophy are therefore deeply intertwined. This bears itself out if you know a bit of either.
(5/5) More interestingly, communism & fascism, in seeing society through a totalising historical lens, are much closer to each other than to their theological progenitor (Christianity) or first competitor (liberalism).
(6/5) Not sure if any philosopher or historian has teased this out before but if anyone has recommendations, I’m eager to hear them.
You are on the right track, and many others have made the same observation before, it’s just that their thought projects are suppressed post war because they were almost universally (and justifiably) anti-semitic, anti-muslim, anti-everyone and pro european superiority.
Now, I think you’re approach is common for those who read literature and philosophy rather than law, economics, and science. And that is that you aren’t pursuing the underlying military, strategic, demographic, economic causes that drive change, which drives demand for ideas, which thinkers supply, to meet market demand. It’s not like they invent these ideas and drive the world, it’s that the market for ideas generates demand for intellectual work products.
Secondly, and something you might find very interesting, is that I study what you might call the forensics of communication, persuasion, argument, and law. And I compare them to a baseline of truthful speech (which is something else I work on). So it’s pretty easy to ‘trace’ the development of the technology of persuasion (and lying for that matter)
—“I still think liberalism, communism & fascism are best understood as Christian heresies”—
Sort of close but consider going back before christianity to understand what heresies judaism and christianity were caused by.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam make use of the same means of persuasion, and argument. They produce rebellions against the Aristocratic (Land Holding) civilizations, under the claim of oppression or victimization (instead of domestication, evolution, and modernization) using false promise, baiting people into hazard (decline, harm), using Supernaturalism for the false promise, sophism (pilpul) to argument, and undermining (critique) via propaganda and
Communism, Socialism, Postmodernism, Neoconservatism and Libertarianism were repetitions of the semitic destruction of all the great civilizations of the ancient world, by judaism to undermine, christianity to weaken (demilitarize) and islam to destroy thru raiding – this time using pseudoscience and sophism, and economic and political false promise, rather than supernaturalism and after death false promise.
—“Both communism & fascism, owing to certain philosophical developments on the continent (chiefly the insights of Hegel), proceed from a different starting point.”—
So you are, like most, making an empathic interpretation without starting with the source of decidability in that empathy.
National Socialism (French) Fascism (Italian), and German National Socialism were reactions against the evolution of universal marxism and destruction of economies and polities in a new ‘cult’ religion by nationalism, the use of economies, and polities, as a resistance movement. That’s all they were. Nothing more.
The germans were not happy with the fall of the church, and still are not, and just as the French ‘enlightenment’ was a resistance movement against the aristocracy and British empiricism, the German ‘enlightenment’ was a desperate attempt – still ongoing – to produce a secular version of christianity as an alternative to the empirical enlightenment. Jewish thought (boasianism, freudianism, marxism, Frankfurt cultural marxism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, outright lying) are likewise reactions not only to empiricism, but especially to Darwin (and Nietzsche), as well as western rule of law, which is naturally, because of market meritocracy, eugenic. It’s this eugenics that these rebellions against sovereignty, truth, duty, reciprocity, and rule of law – seek to end.
Kant, Hegel thru Hiedegger can be best understood an attempt to create a secular theology – and failing dramatically, in competition with anglo reason law and empiricism. The French having killed off their aristocracy adopted a feminine group strategy of aggressive national socialism and moralizing. The jews attempted to create a system of undermining for each class, as always, as is their group strategy. The Russians used literature which was perhaps the most successful attempt to create a secular theology.
There is only one starting point from which all social and political strategy evolves, and that is eugenic or dysgenic. It’s whether to pursue a european aristocratic, productive, and eugenic order, a far eastern centralized bureaucratic eugenic order, or a hindu decentralized harmonious genetically hierarchical order or a semitic underclass parasitic and dysgenic order.
—“ The typology could be set down as follows:
Christianity—the Individual & his moral powers
Liberalism—the Individual & his cognitive powers
Communism—Society as historical & material totality
Fascism—Society as historical & spiritual totality”—
How would you restate those as the necessary strategies of groups given their geographic, strategic, military, demographic, class, and economic structures?
TECHNIQUE:
Theology(christianity) > Reason(Continental liberalism) > Science (Anglo Rule of Law) > Secular Theology (communism: pseudoscience, rebellion, fascism, restoration).
INSIGHT
It’s hard to explain spirituality to people in scientific terms because it deprives them of some of the utility of it. But it’s a mammalian response that is triggered by submission to the pack response, and the pace of mind that comes from doing so. In effect, it’s the feeling of running with the pack. Which is the only time we are ‘whole’ instead of individual super predators living in a continuous competition on many levels.
So it’s better to ask, what each of these innovations was trying to achieve by providing the populi with mindfulness (spiritual comfort) in knowing that they’re running with the pack so to speak, and in safety, and not left behind. And yes we can measure this response.
—“More interestingly, communism & fascism, in seeing society through a totalising historical lens, are much closer to each other than to their theological progenitor (Christianity) or first competitor (liberalism).”—
Well, that’s because judaism, Christianity and Islam were rebellions against aristocracy, meritocracy, literacy, mathematics, and reason – particularly ‘truth’. And liberalism was a rebellion against church and state using meritocracy literacy, mathematics, reason, and empiricism. And communism and it’s counter-revolution (fascism) was a rebellion against the industrial revolution and the rapid decline in the value of labor (which is continuing).
CLOSING
So, think of it that just as we have arithmetic, geometry, calculus, and physics, chemistry, biology, that we can communicate in theology, philosophy, science and describe peoples INCENTIVES as spiritual, moral, and rational. But at all times we are producing language that provides utility in the real world – just calculating it in more intuitionistic, more rational, or more empirical terms.
Anyway. Yes you are onto one of the general themes of history but you are operating in the continental model of secular theology not the anglo model of scientific incentives.
In my view the theological method has pretty much failed the west. The continental method has pretty much failed the west. And only the anglo method has succeeded, and that we are beset by superstition (islam), propaganda, pragmatism, and power (since method), and simple population pressure, and our problem is our christian tolerance.