I have written a number of things on the convergence between
the Far Left and Right over the years, and became increasingly interested in
the topic upon entering UC Davis as a graduate student. I spent my formative,
youthful years on the Far Left, but found myself disillusioned with many of its
core beliefs and organizations towards the end of my undergraduate life. After
leaving school, I began to read many works in “the opposition,” and found that
I had a very shallow understanding of the alternative ideological precepts
active in the political realm. By the time I entered graduate life, I was
familiar enough with Right-wing thought to see the similarities between it and
my Left-wing counterparts at Davis. I won’t rehash my previous arguments on
this subject, but you can find
some of them
here.
Counter-Currents and Radix
Journal are two of the leading “traditionalist” or neo-fascist publishing
houses/blogs on the net, and reading their work the last few months has been intriguing
on a few levels. For one, it is clear that both sites recognize that the Right
has an image problem. If you drop in to sites like StormFront, or attend a
white-power hardcore show, you will likely be exposed to a crass portion of the
political community. Men with little education and intelligence, celebrating
Adolph Hitler, and engaging in tactless violence over political engagement make
up a majority of participants. It is easy to paint the Far Right as nothing
more than a handful of brutish thugs when exposed exclusively to this crowd.
Counter-Currents and Radix definitely (and defiantly) bring an academic focus
and facade to their side of the debate, one that is required if the Far-right
is to extend its reach beyond a few ruffians.
While I have no way of knowing just how extensive this
outreach has extended into radical communities, from my experiences, it appears
that the philosophical underpinnings of their arguments have found allies well
beyond a skinhead mosh-pit. A recent piece published at Counter-Currents by Eugène
Montsalvat titled “Turn Left,
New Right!” demonstrates how the Right has embraced many of the Left’s main
tropes, and provides a place for significant crossover between communities.
I will start with some praise for Montsalvat’s piece, and a
recognition that the existing Left/Right divide has always been more
complicated than it is made out to be at universities
and in the media. Many of the traditional conservative arguments (both in
Europe and America) for keeping stable, vibrant communities afloat, and the
nefarious role finance plays in breaking said community’s bonds, mirrors
arguments made by leftists intent on
preserving “indigenous, ethnic communities.” Additionally, fascist and
totalitarian movements of last century almost always contained working
–class and socialist
roots. With large portions of the working class embracing fascism prior to
the war, and their unwillingness to work towards the New Left’s stated aims in
the 60s and 70s, continues
to produce animosity and conflict between activists and workers.
With just a few alterations, this statement from Montsalvat
could easily be found in a slew of Left-wing publications (and one I found
myself finding shreds of truth within):
“First, we must recognize the real enemy. The enemy is liberalism, which is the global imperial agenda foisted upon the world by the United States and its allies. Their goal is the creation of an atomized, global consumer society, a pleasure dome police state. Our enemy is the totality of the system, the empire, consisting of those who control the government, corporate, media, and academic institutions globally.”
As Montsalvat uses liberalism to describe the American
political and economic system, one can simply change the world to “capitalism”
to better meet the tastes of his leftist brethren. Eugene makes the following
point about culture and identity that may also ring true to many
post-modernists on the Left.
“Colonialism can also
take upon a cultural form, the advocacy of Western standards, or lack of
thereof, to people who have yet to reach our stage of enlightened progress.
Western capitalism exports cultural norms of the west through media and
entertainment, the McDonaldization of the globe. In addition to market
mechanisms, cultures are often subverted by the governmental sponsorship of
anti-traditional movements, such as the CIA funding of abstract expressionist
art, or the National Endowment for Democracy’s connections with the feminist,
anti-Orthodox, punk collective Pussy Riot. Whether it uses the avant-garde or
pop schlock, the ultimate goal is the dissolution of a nation’s unique cultural
identity into the wider trends set in Hollywood.”
While he won’t win scores of friends on the Left with his support
for Orthodox Christianity and his disdain for Pussy Riot, the heart of his
argument is that a community should not be forced to conform to American
liberal, capitalist norms and practices. Diversity of political practices and
norms is a hallmark of the New Left, as it looks to defend nations and states
that do not conform to the predominant American practices.
It is Montsalvat’s attack of Capitalism that may surprise
those on the left unaccustomed to the diversity of opinion coming out of the
Right. He writes:
“Capitalism knows no
country, no faith, no ideology other than the pursuit of money. The capitalist
will gladly abandon whatever roots his corporation has to gain a competitive
advantage. Moreover, capitalism will fight any ideology that seeks to impose a
limit on the quest for profit, its goal is a world where anything is possible,
so long as it gets paid for. The traditions, identity, or beliefs of a society
that get in the way of business must be discarded. Thus capitalism calls for
open borders, fluid identities, and social liberalism.”
This may come across as blasphemy by Republicans and
American conservatives, but it would likely find support with many who consider
themselves dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. The complete embrace of free market
ideals and assumptions by American conservatives has always struck me as odd
and disingenuous. There is a cultish adherence to markets, as if all problems
in the world can be solved simply by complete economic freedom. Yet, the
community, norms and values adhered to by said conservatives are continually dismantled
and undermined by the free-market. I have found Rick Santorum to be an
interesting case in this regard. He champions the working class and traditional
families in stump speeches, but
fully embraces the myth that free, unregulated markets will preserve the
values he claims to defend.
Simply because something is profitable or popular does not
mean it has value and worthy of celebration. One has to look no further than the
knee-jerk
merriment by the Republicans in response to welfare state attempts to limit
consumption of harmful products. Since many people enjoy drinking soda and
buying cheap goods from China that remove jobs from the U.S., it must be good
right? The Market has spoken!
While I am omitting Montsalvat’s frequent references to Jews
and “Zionists” (exposing just how backwards thinking his “New Right” is), this
final point is one that requires serious consideration, as it provides a
counter to many voices on the Right in regards to immigration. He writes:
“Second, we must distinguish between the
agents of the system, and the victims of the system. It is fruitless to
criticize immigrants, who have no power, and let the corporations and
businessmen who clamor for more cheap labor, and politicians who maintain power
from their votes, escape guilt, which is wholly theirs. The Mayan farmer in
Chiapas is as much a victim of the system as the unemployed white coal miner in
Kentucky.”
One needs look no further than the current refugee crisis on
the U.S. boarder to see how this plays out. The working man and woman is often
the first to feel the heat for conditions they had little to do with. Workers
are uprooted from their communities and the bonds of kinship by an
international capitalist system that produces and desires a transient workforce
at every turn. For Republicans to relish in punishing
poor workers escaping environments directly related to the economic and
political decisions made by the U.S. government, while saying not a word about
the corporate desire for cheap labor, is treacherous and erratic. I don’t know
if this means a sea-change on the Right that may spill over into mainstream
conservative circles (rank Jew hatred surely won’t get them very far), but the boundaries
between the Far-Left and Right seem to be getting smaller by the day.