You know, some part of me is kind of sympathetic to this issue of credentialing. (Should say up front here that I am professionally in academia and acknowledge the perspectival warping that probably produces.) Reading, say, some of the books by n+1 authors, like Nikhil Saval's "Cubed," I remember thinking, what the fuck is this? It's not by a trained historian, so there's no substantive research, and it's not by a political or cultural theorist, so there's no real scope of argument--it, and others like it, just read like diligent papers by "A" students. It really feels like there's just this deskilling of intellectual labor, even in contexts where there is genuine debate and disagreement, like say on the Catholic right. I mean, Ross Douthat, Michael Brendan Doherty--not exactly Karl Barth and Paul Tillich. (Can't think of any Catholic intelletuals of the top of my head here.)
Academia, of course, has the opposite problem, in that extreme specialization, the focus on questions of methodology and argument, and just a deficiency in writing ability means that everything that comes out of there is parochial and boring. So I think the stuff I gravitate toward tends to be general audience academic stuff, like, say in the New Left Review. Hence the all-around excitement, I think, about those Perry Anderson mega-articles a two years back?
On the other other hand, here I am, following your Twitter and reading your Substack with great enthusiasm. It seems to me that social media just instantiates a very different audience-public intellectual relationship that previously existed, where individual writers become little public spheres onto themselves. There's this parasocial effect I guess I really like here, in that you (and the people who comment here) remind me of my friends from high school and college, and the conversation is kind of a formalized version of the informal conversations we used to have--more of a friend sharing stuff with you to think about, than a public intellectual taking stances, though, of course, it's also that, since you have a real readership, and will soon have a book. The problem here seems to be on Hamid's side, for puffing himself up and not recognizing the more intangible, informal nature of the interaction?
Not that it matters, I’m just a rando, but, I feel, man—it is difficult to deal with haughty people who care, or feign to care, more about decorum than substance, especially after being outrageous or denigrating themselves in what they think is ‘genteel’ enough a way. That you’re still substantive even while salty is kinda great!
Still beating him down but with thorough insight. Would it be worth the effort to explore the material interests of the Sorelian Left, contrarian intellectual class et al? [S is one of many] I speculate some provoke as such, signaling their merit with the status quo ante or should a fascist regime deeply entrench itself, their acceptability. A bit like Heidegger but without having to accept a Rectorship.
Always nice to see Lakatos referenced. Agree on Stanley. Entirely derivative and shapelessly liberal. I'm sceptical of the "laundry list" approach at the best of times. But there's a world of difference between Paxton's list and Stanley's. Paxton's is original and well-grounded in historical research. Stanley's is derivative and tailor-made to fit a liberal agenda of the hour
"...Jason Stanley, who I also have grown to dislike personally for the wildly inverse proportion of his ego to his contributions...his tiresome posturing and self-aggrandizement...."
Okay, I can see why you might arrive at that judgement on the basis of his writings and his public persona.
But if you ever deal with him in a small group setting where you can really get to see his human side...
It's so much worse. So much ego. So self-obsessed. So willing to talk over anyone else's experience or insights.
Physicists who study gravitational attraction are currently trying to get him into a lab, in order to figure out how something so ponderous can defy the normal laws and be repulsive instead.
Want you to know I unsubscribed to SH's crack publication (which is essentially a self-hosted Substack, so his dismissal of Substacker is very funny) and became a paid subscriber to you because of this. So your recent writing is a very good use of your time.
I know this is not the main thread of your post, but is there a relatively clear cut argument to say "Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China were not fascist." ?
I don't have any wish to condone so called "horseshoe theory" nor entertain the notion that "tHe NaZiS wErE sOcIaLiSts" (in fact, multiple incidents of people being able to make this claim and not be forever laughed out of public opinion bothers me so much that I believe it somewhat radicalized my politics).
However, especially in the case of Stalinist Russia, couldn't one make the case that the original revolutionary impulse decayed into something that could be considered fascism? With the permanent mobilization, the charismatic leader, etc, etc, etc.? Honest question.
Haven't read Stanley but the speed with which philosophers who built their careers on technical issues in core analytic philosophy have turned of late to social and political philosophy, assuming a typically analytic separation between concrete subject matter and some vague notion of skills or techniques, where the latter (surprise!) are what's important -- the speed has been notable and embarrassing, as have the results. This is the price mainstream anglophone philosophy now pays for pretending to stand on the campus culture war sidelines in the 70s-90s.
When I was in college fifty years ago, I was taught by some excellent historians that there was no single meaning to "fascist" or "fascism". They eschewed it as a useful descriptive term. Even though Mussolini self-described and Hitler adopted it, there were substantial differences in their regimes in fact. That seems to have gone by the board. The Soviet Union was, and Communist China is, a totalitarian state. Please read Hannah Arendt on totalitarianism. I believe that the confusion arises from the fact that totalitarian states can and do invoke nationalism to preserve their monopoly on power and suppress dissent. See, e.g. the USSR's use of the Great Patriotic War (during the war to the present) and the CCP's full-on claim to exclusively represent China's ancient traditions and historic regional domination. Trump and his brown-shorts can, I think, be described as fascist because they are violent (or potentially violent) white "Christian" nationalists. That is their appeal.
"Hamid is fond of citing a 1944 Orwell quote that goes:
....
But the full quote is more instructive:"
Yeah, whenever my intellectual honesty has been called into question, I counter with a bit of selective quotation. That'll show I'm a scholar of integrity and rigor!
You know, some part of me is kind of sympathetic to this issue of credentialing. (Should say up front here that I am professionally in academia and acknowledge the perspectival warping that probably produces.) Reading, say, some of the books by n+1 authors, like Nikhil Saval's "Cubed," I remember thinking, what the fuck is this? It's not by a trained historian, so there's no substantive research, and it's not by a political or cultural theorist, so there's no real scope of argument--it, and others like it, just read like diligent papers by "A" students. It really feels like there's just this deskilling of intellectual labor, even in contexts where there is genuine debate and disagreement, like say on the Catholic right. I mean, Ross Douthat, Michael Brendan Doherty--not exactly Karl Barth and Paul Tillich. (Can't think of any Catholic intelletuals of the top of my head here.)
Academia, of course, has the opposite problem, in that extreme specialization, the focus on questions of methodology and argument, and just a deficiency in writing ability means that everything that comes out of there is parochial and boring. So I think the stuff I gravitate toward tends to be general audience academic stuff, like, say in the New Left Review. Hence the all-around excitement, I think, about those Perry Anderson mega-articles a two years back?
On the other other hand, here I am, following your Twitter and reading your Substack with great enthusiasm. It seems to me that social media just instantiates a very different audience-public intellectual relationship that previously existed, where individual writers become little public spheres onto themselves. There's this parasocial effect I guess I really like here, in that you (and the people who comment here) remind me of my friends from high school and college, and the conversation is kind of a formalized version of the informal conversations we used to have--more of a friend sharing stuff with you to think about, than a public intellectual taking stances, though, of course, it's also that, since you have a real readership, and will soon have a book. The problem here seems to be on Hamid's side, for puffing himself up and not recognizing the more intangible, informal nature of the interaction?
Not that it matters, I’m just a rando, but, I feel, man—it is difficult to deal with haughty people who care, or feign to care, more about decorum than substance, especially after being outrageous or denigrating themselves in what they think is ‘genteel’ enough a way. That you’re still substantive even while salty is kinda great!
Still beating him down but with thorough insight. Would it be worth the effort to explore the material interests of the Sorelian Left, contrarian intellectual class et al? [S is one of many] I speculate some provoke as such, signaling their merit with the status quo ante or should a fascist regime deeply entrench itself, their acceptability. A bit like Heidegger but without having to accept a Rectorship.
Always nice to see Lakatos referenced. Agree on Stanley. Entirely derivative and shapelessly liberal. I'm sceptical of the "laundry list" approach at the best of times. But there's a world of difference between Paxton's list and Stanley's. Paxton's is original and well-grounded in historical research. Stanley's is derivative and tailor-made to fit a liberal agenda of the hour
"...Jason Stanley, who I also have grown to dislike personally for the wildly inverse proportion of his ego to his contributions...his tiresome posturing and self-aggrandizement...."
Okay, I can see why you might arrive at that judgement on the basis of his writings and his public persona.
But if you ever deal with him in a small group setting where you can really get to see his human side...
It's so much worse. So much ego. So self-obsessed. So willing to talk over anyone else's experience or insights.
Physicists who study gravitational attraction are currently trying to get him into a lab, in order to figure out how something so ponderous can defy the normal laws and be repulsive instead.
Want you to know I unsubscribed to SH's crack publication (which is essentially a self-hosted Substack, so his dismissal of Substacker is very funny) and became a paid subscriber to you because of this. So your recent writing is a very good use of your time.
I know this is not the main thread of your post, but is there a relatively clear cut argument to say "Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China were not fascist." ?
I don't have any wish to condone so called "horseshoe theory" nor entertain the notion that "tHe NaZiS wErE sOcIaLiSts" (in fact, multiple incidents of people being able to make this claim and not be forever laughed out of public opinion bothers me so much that I believe it somewhat radicalized my politics).
However, especially in the case of Stalinist Russia, couldn't one make the case that the original revolutionary impulse decayed into something that could be considered fascism? With the permanent mobilization, the charismatic leader, etc, etc, etc.? Honest question.
Haven't read Stanley but the speed with which philosophers who built their careers on technical issues in core analytic philosophy have turned of late to social and political philosophy, assuming a typically analytic separation between concrete subject matter and some vague notion of skills or techniques, where the latter (surprise!) are what's important -- the speed has been notable and embarrassing, as have the results. This is the price mainstream anglophone philosophy now pays for pretending to stand on the campus culture war sidelines in the 70s-90s.
When I was in college fifty years ago, I was taught by some excellent historians that there was no single meaning to "fascist" or "fascism". They eschewed it as a useful descriptive term. Even though Mussolini self-described and Hitler adopted it, there were substantial differences in their regimes in fact. That seems to have gone by the board. The Soviet Union was, and Communist China is, a totalitarian state. Please read Hannah Arendt on totalitarianism. I believe that the confusion arises from the fact that totalitarian states can and do invoke nationalism to preserve their monopoly on power and suppress dissent. See, e.g. the USSR's use of the Great Patriotic War (during the war to the present) and the CCP's full-on claim to exclusively represent China's ancient traditions and historic regional domination. Trump and his brown-shorts can, I think, be described as fascist because they are violent (or potentially violent) white "Christian" nationalists. That is their appeal.
"Hamid is fond of citing a 1944 Orwell quote that goes:
....
But the full quote is more instructive:"
Yeah, whenever my intellectual honesty has been called into question, I counter with a bit of selective quotation. That'll show I'm a scholar of integrity and rigor!