Nietzsche on Conservatism
1
The following is section no. 43 of “Skirmishes of an Untimely Man” from Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Twilight of the Idols.
Analysts of fascism have
often distinguished between "generic fascism" which contains all of the elements
of fascism assumed to be common to all types of fascism and particular variants of
fascism such as especially Italian fascism and Nazism but also fascist or near
fascist movements in countries such as Spain, Portugal and Romania. All fascists
adopt a pessimistic view of human nature and the core elements of generic
fascism include extreme nationalism, social Darwinism, authoritarianism and
elitism. It is then argued that Italian Fascists gave relatively more
theoretical emphasis to the totalitarian state and corporatist economic
institutions than did German National Socialists but that in practice Nazi
Germany could be described as more totalitarian in practice than fascist Italy.
Racism and anti-Semitism are central to Nazism but not to Italian fascism.
Fascist ideologies, movements
and regimes have also been defined partly by what they are against. Despite the
claims by fascist ideologists to have constructed a synthesis of nationalism and
socialism and the existence of some mildly socialist elements within fascist
ideology, it is argued that fascism is essentially anti-liberal, anti-socialist
and anti-conservative: these are the so-called "fascist negations."
Both conservatives
and fascists adopt an essentially pessimistic view of human nature which is
seen as in several respects flawed, imperfect and corruptible. However although
conservatives would agree that to some extent human beings may be seen as
driven not by reason but by basic emotions, impulses and self interest they
would not give as much emphasis as do fascists to the irrational influences on
human behaviour. Racism and anti-Semitism have been widespread for centuries and
some conservatives in the past have been influenced by these prejudices but they
have never reached the intensities seen in fascist parties and the vast majority
of modern conservatives nowadays repudiate strongly racism and anti-Semitism as
has recently been shown by the opposition of the UK Conservative Party to the
activities of the BNP. Modern conservatives do express some concerns about
levels of immigration but not for racist or anti-Semitic reasons
Conservatives and fascists
would agree also that differences in genetic endowments generate natural
differences in talents and abilities which mean that some individuals are far
more suited than others for political leadership. This leads fascists to
support rule by a political elite which would be unrestricted by the
constitutional principles of liberal democracy whereas modern conservatives are
strong supporters of liberal democracy believing that even if members of a
particular government could be regarded as a political elite their powers should
be restricted via effective parliamentary controls over the executive, the
independence of the judiciary, regular free elections contested by competing
political parties, independent mass media and wide ranging civil liberties. In
the course of the C20th conservatives have come to accept that elite government
will be acceptable to the people only if it is chosen on a relatively democratic
and meritocratic basis. However modern conservatives are no great supporters of
popular sovereignty believing that political decisions should be taken by
government elites best able to take such decisions effectively. In actual
practice socialist and liberal leader seem to share this view.
There have been important
divisions among conservatives as to the desirable extent and direction of
state activity. Some Conservatives from Disraeli onwards have argued that
laissez faire capitalism left to its own devices would generate excessive
economic inequalities which in Disraeli’s terms would divide the UK into “Two
Nations” of rich and poor and that it was therefore desirable that the scope of
government activity should be extended to encompass legislation to improve
working conditions, housing and public health so as to create a more harmonious
“One Nation” society. Other conservatives influenced by New Right ideas have accepted liberal-based
beliefs in laissez faire and the market mechanism as well as a strong belief in
the inevitability and desirability of economic inequality and the sanctity of
private property. This set of beliefs combined with criticisms of excessively
wasteful state bureaucracy and the evils of socialism have encouraged them to
support limited government. It is very clear that both One Nation conservatives
and New Right Conservatives would not support "totalitarian theories of the
state espoused especially by the ideologists of Italian Fascism.
Both conservative and
fascist ideologies have traditionally been strongly nationalistic. In the
ideology of one nation conservatism as expounded from Disraeli onwards it was
argued that it was essential to promote national unity as a means of ensuring
national progress which would help Britain to expand the scope of its empire
which through the importation of cheap raw materials would improve average
living standards including the living standards of the poor. Social reforms
should also be introduced to prove to the working classes that conservatives
would govern in the interests of all of the people thereby gradually defecting
the working class from their support for socialism which damagingly emphasised
class conflict at the expense of national unity. In practice European
imperialist expansion in the late C19th was often achieved by military force and
these sentiments were subsequently wholly accepted by the Nazis and to a lesser
extent by the Italian Fascists who now adopted the objectives of redrawing the
map of Europe and Russia to their advantage.
It is to be noted that these
objectives were accepted both by Italian conservative nationalists such as
Corradini and by German conservative nationalists who sympathised with Hitler's
militaristic expansionary foreign policy aims even if they would not have
pursued them with the same single-minded brutality.
However modern conservatives have retreated far from ideas of imperialistic
nationalism meaning that their foreign policy objectives are distinctly
different from both earlier conservative and fascist foreign policy objectives.
Conservatives argue that
possession of private property is an important defence against excessive
state power in that without private property individuals can work only for the
state and live, be educated and treated only in state houses, schools and
hospitals respectively. In societies with large private sectors one can seek
private provision if one is dissatisfied with state provision and competition
within the private sector is assumed to keep up private sector standards.
]Socialists ,of course, argue that private provision may result only in wasteful
competition and that only the relatively rich can afford it.]
Insofar as conservatives
believe in economic inequality this implies also that individuals should have
the right to accumulate private property which in turn means that conservatives
are supporters of capitalist private enterprise although as we have seen they
may also support a not insignificant economic role for the state. Conservatives
support economic theories which suggest that the private market mechanism can
allocate resources more flexibly and efficiently than can systems of state
economic planning and they emphasise also that whereas the market allocates
resources in accordance with consumer preferences, in state planning systems it
is the planners who determine what shall be produced so that production does not
necessarily meet the needs and wants of consumers. This, the conservatives
argue, results in all the inefficiencies associated with growing state
bureaucracies as indicated in the economic inefficiency of UK nationalised
industries and, on a grander scale, in the inability of former “Communist”
countries such as the former USSR to generate good living standards for their
citizens.
Fascist ideology originally
contained elements of mild socialism. It was argued that unregulated laissez
faire did lead to the excessive exploitation of the workers; that a powerful
fascist state would work to ensure that both employers and employees would work
more for the national interest than for their own narrow economic self
-interest; and that the state would also introduce social reforms designed to
improve the relative living standards of the workers. Fascists did not envisage
mass nationalisation but they did envisage greater overall state control of the
economy partly via the use of corporatist decision -making in the case of
Italian Fascism. In practice the Nazis did not nationalise state industries but
they did regulate them tightly to promote rapid rearmament while in Italy
corporatist decision making, when it operated at all, operated primarily in the
interests of the employers rather than the employees so that we may conclude
that, broadly speaking, the Italian Fascist and German Nazi governments did not
challenge the existence of private property although the Nazis certainly imposed
important restrictions on the composition of national output prioritising "guns
rather than butter."
The conservative
perspective on human nature leads them also to be supporters of economic
inequality as measured by statistics on the distribution of income and
wealth. They argue in this respect that individual genetic differences in talent
and ability must inevitably result in some economic inequality unless
governments restrict the freedom of the more talented individuals to turn these
talents to their own economic advantage. Economic equality, therefore, is
inconsistent with individual freedom. Conservatives argue further that economic
inequality is essential to generate the financial incentives for individuals to
remain in further and higher education, to work hard and to invest their savings
in productive enterprises all of which will result in faster economic growth and
rising average living standards and that even the poorest will benefit
indirectly from economic inequality as some of the benefits of faster economic
growth “trickle down” to them.
According to conservatives
economic inequality works with the grain of self-interested human nature to
produce rising living standards for all whereas the socialist argument that
individuals need only limited financial incentives because they can be
encouraged to work for the good of the community operates against the grain of
human nature and is therefore unrealistic and counterproductive. Although
conservatives oppose economic equality modern conservatives at least support
equality of opportunity or meritocracy. Meritocracy implies that individuals
can gain well paid, high status occupations only on the basis of their own
merits and not on the basis of social class advantage and/or nepotism and
meritocracy is clearly essential if to secure the economic efficiency necessary
to generate rising living standards for all.
Once again there are
disputes between conservatives and socialists as to the relationships between
economic inequality and equality of opportunity. Whereas conservatives argue
that the imposition by governments of economic equality denies equality of
opportunity to the talented and that equality of opportunity is possible in an
economically unequal society, socialists argue that only government intervention
to increase economic equality can secure equality of opportunity for the poorest
members of society. Although fascist ideology did sometimes show traces of
socialism fascist governments in practice did little or nothing to reduce
economic inequality showing themselves in practice to be closer to conservatism
than to socialism.
Conservatives have been
renowned for their respects for tradition and gradual change. They have
often been drawn to so-called organic analogies between the nature of the human
body and the nature of societies as a whole and these analogies contain
important linkages to conservative analyses of human nature, individualism,
traditionalism, rationalism, social order and social change. In organic
analogies just as the human body consists of inter-related limbs and organs
whose development occurs in accordance with biological laws and whose functions
are co-ordinated to enable the whole body to function effectively so too
societies are seen as organic wholes in which individuals and existing social
institutions are interconnected and each contribute to the stability of
societies as a whole.
Long standing social
institutions such as families, churches, schools and political systems must have
continued to exist because they fulfil some useful functions. Therefore given
the belief of some conservatives in the limits of human rationality and their
inability to devise effective blueprints for wide ranging social change radical
social changes to existing social institutions should be avoided since they may
interfere in unexpected ways with the stability of society as a whole. For
conservative supporters of the organic society social change should be gradual
and involve only minor adaptation of existing social institutions in accordance
with changes in social circumstances.
The conservative political
elites which in several respects helped Hitler and Mussolini to power did so
because they hoped thereby to halt the growth of radical socialism and to
restore social order gradually creating the social conditions necessary for them
to ditch fascism and return to power themselves after which the politics of
conservative gradualism based on the political rule of traditional conservative
elites and dominance of private enterprise could be re-established.
needs one more para and a
conclusion
No comments:
Post a Comment