by ProfDave, ©2021
(Sep. 30, 2021) — “There’s no class warfare in Marxism!” Excuse me? I have read Karl Marx and that is the main point of his dialectic. I suppose you will be telling me there is no racism in Mein Kampf, too? What do they teach in history class? But wait! Maybe it has nothing to do with history.
One of my Facebook friendships is a dialogue of the deaf. My friend and I have been basically exchanging slogans. Since I made my amends to the left, I have attempted to move deeper, but while we are using a common language, we are using different dictionaries. Last week I realized that my need to straighten out his history was not communicating at all. We were both using words like ‘Fascist’ and ‘Marxist’ as cudgels, political cuss words, offending each other without communicating. Post-modernists are commonly accused of doing that, but I have no excuse.
Calling something Marxist in conservative circles might be an argument against it, but in progressive circles it has no traction at all. At the same time, calling something Fascist is an argument in liberal circles, but among conservatives it does nothing but raise hackles. Neither has much to do with Karl Marx or the history of the 20’s and 30’s.
What do these epithets really mean? If we knew what the other side meant, would we be able to clarify and defend ourselves? Could we have a real dialogue and stop yelling at each other? Might we discover that, while we disagree on policy issues, at least we want to avoid the same things?
For example, conservatives use “Marxism” as an accusation, a weapon word, against the left – anything vaguely socialist. True, some radicals on that side openly profess allegiance to Marxism – though they, too, may be using a different dictionary. What do we mean by using that word? For conservatives, the word ‘Marxism’ expresses our fears of cynical destructiveness, conspiracy, mob rule, bloody revolution (exploiting class, racial, and social envy and hatred), totalitarianism (state control of all aspects of life), dictatorship, censorship, domination by Red China, confiscation of private property, persecution of religion, and ruthless central bureaucratic control – leading to social and economic stagnation and mediocrity. The more paranoid among us see these things already beginning. In history we see the examples of the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela. Rightly or wrongly, our left friends deny all of the above. What do “they” mean by Marxism? There may be a handful of real Marxist-Leninists out there, but even they might protest that our fears are unfounded. How can they reassure us that our fears will not be realized?
Likewise, progressives on the left use ‘Fascism’ ad nauseum, seemingly tarring all Trump supporters and Republicans in general with that brush. Would someone please tell me what they mean by using it? Here I have to guess, because I have yet to get an answer. Do they really mean any more than resistance to the progressive, Green, collectivist, and LGBT agendas? To that much conservatives might well plead guilty. Or do they mean ultranationalism, paramilitary political violence and intimidation, racism and antisemitism and psychotic demagoguery? Those have a historic reference, but conservatives share those fears. Tragically there is just as much antisemitism on the left as the right these days, thanks to the Palestinian conflict. Do progressives mean a return to the “bad old days” of the 1950’s – perhaps a reversal of Roe v Wade and Gay marriage, for example? Rightly or wrongly conservatives call the post-war years the “good old days” for their patriotism, prosperity, home ownership, strong traditional families, media decency and prayer in neighborhood schools. Is the world of “Leave it to Beaver” all wrong? Again, there may be real Fascists out there, but I doubt it. Militias and white supremacists have no clear idea what real Fascism is and are as delusional about their chances as progressives are about them. Only in clashes with leftist mobs do they gain credibility. How can we reassure progressives that their fears will not be realized?
As an old historian who has seen it all, it seems to me that defining our terms might provide a way forward down the canyon of our differences before the nation tumbles into the abyss. We need to understand and define out fears, rather than using them as cudgels. Some of them we have in common. Totalitarianism is both Marxist and Fascist, for example, and none of us wants a dictator. The “Corporative State,” combining labor and management under state leadership was invented by Mussolini but is really just a combination of state capitalism and state socialism – the bureaucratic state we see today. None of us want to see a new Soviet Union or Third Reich set up in the USA. None of us want our individual autonomy nationalized (coordinated, Hitler called it). We all like the federal government to do some things for us, but not everything. To maintain our democracy we need to tolerate a loyal opposition – our two party system. We need to dialogue without screaming and get along without cancelling each other. The majority of Democrats and the majority of Republicans have a common interest in limiting the influence and destructive capability of the real Marxist-Leninists and the real Neo-Nazis.
Once we tone down the invective, perhaps we can have a civil dialogue about our differences. Some of them are merely tactical and procedural differences, each trying to gain advantage over the other. Others are interpretations of the law. There are differences in emphasis which can be compromised – small government vs big government, federal vs state, cosmopolitan vs America first, and open borders vs closed borders. We can draw a line down the middle. There are differences in worldview which may be accommodated or tolerated. And finally, there are non-negotiable principles on which we must agree to disagree until we can convince each other. None of this can be done by force without destroying our liberties. We cannot cancel each other without destroying our free society. Do we really want to win that badly?
David W. Heughins (“ProfDave”) is Adjunct Professor of History at Nazarene Bible College. He holds a BA from Eastern Nazarene College and a PhD in history from the University of Minnesota. He is the author of Holiness in 12 Steps (2020). He is a Vietnam veteran and is retired, living with his daughter and three grandchildren in Connecticut.