Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future

Ideocratic bias

The otherwise brilliant John Dunn commits an obscene contradiction by unwittingly equating ?nationalism? with ?socialism? through their common -ismness. Is there any conclusion to be drawn from the vituperation he reserves for the former, when ?socialism? has in the past advocated (and continues to do so uninterruptedly), the advancement of more misery than its black shirted sibling has ever achieved in its comparatively brief paroxysms of fury during the twentieth century - when his superb apercu ?cunning of reason? is ?socialism?s? own winged Hermes, the messenger of that very base cunning? Why fall into such diatribic hyperbole? Is it to pre-exorcise the horror of being labled with the traitorous ?anti-socialist? tag?; of being dismissed from amongst the Internationalists? Intellectual Industria?; of a denial of the old revolutionary school tie, the Che Guevara beret?; of suffering a David Horrowitz rejection?; of being denied burial in the cemetery of the Socialists? Church?; of exorcising Bukarin?s terror of irrelevance, non-existence? Why is he horrified at the extent of ?nationalism?s? prevalence - and not ?socialism?s?? No one can escape from ?socialism? - it morphs to envelope all as a giant amoeba devours its perceived enemies, all innocents but for the insane arbitrariness of a Stalin?s Sunday afternoon quota-game. At least Hitler wrapped his insanity in the Dunn?s cunning of reason. One cannot escape from the borders of ?socialism? ? there are no borders. But one can from ?nationalism?s?. Why is he enamoured of ?Nazis?, and not the adherents of national socialism? [Hayek, FA (1944, 1994) The Road to Serfdom,183-98.] Why no reference to another Darkness at Noon that may yet again present itself from the bowls of the insanity of new party political socialist Napoleons? And solely refer to Marx and socialism in barely restrained admiration, when its practical effects have lead to many more deaths and misery in order of multiples than ?nationalism? has ever ?caused?? Or are these horrors solely the desserts of ?nationalism?? Why only reference to Germanic excesses [WPT 69] and not a word on the nationalistic excess ? far worse ? by Stalin? The ?Soviet Union? is referred to as having ?less difficulty with its nationalist question than the United Kingdom? [WPT 63] so reference to Stalin?s Russian excesses in this department may be said also to be fair game. Why the biased selectivity? But just as one has responded in surprise at the hyperbole, Dunn slips on the academic?s cap and the ?on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand? exposition relaunches brilliantly. Much complete ?historical context? is usefully proffered. Indeed the comparative?s armoury is soon evident with an actual ?on-the-one-hand, but on-the-other-hand? by 58. He has vented in white-hot fury his ?particularist?s? [WPT 58] disgust at ?nationalism? within a licentious three page Saturnalia. For a few pages thereafter he offers the reader a don?s analysis of that view. In sum, he again achieves what the intellectual in ideocratic garb almost always sets out to do; to deck out in fine livery the Liberal, anti-conservative line that proffers an initial meaning by the ?particuralist? - one that eschews the don?s whimsically affected, apparently disinterested, but actually viciously interested collegial view on the chosen subject. But by 61-2 he again entertains with a burning to get out diatribe in which he so conflates ?nationalism? with ?state? that he spends much the later pages justifying this injudicious marriage - to set up yet another analysis of this particular excess, as if to balance out his overactive bile. This form of presentation, if it has any use at all, should be limited to ex tempore lectures, and not presented in book form which it may be presumed will be studied. To Explain how a Liberal particularist on the subject goes about its business, Dunn invites us in at 60, fn10. He lets slip that he does not ?excuse the present and notably odious tribal hierarchy in that country (South Africa)?. He has committed the ?historicist?s? sin, but the ideocracy demands he deny it or at least not admit the sin and switch to the party line as unobtrusively and quickly as possible. This allows for the particularly quaint English practice - to let slip an idiosyncratic bias here and there for the ears of the clubbable man, you understand. ?Meant nothing bad about it. Some of them are my friends, you know.? He would, of course, have been unaware (he may not now be unaware), that a prominent African sociologist has accused the European/American academic sociology establishment (its ideocracy) of having created ?tribe?. [Dunn asks what ?nation? is, but has no difficulty assuming what ?tribe? is. It needs no airing that he does not share with his readers what that assumption entails.] It strikes one as irredeemably inconsistent to be aware - as one must be taken to be aware given the academic professorial position held, and the wide literature on the subject - of the insane evil of Stalin as head of the greatest exponent of socialism at the time, and yet ignore almost all direct reference and criticism of that first most extensive application of the -ism of one?s choice, deflecting from that absence and limiting all negative reference of social singlerightanswer ideologies to an equally reprehensible, but less deleterious - at least in the number of human deaths by ten to twenty times - singlerightanswer social dystopia, i.e. German National Socialism, shortened to the highly pejorative ?Nazi? - usually the identification of death camp commanders - the Russian name equivalent in the gulag camps never getting an airing - and not the name for the ideology, whereas the ideological name for the Socialist experiment in the USSR almost always is displayed prominently and in a positive light ? Marxism, as his anodyne ?on-the-one-hand, but ?on-the-other-hand? whitewash of the failings of marxism as evidenced in the USSR demonstrate. Thus the nearest Dunn inadequately manages to get to the crimes of Stalin is at 81-2. At times one is almost seduced by what at first blush appears serious criticism, but soon one realises that it is merely couched in such a form. WPT 82-3. This is the ideocratic wages of -isms - evidence of either bias or intellectual laziness, or, of course, worse. Socialism?s faith militant - in the form best known amongst the knowledgeable flock: it?s intellectual ideocracy, that is steadily (re-)creeping in stature into party political ideocracy after its apparent demise a mere decade after Dunn?s work.