Counter Intuitive World

When Donald Trump used the phrase ‘far-left fascism’ in a speech at Mount Rushmore recently, my first instinct was to believe that he had misspoken. Left-wing fascism sounds like a contradiction in terms after all, what with fascism being normally defined as ‘far-right, authoritarian ultra-nationalism characterised by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition,’ and being principally associated with Nazi Germany, and Italy under Mussolini.

 

Having Googled it, I find it turns out that left-wing fascism is an actual thing. The term was coined by sociologists Jürgen Habermas and Irving Louis Horowitz, and identifies traits in left-wing politics more normally associated with the far-right, such as intolerance of political opponents, suppression of free speech, and a lack of respect for democratic principles.

 

Since Trump has previously railed against antifa, it’s probable that they were one of the groups he was referring to, and given the recent return to prominence of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, it’s likely he was including them in his remarks as well.

 

The resurgence of the BLM movement, concomitant with the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, has not been without controversy. To some, BLM is a Marxist, anti-police, radical organisation, hell-bent (in the USA at least) on tearing the country down. To others, it stands as support for the concept of racial justice and opposition to police brutality, which is how it started in 2013 following the shooting of black teenager Trayvon Martin, and the subsequent acquittal of the man who shot him.

 

Deliberately or misguidedly, there are many people on social media conflating the organisation – Black Lives Matter – with the principle – black lives matter.  Saying, “black lives matter” often gets met with “all lives matter” as though saying that black lives matter suggests that they matter more, which so far as I can see, no one is saying. As a rejoinder, “all lives matter” fails to acknowledge the prejudice and discrimination that many black people suffer, but there again, as even a cursory glance at social media (Twitter in particular) shows, there are plenty of people who believe that racism does not exist. Those who say “all lives matter” may think they are being inclusive, but it sounds dismissive of black lives having any value. And I’m sure that some who say it actually believe that they are in some way being discriminated against by the concept that black lives matter, that somehow it means that black people are being treated more favourably than they are.

 

There’s a perverse logic at work here that seems to say, give other people the same rights as me, and I am disadvantaged, my rights are diminished.

 

In fact, as a tweet I saw this week shows, there are people who believe that footballers taking the knee, and wearing the Black Live Matter logo on their shirts is racist in itself. That’s as obtuse as it would be if I stole your lunch every day, refused to accept that I was a thief for doing so, but accused you of being one on the day you took it back from me. But there again, complaining about racism is seen by some as worse than racism itself.

 

Amplified by social media, we now live in a world where no good deed goes unpunished, where good intentions are framed as offensive, where almost everything is counter-intuitive, and where two people can view the same event and reach diametrically opposite conclusions. You only have to look at the reactions to Prime Minister’s Questions to see proof of that.

 

Writing in The Spectator, author Anthony Horowitz explained why he has lost belief in the Conservatives: “What is the word for it when the entire country sees what is obviously true but is repeatedly told that it isn’t? And when the person telling you doesn’t really care?” That is the point we have reached, when a politician can say today that 2 + 2 = 4, but tomorrow says that 2 + 2 = 5, that 2 + 2 has never equalled 4, and they never said it did. This applies to most politicians but is amplified when it is the government doing it.

 

When found to be obfuscating, of covering up the truth, a politician’s immediate response will invariably be, “We have been perfectly clear and transparent,” despite having been anything but. Last Sunday, after Boris Johnson had said there would be no checks on goods moving between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain, Michael Gove contradicted him on TV by saying that there would be. When pressed by interviewer Andrew Marr to say which of those statements was incorrect, Gove said “Let’s not be over semantic,” which is stretching the definition of semantics beyond breaking point.

 

How did we end up in a world where everything is found so offensive? I am not a great fan of Starbucks, although 30,000 stores serving 100 million customers across 78 markets prove their popularity, but I feel sorry for them as they appear to have managed to upset everyone on all sides of the black lives matter debate. When they banned employees from wearing t-shirts with ‘black lives matter’ on them, #BoycottStarbucks started trending. When one of their baristas gave a Muslim woman a drink with ‘ISIS’ written on it, #Boycott Starbucks trended again. And when they announced that they were printing 250,000 t-shirts with ‘black lives matter’ printed on them, #BoycottStarbucks trended once more. If you ask me, a more valid reason to boycott them is that the company is highly adept at avoiding paying tax; in 2018 they paid just £4m of tax in the UK, despite making £387m worth of sales.

 

Hand in hand with the boycott is cancel culture, the practice of withdrawing support for public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Similarly, there is no-platforming - the practice of refusing someone an opportunity to make their ideas or beliefs known publicly, because you think these beliefs are dangerous or unacceptable. Both of these practices are justified on the basis that it is wrong to give legitimacy to racism or fascism, but what was that definition of fascism again, the suppression of opposition, and of free speech?

 

The way in which we have traditionally defined people, – by gender, by political opinion, by race, by sexuality, or by any other single, or simple characteristic – has become inadequate, and in many instances, offensive to some. And as people increasingly become defined by multiple adjectives, and become split into smaller and smaller groups, rather like the multiplicity of Judean activist groups in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, so the opportunities to offend – and be offended – multiply.

 

The idea that everyone is entitled to an opinion is under threat. In the name of free speech, unpopular opinions are suppressed and it is no longer enough to disagree with a point of view, it is now necessary to be mortally offended by it and to discredit and vilify the person expressing it. Somehow, we have become so easily triggered that the idea of scrolling past something with which we disagree without commenting is impossible.

 

The world is becoming increasingly counter-intuitive, increasingly intolerant, and increasingly inclined to blame victims when they have the temerity to protest that they are being discriminated against, disadvantaged, or marginalised. The mantra, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all,” much repeated by our mothers and grandmothers in years gone by seems to have gone by the board, but the world would be a much better place if we returned to it.