Scan barcode
A review by titus_hjelm
To Fight Against This Age: On Fascism and Humanism by Rob Riemen
1.0
I bought book this based on the title. Whoever calls what we’re living through today by its proper name—fascism—deserves to be read, I thought. I did not recognise the names in the back cover blurbs (except Simon Schama), so I bought it. Had I checked the sleeve flap, with blurbs from Anne Applebaum and Francis Fukuyama, I would have reconsidered.
First, the good things: As I said, Riemen calls the ’populism’ of 21st century European far right what it is: Fascism. If it talks and walks like a fascist, then it is a fascist. The one thing I agree with him is that one of the greatest tragedies of the first 20 years of this century is the unwillingness of the media and politicians to recognise this. His characterisation of fascism is spot on: Fascism was/is ’not interested in solutions, had no ideas of its own, and did not want to solve social problems, because injustice was necessary for maintaining an atmosphere of vilification anf hatred’.
Unfortunately, everything goes downhill from there. Riemen’s analysis of the causes for the rise of fascism and his proposition for a cure are completely off and estranged from the reality of Europe and Europeans. For Riemen, the problem is the ’mass society’ and the fact that ’elitism’ has become a swear word. Like for any good liberal, the problem is with the ’rabble’, that is, anyone who’s not a highly educated liberal like himself. He explicitly says that ’social abuses and the economic crisis certainly influence the rise of fascism, but they are definitely not the cause of it’ (p. 53). This is simply wrong.
The cure is as implausible as the attribution of cause: we need to return to the morality of the great religious and humanities traditions, or the supposed ’spiritual values’ of Europe. The answer to fascism is, according to the author, not the organisation of society so that everyone may live a dignified life, but metaphysics. The liberal view of equality is also brilliantly on display when Riemen bemoans the fact that everyone may (or should, gods forbid!) get a university education. What happens to the poor elites, if their educational privilege is taken from them? I completely agree that there has been a dumbing down of university education, but that is not an outcome of ’mass society’, but the commodification of education. Because this neoliberalism is a descendant of Riemen’s beloved liberalism, it is convenient to turn one’s gaze the other way.
On top of everything, the argument is advanced with massively selctive view of history. Riemen actually says that ’there wasn’t a single party that wanted to lead the resistance to the National Socialist monopoly’ (p. 55-56). Perhaps he should have googled ’KPD’. But that, of course would have lead to uncomfortable territory that doesn’t fit the elite morality argument. I have to give credit for Riemen for being brutally honest, though. An elite white man writing to other elite white men, saying that only they can save Europe (the second part of the book is a diary from a symposium where, with the exception of one student, everyone is an older man). It takes confidence and certainty about knowing where ’truth’ lies—which, of course, comes easier for someone who sees the world from a privileged position.
We need to talk about fascism. Because it is real in 21st century Europe. Unfortunately, this book will only provide smoothing balm for privileged liberals whose political tradition got us where we are.
First, the good things: As I said, Riemen calls the ’populism’ of 21st century European far right what it is: Fascism. If it talks and walks like a fascist, then it is a fascist. The one thing I agree with him is that one of the greatest tragedies of the first 20 years of this century is the unwillingness of the media and politicians to recognise this. His characterisation of fascism is spot on: Fascism was/is ’not interested in solutions, had no ideas of its own, and did not want to solve social problems, because injustice was necessary for maintaining an atmosphere of vilification anf hatred’.
Unfortunately, everything goes downhill from there. Riemen’s analysis of the causes for the rise of fascism and his proposition for a cure are completely off and estranged from the reality of Europe and Europeans. For Riemen, the problem is the ’mass society’ and the fact that ’elitism’ has become a swear word. Like for any good liberal, the problem is with the ’rabble’, that is, anyone who’s not a highly educated liberal like himself. He explicitly says that ’social abuses and the economic crisis certainly influence the rise of fascism, but they are definitely not the cause of it’ (p. 53). This is simply wrong.
The cure is as implausible as the attribution of cause: we need to return to the morality of the great religious and humanities traditions, or the supposed ’spiritual values’ of Europe. The answer to fascism is, according to the author, not the organisation of society so that everyone may live a dignified life, but metaphysics. The liberal view of equality is also brilliantly on display when Riemen bemoans the fact that everyone may (or should, gods forbid!) get a university education. What happens to the poor elites, if their educational privilege is taken from them? I completely agree that there has been a dumbing down of university education, but that is not an outcome of ’mass society’, but the commodification of education. Because this neoliberalism is a descendant of Riemen’s beloved liberalism, it is convenient to turn one’s gaze the other way.
On top of everything, the argument is advanced with massively selctive view of history. Riemen actually says that ’there wasn’t a single party that wanted to lead the resistance to the National Socialist monopoly’ (p. 55-56). Perhaps he should have googled ’KPD’. But that, of course would have lead to uncomfortable territory that doesn’t fit the elite morality argument. I have to give credit for Riemen for being brutally honest, though. An elite white man writing to other elite white men, saying that only they can save Europe (the second part of the book is a diary from a symposium where, with the exception of one student, everyone is an older man). It takes confidence and certainty about knowing where ’truth’ lies—which, of course, comes easier for someone who sees the world from a privileged position.
We need to talk about fascism. Because it is real in 21st century Europe. Unfortunately, this book will only provide smoothing balm for privileged liberals whose political tradition got us where we are.