Monday 13 September 2010

Nathan Novak

"Michael Fagan’s response (Letters, Sept. 11, page 8) to my article (“Who won China’s war on fascism?” Sept. 8, page 8) allows me a further opportunity to explain the article’s content...First, the article was not an exercise in political theory. Its dual purpose was to bring back into question the actual role the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) played in China’s war of resistance against Japan and to compare certain characteristics of fascism to aspects of China’s contemporary socioeconomic and sociopolitical environment."
I was not especially interested in Nathan Novak's article itself other than as a convenient point of departure for my own, written with an end quite perpendicular to his. Today's letter appears to be sort of a response to my most recent letter in as much as I am named and amusingly corrected as to his purposes at the beginning. It was not his purposes I had had in mind but my own. Just what he thinks of himself is no direct concern of mine, though the rest of his letter does give me the creeps...
"Another feature of fascism not mentioned in my article also applies to China’s contemporary socioeconomic and sociopolitical situation: social Darwinism.... Fascism makes use of social Darwinism in a cruder way: Typically fascism substitutes racial superiority for class struggle as the key driving force behind social change."
... and here's why: I will not trust anyone who throws around phrases like "social Darwinism" in the absence of any clearly specified conceptual boundaries. Now I may be right in supposing that what he means is something like an amoral tribal contest, but my objection would be that Novak may not use "social" as a synonym for "tribal" since the former integrates a much broader range of referents than the latter; trade among members of different tribes, for example, may be "social". I could pedanticate further, but the point is that this apparently illegitimate expropriation of terms may serve to promote the collectivist premise in which all social relations among individuals are forcibly sublimated beneath collective boundaries. Now that may indeed be the way in which the CCP, or indeed the KMT thinks but why is it that Novak seems so intent on highlighting this premise?
"Anyone who believes feelings of cultural superiority are much different from feelings of racial superiority should go to a Chinese newspaper’s Web site and check out readers’ comments."
Cultural superiority is a very real category of judgement relative to human survival and flourishing as a standard. "Racial superiority" on the other hand, is a nonsense. The two are very, very different and to conflate them is to do a disservice to the future pursuit of all that is admirable in Western, and indeed, Chinese culture. And I, for one, have not the slightest interest in the comments sewers of some rag in China.
"It appears that the CCP would argue that Uighur, Mongolian, Tibetan and Taiwanese are all subsets of the Han Chinese population. Although this umbrella definition does allow a little wiggle room for ethnic minorities, it ensures these groups cannot establish any form of identity outside of the Chinese umbrella. The dominant group defines the identities of other groups. Is this not a form of racial supremacy?"
Whether that question is addressed to me or not, I reject the premise itself; "racial supremacy" is an absurd nonsense - all Novak has shown is that some arbitrarily tagged groups of people are having their way with other arbitrarily tagged groups of people; yet that is a consequence of the abuse of State power - whether fascist, communist, or indeed, democratic. The "racial supremacy" nonsense may be being promoted by the CCP, but that's no reason for Novak, or indeed, the Taipei Times to give it the oxygen of publicity without a thorough denunciation.

And one last thing: I detest seeing my name in print anywhere near the phrase "racial superiority".

18 comments:

  1. I sometimes think that there is something to the notion that China is a civilization, masquerading as a nation-state.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well certainly for some supposedly civil institutions and businesses, there are parallel operations run by people connected to the temple gangsters.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Conflating race and culture, Mr. Fagan, is not what I have been doing. If you read any mainland newspapers, you will see this front and center. (Indeed, sociologists often reject "race" in favor of "ethnicity." But Hitler had no problem conflating the Aryan "race" with German culture.) It's not mine to conflate.

    The point I attempted to make is that as China celebrates its "victory," it does not--or, rather, cannot--grapple with the idea that extreme leftist and extreme rightist political ideologies are, when put into practice, quite similar. These are two things, again, I myself do not "conflate." I apologize if that is uninteresting to you. Some political scientists find it quite interesting.

    Moreover, no part of either article was directed in any negative way towards you. I made sure--you can ask the "Timid Times" yourself--that the editorial staff there took pains to make it as friendly as possible. I mentioned you as someone offering input on the subject. I thought your input deserved mention. I don't see why that is offensive to you. You can find my article "not especially interest[ing]"; that's not a problem. But you could be a bit more "civil" on your own blog from time to time. No one using my name has ever directed any negativity at you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I guess you had some technical glitches commenting there (Blogger spammed your two comments for some reason - if there was a third, it's nothing to do with me).

    OK first off, I didn't take offense at all to your mention of me - rather, let's say my interest was piqued by two rather different things, the first being the apparent irrelevance of the content of your letter to the content of mine; it seems to have the form of an argumentative response but it doesn't really respond - at least not in a way I could readily grasp (though perhaps you can enlighten me on that score). The second thing was your apparent advancement of premises which I often commit myself to refuting - online (e.g. Turton's joint), in the Taipei Times and in person (in Tainan and Kaohsiung). Perhaps you could further refine future efforts at elucidating the premises advanced by others in China without appearing to do so youself...

    "The point I attempted to make is that as China celebrates its "victory," it does not--or, rather, cannot--grapple with the idea that extreme leftist and extreme rightist political ideologies are, when put into practice, quite similar."

    Sure - you can have a polite applause for that, but I would suggest to you (and your choice of "attempted" seems to be an implicit admission) that you had failed to make the point clearly. The common aspect to both National Socialism and Soviet Socialism to make both salient and radiantly clear there is not the racial nonsense, but the Socialism so often apparent even under constitutional and/or democratic government.

    As to the people at the Taipei Times, I believe the only reason they publish me at all is because they like fireworks.

    "No one using my name has ever directed any negativity at you.

    You let other people use your name? Is "Novak" your 'nom de guerre'?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I see my mistake: thinking I'd be met by anything but arrogance, sarcasm, and hostility. You deserve "a polite applause" for your "fireworks," but such things go poof and boom and then are gone forever. This is simply not worth anyone's time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. On the contrary, there is not a single trace of arrogance, sarcasm or hostility in my comment to you at all.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The common aspect to both National Socialism and Soviet Socialism to make both salient and radiantly clear there is not the racial nonsense, but the Socialism so often apparent even under constitutional and/or democratic government."

    Tell that to individuals and groups targeted by the Nazis and the Japanese. Fascism is a political ideology which has nationalist socialism or heavy state investment in the economy as a characteristic. Communism is also a political ideology with socialism as a characteristic. I'm getting the feeling you are conflating political ideology with economic systems. One can have a socialist economy without, say, a communist political system.

    As mentioned very early on, the goal of the articles was to compare aspects of fascism--political ideology, of which nationalist socialism is a characteristic--to the current political status of China. You can find it uninteresting. That does not bother me one bit, actually. But how political ideology becomes synonymous with a particular economic system is beyond me. Imperial Japan, although often characterized as fascist, was not socialist, although a great deal of its heavy industry was nationalized or invested in by the state. This state investment in the Japanese economy has never been abolished, yet Japan is no longer considered fascist today. I think it is very difficult to equate fascism with any particular economic system, although the tendecy is for a fascist state to either have a state socialist economic policy or to have heavy state investment in the market economy as a characteristic. This was my argument from the beginning. That is evidently not so "salient and radiantly clear," as you say, evidently.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It could be said that racial issues--although you "reject" racial issues from the beginning (with no explanation, although you accept cultural issues likewise with no explanation)--were not a major issue in Soviet Russia or Mao's China. That's debatable. If they were, however, what does this say about the relationship between fascism and communism? If they were not, what does this say about China's system today? You can go to xinhuanet.com or chinadaily.com (both can be accessed in English) and see the blending of the Communist Party, the Chinese state, and Chinese society there: the Party would have most people believe it does not exercise control over the state apparatus, but it does; the state is the government (i.e., the state is the government is the Party), and that the state is the government is the Party is the country is the people. This is done with a purpose in China. This can be said of communism in general. It can also be said about fascism in general.

    I'm not advocating anything in particular. I'm not a fascist, a communist, a social-democrat, a liberal democrat, or any of the sort. I'm simply attempting to find some form of clarity when it comes to approaching Chinese politics and economics. This is what I do. I apologize if you find my topic of study and work "[un]interest[ing]." I will cease commenting on your blog if you do so long as belittling statements such as "Some people, eh?" no longer appear in reference to me personally.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Where do I start with you...?

    First it was strange that you thought I was upset by your letter, but that you seem to have become upset yourself when I explained to you that I wasn't upset is even stranger still; I haven't yet said a word in hostility, arrogance or sarcasm to you. The questions I put to you earlier - even the stuff about your name - are genuine questions to which I am somewhat curious to know the answers.

    Anyway, for what it's worth...

    "...you bypass some issues as worthy of simple "reject[ion]" without explaining why you "reject" them..."

    My purposes in writing are my own - until I accept writing as a form of paid employment, I do not owe anybody explanations for my opinions. That stricture on expression may exist in the Universities, but this isn't a University. And as it happens I am surprised that you would want an explanation for why I reject any notion of "racial supremacy" - I don't give a damn about anyone's "ethnic identity" because it just doesn't have any a-priori import to my thinking and action vis-a-vis other people (e.g. exchanges of value).

    "However, telling others that their discussion topics are essentially below you, passing their points as worthy of a mere "reject[ion],"...

    To reject an argument, premise or value held by another just means to disagree with it.

    "...snide comments about how someone makes reference to how his own name is used..."

    They weren't snide comments, they were questions. What's the matter with you?

    "...if you are as educated as you seem and as educated as you'd like everyone to believe you are..."

    I have long been resigned to the fact that most people will think I'm a "stoopid redneck" or some such, so I don't actually care an awful lot.

    "You can call others "stupid," as you do Mark Rawson, but for others to simply no longer wish to comment or be raked through the mud on your personal blog is also unacceptable.

    Oh, but Rawson is stupid - and you know, he apparently doesn't think too highly of you. Whereas I on the other hand have shown you nothing but courtesy, albeit perhaps a little too austere to your tastes; I am not "raking you through the mud" and if you do not want to comment, you are perfectly free to refrain from doing so.

    I may comment again later, but I have things to do.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Leaving your apparent animosity toward me aside, I'll respond to your substantive comments...

    "Tell that to individuals and groups targeted by the Nazis and the Japanese."

    Sure, but speaking to victims of Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany is a very different context with different values in play to writing in the Taipei Times to make public your views on China's political economy.

    "Fascism is a political ideology which has nationalist socialism or heavy state investment in the economy as a characteristic. Communism is also a political ideology with socialism as a characteristic. I'm getting the feeling you are conflating political ideology with economic systems. One can have a socialist economy without, say, a communist political system."

    For how long? You are absolutely right that I am conflating political ideology with economic system; I believe that focusing attention on the intersecting principles of political and economic action as political economy carries far more import to acting for the value of freedom than does dawdling about with taxonomic distinctions.

    "This state investment in the Japanese economy has never been abolished, yet Japan is no longer considered fascist today."

    No longer considered fascist by whom? For myself I do indeed consider it fascist, though if called upon to distinguish it from the Japan of the 1940s, I might modify my description of today's system in Japan as "soft" fascism. (But I am not overly interested in Japan).

    Because I think in conflated terms of political economy with a very narrow focus on the principles of action, it is not necessary to me to submit my understanding of any particular country to the names commonly attributed to its' system (or not) by others. Words like "communist" or "fascist" mean things to be sure and there are distinctions to be drawn between them, but those distinguishing aspects become more or less salient depending on the context of action. So although I believe Japan to be under a kind of fascism, I have no need to go around trumpeting that view to the world.

    "the state is the government is the Party is the country is the people. This is done with a purpose in China. This can be said of communism in general. It can also be said about fascism in general."

    Sure. I don't disagree, I just consider this obvious, i.e. anyone surprised at that or taking exception to that (e.g. Mark Rawson) wants their head examining.

    "I'm not a fascist, a communist, a social-democrat, a liberal democrat, or any of the sort."

    Nor have I actually accused you of being any of those things - I merely questioned.

    "I apologize if you find my topic of study and work "[un]interest[ing]." I will cease commenting on your blog if you do so long as belittling statements such as "Some people, eh?" no longer appear in reference to me personally."

    I want no apology from you for that. But getting back to the subject of your strange and unwarranted animosity toward me, I do have an adjective just for you. Are you ready? Brace yourself...

    "Thin-skinned."

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Responded, but it won't post. Tired of writing. Anyway, please don't mistake my discussion of racial superiority with my support for it. I reject it, too. That, however, was not part of my comment.

    I probably am thin-skinned, at least when I feel I'm being accused of stealing your thunder or whatever when my reason for mentioning your letter in my own letter was merely to point out that I thought it was worth mentioning. I hope you think better of my intentions in the future.

    I think we've met at the Casbar (or what used to be the Casbar) near Cheng-qing Lake.

    Oh, and I don't think you are uneducated. I could only say "seem" because I don't know exactly what your education is. But note that I did respond to you and not to Mark Rawson since I thought your comments would be far more interesting to _TT_ readers than his.

    I do appreciate criticism. I think this is more of a misunderstanding than anything (you may have misunderstood my intent, and I certainly misinterpreted your tone). For my part in that, I apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Apology accepted. As to whether we've met at the Casbar, the answer is probably yes, but my memory is vague - nothing to do with alcohol, just that it was what, two years ago, maybe? I used to live in Niaosong and I would hang out with Eric there from time to time.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yeah, that sounds about right. I used to live in that area as well.

    ReplyDelete

Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:

1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.

2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.

3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.

4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.

5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.