Lawrence Dennis (1893–1977)

A Note On Political Convergence

This Book
Our author, Lawrence Dennis, chooses fascism over communism basically because he does not believe that, in american circumstances, communism is necessary to reach a well managed economy. Communist revolution is, for our author, all well and good in economic conditions where there are very few managers, engineers and sophisticated physical assets. In situations like that, everything having to do with rapid industrialization remains to be done. Communist revolution is conceded to be useful in these situations because there is so little of value that can be destroyed. But there is, in any advanced economy, simply too much of value to lose in a communist revolution. For our author, this book is an exercise in pure pragmatics. There is here no wild-eyed preaching regarding class or race. All he asks is how can we get to a well managed society with the least expenditure of life, wealth and resources.
Therefore our author, cognizant of the unifying ability of class war among workers, opts for nationalism to provide the missing unity. He goes out of his way to point out that there is too much religious and racial diversity in America to make either of them useful as a societal glue. You see, this is really a technocratic fascism! He asks what is the quickest way for America to become a better managed nation and reach a full employed state and then goes about excluding the less useful in favor of the more useful. A very peculiar fascism indeed! But why did he and so many others think some sort of change from american nationalism/liberalism/capitalism was necessary? The flailing of the government in trying to solve the Great Depression (and also, coincidentally, the problems caused by the dust bowl) had convinced almost everyone that their was something wrong with both the market and the government. And they all thought the answer was better planning.
This is another book, born in the terrible 1930s, on political convergence. A drive towards greater bureaucracy in government and state management of the economy was discernible everywhere. We see this trend theorized in books like "The Bureaucratization of the World," by Bruno Rizzi (1939), "The Managerial Revolution", by James Burnham (1941), and at a much higher level, the lectures on Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit" by Alexandre Kojève, that electrified the cream of French intellectuals throughout the thirties. And on the American scene we find it in our author here and also in (what today would be called) 'old right' libertarians like John T. Flynn's (1944) "As We Go Marching)". (-Flynn was appalled by all this, btw.) But whether one was thrilled by, resigned to, or disgusted with the tendency towards greater similarity between the 'isms' of the last century, - many saw it coming.

And Beyond
But weren't all of these ideologies (I mean, communism, fascism, liberalism, nationalism, capitalism) obviously very different? How does the notion of convergence between them even arise? Well, the 'progressivism' of the last century was certainly one path. Even the Nazis, despite all talk of 'blood and soil,' were technologically progressive. 'Progress' in any form, if only for the sake of efficient markets and unobstructed access to resources and techniques, came to imply working towards one world. Whether this happened through 'progress' (liberals), revolution (communists), or conquest (fascists) is a secondary consideration. Another path to the notion of convergence was through social psychology. For instance, investigators like Vilfredo Pareto, in "Rise and Fall of the Elites" (1901), and Robert Michels in his "Political Parties" (1911) were a generation (or two) earlier patiently explaining that managers and leaders were everywhere (in all the "isms") pretty much the same. How could the similarities of the various elites not lead us into some form of managed global society?
A third possibility if one decides to argue for political convergence might be in the phenomenon of syncretism (the merging of different beliefs). Now, in religious times one always encounters syncretism between religions that are in close contact with each other but can neither eliminate the other nor disengage from any contact with the other. Now, once Europeans make their capitalist and technological revolutions, and also their rush to colonize and explore the world, some form of political convergence becomes ever more inevitable (as the possibility of elimination of / disengagement from others becomes increasingly unlikely) and appears eventually. What we today call Globalization has been going on for a long time. I do not mean to suggest that globalization can't be stopped at some point. Of course it can. How many religious syncretisms really become thriving world religions? Political Islam is fighting mightily not to become yet another modern bureaucratic society that is busily becoming like all other such societies. As, I believe, is Russia. (Yes, I know, about this last one can have doubts. - The doubters say that the argument between the West and Russia is merely over precisely how bureaucrats are to rule.) Nobody knows whether convergence (oops, globalization) can be stopped. I am convinced, however, if it is stopped, it will be in the deserts of the middle east or on the frigid expanse of central eurasia.
For anyone interested in the notion of political convergence in the last century there is certainly a lot of material out there. Other books to consult would be Daniel Bell's "End of Ideology" 1960), Max Shachtman's "Bureaucratic Revolution" (1962), both a generation later than the ones mentioned above. Another obvious source of convergence would be "Evolutionary Socialism" (1899) by Eduard Bernstein, the first great marxist revisionist. Also I should mention our authors "The Dynamics of War and Revolution" (1940). Of course, opponents of convergence, most importantly austrian and anglo-american libertarians, should be consulted too. Perhaps Ludwig von Mises' "Omnipotent Government" and "Bureaucracy" (both 1944, I believe) would be the best place to start. There are several more recent books that also should be mentioned. For instance, "Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany", (2006) by Wolfgang Schivelbusch, and we should never forget the famous "End of History and the Last Man" (1992) by Francis Fukuyama,
Of course, today, no one any longer really believes in political convergence. Among the masses throughout the world Secular Universalism is everywhere in retreat (it is but another example of western imperialism), replaced by religion and nationalism, -for better and worse... Which is why any serious essay on political convergence would need to be a book length essay. Around twenty years ago Fukuyama could argue cogently that the world was becoming One. My God! How much has changed! With the world now careening helplessly towards WWIII, no one today believes convergence is any longer possible. A long essay or book of how that came about would be very interesting indeed.

Four stars for a very thoughtful period piece. But, to the best of my knowledge, the history of political convergence has yet to be written. I look forward to that!… (altro)