Page 53 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 53
defining the ideology of extremism
deplorable or criminal”, were in fact so recent. What brings us to our point
is the fact that “in spite of it, they replenished the century; one against the
other, sustaining each other, they fabricated their material. Simultaneous-
ly very powerful, very ephemeral and very ominous, how could they mo-
bilise so much hope, or so much passion in so many individuals?” (Ibid.).
Furet’s analysis brought forward an interpretation that in quite clear terms
reveals the mechanisms of interdependence between fascism and bolshe-
vism. Being adversaries, both ideologies and for some time also political
systems needed each other. Still more, they were in a relation of complic-
ity regarding their common enemy: “The heftiest secret of complicity be-
tween bolshevism and fascism remains however the existence of their com-
mon adversary, which the both hostile doctrines reduced or exorcised with
an idea that it had been in agony, and which therefore constituted their
soil: very simply, democracy” (Ibid.: p. 39). Maybe it is not so important
that this interpretation, which in its minute scrutiny of both historical oc-
currences maintains a constant awareness of their irreducible differences,
makes possible to comprehend the turning points of history such as Hitler’s
and Stalin‘s temporary alliance. From a theoretical point of view, it is more
instructive that Furet’s interpretation in its retrospective insight demon-
strates what could be called the vulnerability of democracy. Since the rep-
resentative democracy as the formal political system does not offer much
else, but the rule of the abstract Law, it maintains openness for a variety
of different political alternatives and unfortunately for the anti-democrat-
ic ones too. This trait of democracy is known as its basic paradox: as soon
as democracy defends itself using the power of the State apparatuses, it is
in danger to cease to be democracy. Alternatively, democracy stays open
to a subversion or usurpation by the anti-democratic movements. There-
fore, the perpetuation of democracy keeps dependence on “fine tuning” be-
tween the democratic parties and maintaining the democratic functioning
of its institutions of the state of law. This task seems to be complicated dur-
ing the times of prosperity and even more, when tensions and crisis hit a
society. Robert Michels in his brilliant sociological book (first edition was
published in 1915) made his point about the iron law of oligarchy: “There is
no essential contradiction between the doctrine that history is the record
of a continued series of class struggles and the doctrine that class strug-
gles invariably culminate in the creation of new oligarchies which under-
go fusion with the old” (Michels. 2001: p. 233). Michels actually hints that
51
deplorable or criminal”, were in fact so recent. What brings us to our point
is the fact that “in spite of it, they replenished the century; one against the
other, sustaining each other, they fabricated their material. Simultaneous-
ly very powerful, very ephemeral and very ominous, how could they mo-
bilise so much hope, or so much passion in so many individuals?” (Ibid.).
Furet’s analysis brought forward an interpretation that in quite clear terms
reveals the mechanisms of interdependence between fascism and bolshe-
vism. Being adversaries, both ideologies and for some time also political
systems needed each other. Still more, they were in a relation of complic-
ity regarding their common enemy: “The heftiest secret of complicity be-
tween bolshevism and fascism remains however the existence of their com-
mon adversary, which the both hostile doctrines reduced or exorcised with
an idea that it had been in agony, and which therefore constituted their
soil: very simply, democracy” (Ibid.: p. 39). Maybe it is not so important
that this interpretation, which in its minute scrutiny of both historical oc-
currences maintains a constant awareness of their irreducible differences,
makes possible to comprehend the turning points of history such as Hitler’s
and Stalin‘s temporary alliance. From a theoretical point of view, it is more
instructive that Furet’s interpretation in its retrospective insight demon-
strates what could be called the vulnerability of democracy. Since the rep-
resentative democracy as the formal political system does not offer much
else, but the rule of the abstract Law, it maintains openness for a variety
of different political alternatives and unfortunately for the anti-democrat-
ic ones too. This trait of democracy is known as its basic paradox: as soon
as democracy defends itself using the power of the State apparatuses, it is
in danger to cease to be democracy. Alternatively, democracy stays open
to a subversion or usurpation by the anti-democratic movements. There-
fore, the perpetuation of democracy keeps dependence on “fine tuning” be-
tween the democratic parties and maintaining the democratic functioning
of its institutions of the state of law. This task seems to be complicated dur-
ing the times of prosperity and even more, when tensions and crisis hit a
society. Robert Michels in his brilliant sociological book (first edition was
published in 1915) made his point about the iron law of oligarchy: “There is
no essential contradiction between the doctrine that history is the record
of a continued series of class struggles and the doctrine that class strug-
gles invariably culminate in the creation of new oligarchies which under-
go fusion with the old” (Michels. 2001: p. 233). Michels actually hints that
51
