Global Conflict in a New Age of Extremes

Shlomo Ben-Ami

Today, like in the twentieth century, nationalism is tearing societies apart and dividing erstwhile allies. And the world’s major powers have largely resumed their Cold War postures, preparing themselves psychologically, if not militarily, for open conflict.

TEL AVIV – The late historian Eric Hobsbawm described the twentieth century as the “age of extremes,” in which state socialism led to the gulag; liberal capitalism led to cyclical depressions; and nationalism led to two world wars. He then predicted that the future would amount to a prolongation of the past and present, characterized by “violent politics and violent political changes” and by “social distribution, not growth.”

History may not repeat itself, but it does frequently rhyme. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s famous claim that “there is no such thing as society,” but only “individual men and women” certainly rhymes with the divisive worldview and self-serving behavior of today’s populist demagogues.

Today, like in the twentieth century, nationalism is tearing societies apart and dividing erstwhile allies, by fueling antagonism toward the “other” and justifying physical and legal protectionist barriers. The world’s major powers have largely resumed their Cold War postures, preparing themselves psychologically, if not militarily, for open conflict.

As Hobsbawm predicted, skyrocketing income inequality has emerged as a major cause of rising nationalism, anti-globalization sentiment, and even the shift toward authoritarianism. Reconfirming the connection between bad economics and political extremism – highlighted by John Maynard Keynes in the aftermath of World War I – a decade of austerity in Europe has weakened the foundations of the welfare state and driven millions of voters into the arms of populists.1

Ironically, a major reason why today’s politics increasingly rhyme with twentieth-century developments is the fear of repeating the Great Depression – a fear that emerged after the 2008 financial crisis seemed to rhyme with the 1929 stock-market crash. Germany, for example, became obsessed with austerity, in order to ensure that runaway inflation did not contribute to dictatorship, as it had in the 1920s.

But austerity went too far, enabling anti-establishment politicians to capitalize on economic hardship (along with xenophobia and misogyny) to win support. Struggling to compete electorally, many mainstream parties moved away from the center, causing the entire political field to become increasingly polarized.

This trend can be seen in the United States, where, under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the Republican Party has become practically devoid of moderate voices. It can also be seen in the United Kingdom, where a more radical Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership faces a Conservative Party held hostage by pro-Brexit extremists.

In Italy, the populist Five Star Movement and the nationalist League party have united in a flaky governing coalition following the electoral collapse of the country’s mainstream political forces. When Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte proclaimed to Vladimir Putin that Russia is Italy’s “strategic partner,” it became clear that Italy, a core member of the EU and NATO, had become a potentially destabilizing power.

In Spain, the People’s Party (PP) has become openly nationalist under the leadership of the hardline Pablo Casado. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party is the PP’s mirror image, having abandoned the centrist legacy of Felipe González in order to compete with the far-left populists of Podemos.

In Germany, voters in Bavaria and Hesse abandoned German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right Christian Democratic Union and its sister party, the Christian Social Union, in droves. The Greens drew votes from the more moderate Social Democratic Party, and the far-right Alternative für Deutschland gained significant ground. With the center gutted, Germany’s capacity to remain the bulwark of a united Europe is in jeopardy. Even the notion that a radical – even neo-fascist – leader could one day rule Germany again no longer looks farfetched.

As democracies abandon moderation, abuses of power are proliferating, and social and political tensions are rising. In the US, Trump routinely demonizes opponents and dehumanizes marginalized groups; during his first year in office, politically motivated murders, perpetrated primarily by fanatical white supremacists, doubled. Several prominent Democrats or party supporters were recently sent pipe bombs.

The risks posed by these developments are hardly confined to the countries in question. Maintaining relative global peace – or at least avoiding major inter-state wars – depends on strong alliances and leaders’ awareness of the devastation their weapons can cause. But, at a time when shortsighted, radical, and inexperienced figures are gaining power, both of these bulwarks against war have been weakened.

In fact, the framework of global peace is already coming under mounting pressure. Because of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s relentless revanchism, Russia’s borders with NATO are now the sites of the most extensive military buildup since the Cold War.

Making matters worse, Trump has pulled the US out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, unraveling decades of progress on nuclear arms control. He seems to hope to force Russia (and China) into a new deal by threatening to “develop the weapons.” But he is unlikely to succeed. Whereas Ronald Reagan was negotiating with the reform-minded Mikhail Gorbachev, Trump would be facing the power-hungry Putin.

The risks the world faces are compounded by new – and inadequately regulated – technologies. Cyber warfare is already a daily reality; indeed, at any moment, a cyber-attack could be launched against a NATO country, potentially triggering the alliance’s mutual-defense guarantee. Likewise, the United Nations has so far failed to overcome opposition to regulation of the use of lethal autonomous weapons based on artificial intelligence.

The risk of violent conflict will continue to rise as the effects of climate change intensify. Among other things, massive desertification in the Middle East and Africa would bring famines that dwarf those of the twentieth century in scale. Human migration would surge, and struggles over resources would intensify. Despite efforts to secure multilateral cooperation, in today’s Hobbesian world, the slide toward climate chaos seems unstoppable.

The challenges facing the world today would have been unimaginable in the twentieth century. But the underlying political dynamics are all too familiar. It is time for us to take stock of what those dynamics portend, and take seriously the lessons historical memory holds.

On one hand, it is good to hear rising alarm from "elites" about the rising tide of fascism in the "western world". At least 2-3 years too late, but better late than never.

What bothers me is the currently popular notion that this tide is caused predominantly by economic hardship and social inequality. For sure, there is a possibility that this may be true, but it is dangerous to simply make this assumption.

For it is quite possible that the fascist tendency is a constant of human condition in the industrial society. If this is the case, then the diagnosis of economic dislocation as a cause of present day fascist wave is dangerously incomplete.

The western world has been inoculated against fascism for about half a century, in part because of the memory of the holocaust, and in part because of the intensity of the ideological conflict with the red fascism in Russia, otherwise known as the Cold War. Both factors are gone now. Generations with direct memory of fascism are dying out. I am quite old myself, and I only have a memory of growing up in the shadow of WW2 and during the cold war. My generation will be gone in not too distant future. 

At heart, fascism is a political method of controlling society through incitement of emotion, rather than rational argument. Fascism is so dangerous because, as a political method, it is effective. Homo Sapiens should probably be re branded as Homo (barely) Sapiens. An individual has to make a concerted, lifelong effort to stay rational. The society has to make a concerted, sustained, never ending effort to impart rationality through education and political culture. Even then, it is not clear (perhaps we are about to find out) how effective can education be, when compared to personal experience. Every new generation tends to think that they, and they alone, shall reinvent the society anew, and this time it is all going to be different. We are all born with these tendencies. In the evolution of our species, emotions came first, while symbolic thinking came later, as an unexpected, emergent property of a growing brain. This hierarchy is pretty clear when one examines an average human. Sociopaths among us know this all too well.

We need to start this sort of a discussion now, and urgently. One of the weaknesses of a democratic society is a tendency to cling to democratic norms even when it becomes clear that these norms are under attack by someone who could not care less about them. The special advantage of an aspiring fascist is his/her single minded determination to destroy the democracy. A democratic society seeks to give fascists a fair hearing, invoking freedom of speech, which is what fascists use to end the democracy. This is one of the most important lessons of the Weimar Republic.

Proper regulation of mass media (once known as the fairness doctrine). Ensuring minimum quality of education, and not allowing for the deterioration of public education. Proper regulation of the educational curriculum, to teach clearly about the nature of fascism. What should be the limits to free speech in a democratic society? And how should these limits be enforced?

Economically, western societies have never had it better, social ills notwithstanding. Time to discuss human nature?/project-syndicate

*Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister, is Vice President of the Toledo International Center for Peace. He is the author of Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.