![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jenny_islanderHere begins my blogging of On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder. I propose to paraphrase the main thoughts in the book here. A historian, Snyder provides many, many examples supporting each point within the book itself and I suggest that anyone who can get a copy do so.
Because this is the Internet, I should specify that when I use quotation marks I am quoting. If I disagree with what is said within the quotation marks, I will add this: (sic).
Prologue: Tyranny and History
The reason for democratic movements: Tyranny, that is, "the usurpation of power by a single individual or group, or the circumvention of law by rulers for their own benefit." The founders of our nation had been educated in a tradition that drew heavily on Greek and Roman history and philosophy; they had, therefore, many examples of tyranny, its effects and circumventions. As a result, they attempted to create a system of government that prevents the growth of tyranny, mainly using the checks and balances among the three branches of government.
They stood at the beginning of a worldwide democratic movement. In Europe, Snyder's area of study, this movement had three great moments: after the ends of the World Wars and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. These were times of optimism; Snyder points to the expansion of global trade, with its "expectations of progress," as a main cause, but personally I think that the relief and joy of the proclaimed ends of the wars (First, Second, and Cold) should not be underestimated.
Nevertheless, democracies have themselves collapsed back into something like the war footings--the so-called temporary cessation of the rights of citizens, or the dissonance of proclaimed democracy and actual tyranny--under which many nations lived during those wars. Why?
Because, Snyder said, of that very expansion of global trade, which created inequalities "real and perceived." Democracies seemed to be helpless against it. Therefore, citizens were primed to look for other solutions; and those who wanted to be tyrants provided them.
Fascism, says Snyder, is the party of strength. It rejects reason (weak) and embraces will (strong). Fascists deny objective truth (carefully assessed and annotated, therefore not a matter of will, therefore weak) in favor of self-glorifying mythology (strong). They replace the observation that globalization is a complicated thing with the triumphant assertion that it is really a deliberate conspiracy. Here I add an observation, gleaned elsewhere, that conspiracy theories require the identified culprits to be simultaneously poised to smash and devour with inexorable power; and weak, subhuman creatures. This allows for the identification of those who are actually weak and isolated as the enemy, whom fascists may assault with impunity while proclaiming that they are triumphing over the mighty enemies of the people. Speaking of the people, Snyder notes that a fascist rise to power generally involves a person or party claiming to represent the will of the people--and then the end of direct democracy, which would allow the people to disagree.
Communism, he says, goes the other way--superficially. (Pedantic note: The word communism, like the word robin, is not a taxonomic description; see Wikipedia for a summary of the different governmental/philosophical/economic movements that are or have been called communism. Each has its foibles. If you encounter a mention of communism, it's worth checking which flavor the speaker is talking about. Snyder means the communism of the Soviet Union et al.) Communists embrace reason and furthermore claim that they have used their reason to figure out exactly how to navigate complex historical trends and events. Reason, however, is the purview of the ruling committee of the communist nation or empire, not of individuals. I gather from my own cursory reading of history that anybody who disagrees with the committee is unreasonable (irrational, overly sheltered, childish) or incapable of reason (foolish, subhuman).
Snyder points out that our founders learned from history and acted on that learning; he suggests that we also should do so.
And from me: Democracy, as someone observed, is not a one-and-done salvation situation any more than keeping house or cleaning your teeth. It is a matter of daily maintenance, because it exists within human will and reason. Losing sight of the daily work of democracy--worse still, thinking that democracy is weak or false because it is not a turnkey operation--creates an opportunity for tyranny.
But that goes both ways. As for the perceived power of tyrants, I add a note from Ursula Le Guin about the divine right of kings. It was an immutable, brutally enforced fact for centuries. Then, she says, people stopped believing in it.
Because this is the Internet, I should specify that when I use quotation marks I am quoting. If I disagree with what is said within the quotation marks, I will add this: (sic).
Prologue: Tyranny and History
The reason for democratic movements: Tyranny, that is, "the usurpation of power by a single individual or group, or the circumvention of law by rulers for their own benefit." The founders of our nation had been educated in a tradition that drew heavily on Greek and Roman history and philosophy; they had, therefore, many examples of tyranny, its effects and circumventions. As a result, they attempted to create a system of government that prevents the growth of tyranny, mainly using the checks and balances among the three branches of government.
They stood at the beginning of a worldwide democratic movement. In Europe, Snyder's area of study, this movement had three great moments: after the ends of the World Wars and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. These were times of optimism; Snyder points to the expansion of global trade, with its "expectations of progress," as a main cause, but personally I think that the relief and joy of the proclaimed ends of the wars (First, Second, and Cold) should not be underestimated.
Nevertheless, democracies have themselves collapsed back into something like the war footings--the so-called temporary cessation of the rights of citizens, or the dissonance of proclaimed democracy and actual tyranny--under which many nations lived during those wars. Why?
Because, Snyder said, of that very expansion of global trade, which created inequalities "real and perceived." Democracies seemed to be helpless against it. Therefore, citizens were primed to look for other solutions; and those who wanted to be tyrants provided them.
Fascism, says Snyder, is the party of strength. It rejects reason (weak) and embraces will (strong). Fascists deny objective truth (carefully assessed and annotated, therefore not a matter of will, therefore weak) in favor of self-glorifying mythology (strong). They replace the observation that globalization is a complicated thing with the triumphant assertion that it is really a deliberate conspiracy. Here I add an observation, gleaned elsewhere, that conspiracy theories require the identified culprits to be simultaneously poised to smash and devour with inexorable power; and weak, subhuman creatures. This allows for the identification of those who are actually weak and isolated as the enemy, whom fascists may assault with impunity while proclaiming that they are triumphing over the mighty enemies of the people. Speaking of the people, Snyder notes that a fascist rise to power generally involves a person or party claiming to represent the will of the people--and then the end of direct democracy, which would allow the people to disagree.
Communism, he says, goes the other way--superficially. (Pedantic note: The word communism, like the word robin, is not a taxonomic description; see Wikipedia for a summary of the different governmental/philosophical/economic movements that are or have been called communism. Each has its foibles. If you encounter a mention of communism, it's worth checking which flavor the speaker is talking about. Snyder means the communism of the Soviet Union et al.) Communists embrace reason and furthermore claim that they have used their reason to figure out exactly how to navigate complex historical trends and events. Reason, however, is the purview of the ruling committee of the communist nation or empire, not of individuals. I gather from my own cursory reading of history that anybody who disagrees with the committee is unreasonable (irrational, overly sheltered, childish) or incapable of reason (foolish, subhuman).
Snyder points out that our founders learned from history and acted on that learning; he suggests that we also should do so.
And from me: Democracy, as someone observed, is not a one-and-done salvation situation any more than keeping house or cleaning your teeth. It is a matter of daily maintenance, because it exists within human will and reason. Losing sight of the daily work of democracy--worse still, thinking that democracy is weak or false because it is not a turnkey operation--creates an opportunity for tyranny.
But that goes both ways. As for the perceived power of tyrants, I add a note from Ursula Le Guin about the divine right of kings. It was an immutable, brutally enforced fact for centuries. Then, she says, people stopped believing in it.
