In August, across on his thread ‘The Case Against Net Zero – a Fourth Update’, Robin Guenier made the very strong case that the UK’s Net Zero policy is unachievable, disastrous and pointless. The subsequent discussion noted that currently the UK contributes only about 1% of humanity’s CO2 emissions. The question then arose as to why the UK is making such a huge effort to reach Net Zero when most of the rest of the world is evidently little interested in that policy objective. In short, the UK’s approach seems most irrational.

This led to a discussion of UK politics and its apparent drift away from effective representative democracy. Specifically, in trying to understand the UK’s energy/climate irrationality I quoted (see below) from page 17 of Phillip W. Gray’s book on totalitarianism which is a political ideology that, Gray claims, will often adopt policies that look irrational (or even borderline insane) when viewed from the outside. This subsequently led me to write a longer commentary on totalitarianism based upon my reading of, primarily, Gray’s book. The text of that intervention is as follows.

————-

On 9th August I quoted from Gray’s book on totalitarianism and, on 13^th August, Richard suggested more should be said. I have therefore reviewed Gray’s short book (177 pages) and listed a few quotations (see Addendum below) that, for me, illustrate the way we in the West are already heading – even if we have not yet reached the possible final destination of technological totalitarianism sketched by Gray.

One of the key insights for me is Gray’s distinction (already observed by others, even politicians e.g. Michael Gove) between, on the one hand, “experts” in the traditional sense of having deep and extensive understanding of a body of knowledge related to the real world, and on the other hand, the newer sense of “experts” as simply credentialed for having the correct, consensus-consistent opinions, typically on current topics related to public policy.

This distinction between ‘knowledge experts’ and ‘credentialed experts’ is one that another well respected commentator on post-democratic politics seems to have signally failed to grasp. Colin Crouch [Ref. 1] writes, “Rejection of scientific knowledge reverberates across the US political right, from religious creationists, to climate change deniers, to the anti-vaccination movement, and forms part of the demagogic rhetoric of many kinds of populists reassuring people that important decisions do not require any knowledge, because experts are sometimes wrong.” No! While it is agreed that experts can sometimes be wrong (especially in complex matters), the rejection described above is not of unalloyed science but of motivated “trust-the-science” reasoning masquerading as traditional science.

To be fair to Crouch, he is not alone. Many in or close to academia seem to have great difficulty distinguishing between two classes of academic work, namely between (i) truly independent non-partisan scholarship and (ii) scholarship directed in support of a particular argument (such as a barrister makes in court in favour of defence or prosecution) which is sometimes called motivated reasoning.

Early in his book (page 12) Gray indicates that, for its supporters, totalitarianism acts as a ‘master key’ to understanding society. This theme is taken up by Professor Mike Hulme [Ref. 2], “Master-narratives offer comprehensive explanations of historical experience and/or knowledge about the future. To quote two leading academics who study them, a master-narrative ‘is a global or totalizing cultural schema which orders and explains knowledge and experience’.”

Hulme also tells us [Ref. 2] that, “The purpose of this book is to warn against the allure of blaming everything on climate … Climate reductionism has turned into a fully fledged ideology, an ideology that I call ‘climatism’ …Climatism is the settled belief that the dominant explanation of social, economic and ecological phenomena is a ‘human-caused change in the climate’ … Yet climatism is a pattern of thought which carries significant dangers for social justice, political freedom and future prosperity.” Hulme further warns us, “But climatism has also crept into a more extensive range of businesses, charities, professions and public institutions, such as Amazon, Oxfam, the BBC and the World Bank.”

I have quoted Hulme, not simply because he (now) sees the totalitarian dangers of climatism, but because some 15 years ago, while Professor of Climate Change at UEA, he seemed to be encouraging climate politicization, “By approaching climate change as an idea to be mobilised to fulfil a variety of tasks, perhaps we can see what climate change can do for us rather than what we seek to do, despairingly, for (or to) climate.” [Ref. 3].

With this very brief overview of a possible technocratic totalitarian future as my background, you will, I hope, understand why I am currently trying to establish the similarities (and marked differences) of the West’s current situation in terms of traditional fascist doctrine.

References

1. Colin Crouch, “Post-democracy after the crises”, polity, 2020, especially page 145.
2. Mike Hulme, “Climate Change isn’t Everything – liberating climate politics from alarmism”, polity, 2023, especially pages 7, 8, 20, 32 and 90.
3. Mike Hulme, “Why We Disagree About Climate Change”, Cambridge, 2009, page 340.

ADDENDUM: Quotes from Phillip W. Gray, “Totalitarianism: the basics”, Routledge, 2023

(with a couple of my own comments added in italics)

[page 12] “… totalitarian ideology act as a “master key” to understand society and history.”

[page 14] “… totalitarian ideology requires the politicization of every aspect of human existence.” This is echoed [page 90, section title] with the quote from Mussolini, “Everything in the State, Nothing Outside the State, Nothing Against the State”.

[page 17] “Finally, for most totalitarian governments, there will be an inclination to expansion … and, finally, this expansion might be fundamentally global in nature, with the final aim of transforming the entire world.” Is this the so-called Great Reset in action?

[page 17] “Totalitarian governments will often engage in, and maintain, policies that look irrational (or even borderline insane) when viewed from the outside … Indeed, it is rare to find a totalitarian government that does not engage in at least some activities that seem irrational.”

[page 41] “The linking element between the disparate forms of eco-totalitarianism is the central focus on the “planet,” “nature,” or some similar ecologically focused notion.”

[page 71] “Each factor – loss of fundamental legitimacy or a major issue in a narrow timeframe – will bring problems, but it generally needs to be both together to create a crisis by which totalitarian movements can gain victory.” The ever-repeated invocation of the Climate Emergency is, I suppose, designed to create for us the necessary air of permanent crisis.

[page 94] “No association is too small, no person too socially insignificant that they can be spared the obligation to hold the “correct” views and exhibit proper “enthusiasm” for the regime and its goals.”

[page 99] “Most totalitarian regimes, if they are able, will engage in many large-scale industrial and infrastructure projects upon taking power … While infrastructure improvements would be appealing after years of crisis and instability, these changes are built on the backs of the population through rationing and severe regimentation.”

[page 101] “While the amount of terror varies between totalitarian states, a system of this type simply cannot exist for any real length of time without it.” What forms will terror take if this style of political ideology strengthens its grip on the West?

[page 108] “And yet, with a few notable exceptions, most totalitarian regimes that have existed, exist no more.”

[page 126] Section title, ‘The “Golden Age” of Totalitarianism’, defined at line 2 as starting from about 1917 and running to 1953.

[pages 144 – 162] Chapter 6 ‘The Future of Totalitarianism’

[page 146] “… a notable amount of people do look to the PRC’s system as something worth emulating … One needs to only look at some of the various writings by Westerners on China’s “success” in handling the COVID-19 pandemic … one of the more consistent mistakes from various “experts” and others was the belief that one could have the benefits of totalitarianism … without the negatives … ”

[page 155] “Forced unification can exacerbate underlying tensions … “we all just need to get beyond our differences, come together, and do everything I want.” A potentially emergent form of totalitarianism does seem to use this type of passive-aggressive, “nudging” form of coercion, so, let’s spend a little time talking about it.

Technocratic Totalitarianism on the Rise?

Totalitarianism historically develops from parties and movements that seek to destroy what exists and replace it with something new.” Such as replacing a highly reliable electricity grid with an unreliable and highly expensive one?

[page 155] “But in recent years … something new may be arising: a type of “technocratic totalitarianism,” a “rule by experts” with traits of totalitarian rule.”

[page 156] “The following … is quite speculative … We could define “technocratic totalitarianism” as a totalitarian ideology …that bases its legitimacy upon the knowledge/training of an “expert” class … that … emphasizes bureaucratic, regulatory, and other less-accountable parts of government … The unifying element is expertise, but “credentials” is perhaps a more accurate term … “expertise” arises from the consensus among other experts (rather than from an external truth or reality).”

[page 157] “The fixation of the credentialed “expert” class has, at various points, emphasized globalization as an economic/cultural foundation of a new order, a new ecological order … shifting away from fossil fuels … or now on “net zero emission” … Perhaps an example would be useful. Consider the events surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic …many nations imposed substantial limitations on their populations … with many corporate entities aiding in these endeavours, be it in blocking “misinformation” (even if such information turned out to be correct, or at least arguably so). In most cases, the populations of these democracies had no vote on these restrictions … political leaders often shifted responsibility to government entities … which appeared as “black boxes” of unaccountability. One was to “Trust the Science,” even if the restrictions seemed questionable through scientific analysis.”

[page 158] “Certainly, there have been plenty of authors arguing that many Western societies are becoming (or already are) totalitarian in nature …”

[page 159] section ‘Summing Up’, bullet point 4, “The mixture of technological advancements with an increased focus on credentialed “expertise” could be developing toward a rather different form of totalitarianism based on more technocratic foundations.”

Regards, John C.