Far be it from me to disagree with one such as Solzhenitsyn but I would argue that Fascist brought very heavily into the idea of subjective truth. They believed that the truth, or at least the ability to apprehend the truth, depended critically on the innate nature of the observer. I think this comes out very clearly in the writings of Fascist on science. (Of course, one has to be careful about making generalizations about Fascist because, especially in Germany, it was more a hodgepodge of various ideas than a coherent ideology.)

I think Communist did believe in objective reality yet the concept of Historical Inevitability so warped their actions that they behaved as if they did not. The concept of Historical Inevitability holds that human social evolution is on rigid evolutionary path predetermined by materialistic forces beyond human control. All human societies will eventually evolve to the same communist state. The only thing that individual actors can do at any particular time is speed the process up or slow it down. This means communist do not have to get the details correct as the massive forces of history will make everything arrive at the same state anyway. Further, the benefits of the communist state would outweigh any of the cost needed to reach it. Combined, these to ideas created an intellectual milieu in which “facts” are useful in accelerating the evolution or not and it is on that basis alone that they are evaluated.

Everyone likes to have faith in someone who they can trust to set things right. It’s a natural human response to the perception of a crisis.

I really like Shannon’s perspective – the tragic view of human nature, the belief that to sin & die is inevitable – and agree awareness leads to a sensible humility. I always figured that the whole concept of checks and balances came from the blend of Puritans who thought that, pragmatists like Franklin (a man who may not have been sure about damnation but figured we’d all commit plenty of errata between the womb and the tomb), and those Virginians who believed in gentlemanly restraint. Those compromises & agreements have served us a good deal better than Utopian schemes based on the blank slate or, heaven forbid, Marx. I also suspect that is why Americans tend to want a man of faith – it is because they suspect our leaders should see in longer terms and with a strong sense that they are part of something bigger and greater than themselves. For most, that is brought home through a religion.

I would quibble though about one thing; my understanding of Solzhenitsyn (which I admit comes from my husband’s study & not mine) is that he makes the opposite argument to yours. He argues that to Fascists there was a factual truth (as wrong as that truth was) but to Communists there was no consideration of factual truth (as demonstrated in the fanatic’s willingness to admit guilt when they were not guilty in show trials). He saw this demonstrated in the arguments by Stalin to kill people as examples – whether they were guilty or not. Of course, the Nazis were evil and wrong; the Communists, however, were not thinking in frameworks where evil and good or wrong and right could be applied – or at least only applied cynically. This argument was debated by George Steiner in the mid-70’s.

Bonus points for the use of the word “antinomianism” which I had to look up.

I wouldn’t reject the idea of a parallel between Leftist ideology and pre-enlightenment religious fundamentalism. Many have argued persuasively that Fascism and Communism functioned as religion even though they are ostensively secular doctrines.

Shia is based around the idea of rule by special people. The Ayatollahs are a caste of priest-kings who claim the right to rule by heredity.

Anyone who claims to have all the answers will fall prey to this idea. As Ginny points out, the central flaw that drives the adoption is simple hubris. In the West, the tragic vision of humanity, usually adopted by the Right offers some inoculation against this particular fault.

What you are describing is the gnostic mindset, and I’m afraid I see evidence of it on all sides, not just the hard political left.

It is not surprising that gnosticism was one of the earliest, and most virulent, Christian heresies, and, further, that western political ideologies, esp. marxism, which is basically an aetheistic version of a Christian heretical belief, should adopt it.

Gnosticism appeals to two very powerful impulses in the human psyche—mysticism and ego.

A dangerous combination in any circumstance, but esp. so when it involves wide ranging political powers. And, as you so aptly point out, if you are endowed with “special” knowledge, it is wrong to restrict yourself from acquiring, by any means, as much power as possible in order to put your knowledge to proper use.

My reservation about Shannon’s analysis is that it applies very strongly, perhaps even more strongly, to the religious fundamentalists in the world as it does to the secular left. (Let’s not forget that there is a very influential religious left also—there just aren’t any scary newspaper articles about them crossing the divide between church and state)

I would submit that the fabulist visions of the strange little man in Tehran, and his religious leaders and followers as well, fit into Shannon’s analysis very well, and the results of their peculiar brand of gnostic knowledge might be very bad for everyone at a much deeper level than political manuevering for partisan advantage.

And so we always come back to pride. Perhaps it is arrogant to throw up our thoughts on a screen & think anyone cares. Still, much we value about our tradition needs the restraint of a little humility. Doubts (not lip service but real) about our ability to restrain appropriate speech or manage climate, to manipulate the economy and raise other people’s children would be a useful corrective.