|
If fascism has a philosophical core it's the resolution to the question of the meaning of life, which it must answer with 'conflict/competition' in comparison with the more utilitarian answers of liberalism and socialism ('pursuit of happiness', etc.). But that's only the, uh, elitist backing of fascism. What makes it broadly appealing whenever it does have broad appeal is more interesting than your social-mind metaphor. It cannot simply resolve anxieties, because the anxieties that fascism resolve are fabricated (dangerous immigrants! race war! etc.). It's the reassertion of old ideas (in particular nationalism) to resolve the social question of capitalism. To bring society forward it is necessary to bring it back, etc.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 10:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:31 |
|
Shibawanko posted:Well the way I imagine it, it doesn't require any conscious insight for the average person. A fascist leader such as Hitler or Wilders or Hashimoto articulates this latent anxiety of many people in a certain way which results in fascism (and such leaders are usually backed up by more "philosophical" fascists such as Goebbles for Hitler or Bosma for Wilders who are closer to being self-aware fascists, and therefore maybe even more deplorable than the charismatic leader himself). The rank and file just perceive this articulation as pleasant, as somehow "tickling" their feelgood sense of belonging and re-absorption into a whole that threatens to reject them (though I think at some level they remain aware of what atrocious slugs they have become, and the price of their belonging which is inflicted on whatever group they attack as part of their psychosis, and are therefore culpable for what they do). I think it's far easier to dehumanize other people than you think.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 11:33
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:You live in the Netherlands and Japan, right? Yeah. Part of the reason that made me think this way is that a very similar process is occurring in both places, seemingly completely independently of particulars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 12:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:If fascism has a philosophical core it's the resolution to the question of the meaning of life, which it must answer with 'conflict/competition' in comparison with the more utilitarian answers of liberalism and socialism ('pursuit of happiness', etc.). But that's only the, uh, elitist backing of fascism. What makes it broadly appealing whenever it does have broad appeal is more interesting than your social-mind metaphor. It cannot simply resolve anxieties, because the anxieties that fascism resolve are fabricated (dangerous immigrants! race war! etc.). It's the reassertion of old ideas (in particular nationalism) to resolve the social question of capitalism. To bring society forward it is necessary to bring it back, etc. It's against that that the fabricated anxieties you mention came about (race war, dangerous immigrants, etc.). Fascism was a racist variation of several 20th century ideological movements that sought to resolve these problems. (I'd count Bolshevism and anarchism as competing, non-racist versions.) Though I agree that fascism couldn't resolve the underlying anxieties either. Utopian ideologies cannot translate into coherent policies at home, and for fascism, its identification with conflict as a means to revitalize society meant that it not only required the creation of a massively disruptive war economy, but it was bound to be destroyed by the massive coalition that was inevitably going to be raised against it. Edit: We have probably one example of an existing fascist state today: North Korea. If you agree with B.R. Myers. But even here it's needed the protection of larger non-fascist powers in order to survive. Equatorial Guinea? Assad? BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 12:46
|
|
|
So the fascist states rose because of capitalism and corporatism instead of laissez faire? And I was thinking issues came from nationalizing of banks that brought upon capitalism and corporatism
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:So the fascist states rose because of capitalism and corporatism instead of laissez faire? And I was thinking issues came from nationalizing of banks that brought upon capitalism and corporatism A guy with the number 88 in his name, I wonder what his stance on fascism is...
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:A guy with the number 88 in his name, I wonder what his stance on fascism is... Well I swore I saw this comment before. Actually I learned what 88 is used for in this thread. So I make for a poor fascist. Antifascists might assume and make bigoted comments faster than fascist themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:A guy with the number 88 in his name, I wonder what his stance on fascism is... His stance is 'confusion', based on his previous posts in the thread. And not just on fascism, but all world events.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:His stance is 'confusion', based on his previous posts in the thread. And not just on fascism, but all world events. Yaya even though I gave some people news articles about it and looking at today it seems I was more accurate than I hoped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:Yaya even though I gave some people news articles about it and looking at today it seems I was more accurate than I hoped. A guy with 88 in his name coming in to post in a thread about fascism and then making posts apologising for the Greek Golden Dawn and rambling about racial purity is either a cunning troll or so hopelessly clueless he shouldn't be posting in DnD at all. Given your other posts, I'm opting for clueless. Omi-Polari posted:The basis for your argument is correct: it's a resolution to the question of the meaning of life. But I don't agree the underlying anxieties are fabricated--they're quite real. The particulars of fascist propaganda were certainly fabricated. But fascism arose during a period in which industrialized capitalism destabilized traditional societies and weakened the European nation-state. Life for many people started to feel chaotic and the social ties that binded them together into communities, the social spaces they used to communicate, and the forms of reference they used to construct their identities began to weaken in the face of mass media. This was real! Fascism emerged as a radical solution and proposed to reconnect people with their history, culture, race, fused together by conflict. And, it seized on some innate human social instincts also common in religion, which is the tendency for us to create an overarching canopy over society that infuses our lives with meaning and purpose. There was definitely also a populist element to the rise (and tacit acceptance) of fascism in 1930s Europe, set to the backdrop of the Great Depression. "Your economic woes are all the fault of [outgroup]. Join with us in driving those evil [racial epithet]s out of the country, as we restore the economic prosperity that is rightfully yours as a member of [ingroup]." I think what it boils down to is that fascism's mass appeal is a mixture of identity politics at its extreme (giving a group identity to people who have lost theirs in social upheaval) and populist appeals to the poor. I'd like to think the average Bolshevist or anarchists was a little better read, though. They also tended to structure their organisations more democratically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:There was definitely also a populist element to the rise (and tacit acceptance) of fascism in 1930s Europe, set to the backdrop of the Great Depression. "Your economic woes are all the fault of [outgroup]. Join with us in driving those evil [racial epithet]s out of the country, as we restore the economic prosperity that is rightfully yours as a member of [ingroup]." Any aspiring mass movement has to be populistic to some extent, in order to be successful. And the Italian Fascists, along with an array of proto-fascist European radical nationalists, got their start long before the Depression.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:So the fascist states rose because of capitalism and corporatism instead of laissez faire? And I was thinking issues came from nationalizing of banks that brought upon capitalism and corporatism There's a totally mental Hitler speech from 1937 on art: "There can be, therefore, no standard of yesterday and today, of modern or un-modern: there can be only the standard of 'valueless' or 'valuable', of 'eternal' or 'transitory'. And therefore in speaking of German art I shall see the standard for that art in the German people, in its character and life, its emotions and its development. ... The new age of today is at work on a new human type. Men and women are to be healthier, stronger: there is a new feeling of life, a new joy in life.” ^ What's interesting here is that he's saying the Nazi project is to create a new type of human being. It's not simply a reactionary message. Modern life is "valueless" and "transitory." But Aryan values are eternal and can be recreated in the here-and-now to build a better future. Lead out in cuffs posted:I'd like to think the average Bolshevist or anarchists was a little better read, though. They also tended to structure their organisations more democratically. Anarchism is a weird case. It never came close to producing the written work of the communists. It's also long had an overt romanticist streak running through it. Like the joke "(Question:) How many Crimethinc kids does it take to screw in a lightbulb? (Answer:) There were only two of us, wandering listlessly in the night. The city glowed bright in all of its excess. When we stepped foot in that abandoned warehouse, the first thing we saw was the burned out lightbulbs, hanging from the mold-spattered ceiling. It only took us a couple minutes to switch out that vacuum-filled shell. We hadn’t only made a change in the warehouse, but in our hearts. We climbed up to the roof to watch the stars, cars zipping by like ants, oblivious to the beauty that rests above them. When we woke up to the sun-rise we knew, we just loving knew, we could could change a hell of a lot more than just lightbulbs."
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
Oh, come on, Crimethinc-style "anarchists" have as little in common with historical anarchism as anarcho-capitalists do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
Historical anarchists have very little to do with anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:I mean capitalism. But more specifically fascism arose as a response to the chaos and disruption created by the technology and new social relations brought about by capitalism. It's interesting if you look, separately, at eco-extremist manifestos from groups that set off bombs at research laboratories. You'll see them say that modern life is confused and chaotic. Our nature is divorced from the way we live today. Nature = Order. Or like Tyler Durden in Fight Club when talking about atomized, hyper-individualistic modern life: "Our Great War's a spiritual war ... our Great Depression is our lives!" In Japan fascism came about through a desire to create an "alternate modernity" (from Karatani, history & repetition), there was an attempt to create a kind of non-capitalist modernity by focusing on the particular-as-universal (that is, the nation as representative of universal values) rather than directly on the universal (like Malevich or de Stijl or whatever). Something similar happened in Germany I think. This, I would say, is precisely reactionary: it's a retreat from the horror of directly pursued universality by returning to an (imagined) particular. Of course Nazism also stole a lot of its rituals and rhetoric from the socialist movements (shown in Zizek's latest movie), but as a farce without meaning. When Hitler tries to be profound it's always this kind of aestheticism. Dusz posted:I think it's far easier to dehumanize other people than you think. Right, but put in this way it sounds too much like a simple liberal-style problem of morality, as in "the problem is that we shouldn't dehumanize others". The question should be what causes dehumanization to function at all, whether dehumanization is really straightforward. I don't think it's that straightforward in a "the person in front of me is literally an animal" kind of way, on some level the murderers must have known that what they did was abominable, but something either blocked that realization, or the realization itself functioned as the drive to do it. Shibawanko fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:In Japan fascism came about through a desire to create an "alternate modernity" (from Karatani, history & repetition), there was an attempt to create a kind of non-capitalist modernity by focusing on the particular-as-universal (that is, the nation as representative of universal values) rather than directly on the universal (like Malevich or de Stijl or whatever). Something similar happened in Germany I think. This, I would say, is precisely reactionary: it's a retreat from the horror of directly pursued universality by returning to an (imagined) particular. I wouldn't exactly call Japan fascist. They were more classic authoritarian nationalists and more continuous with the European governments of the 19th century than with the fascism of the 20th, Prussia rather than Nazi Germany.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Why? Fear of cop/Nazi infiltration? Yep. After its initial 10-15 members all of which knew each other well, we probably recruited 2 other people in the entire time FightDemBack was around. Not becuase we didn't want to, but because most of us operated under nom-de-plumes and where utterly paranoid about the consequences of being outed to a fascist movement with a history of bombing and stabbing opponents and who really really hated us due to our policy of going after them in their non-political life. That did lead to an accusation that we where unable to lead "the masses". Which we agreed with, and implored the various mass based orgs to take that role instead. Our role was primary as a research and intervention organization. If we had actually participated much in street based ANTIFA we'd probably have been even more paranoid. duck monster fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
Actually that leads me to a point I've wanted to talk about for some time. Conventionally its often said there are two types of antifascist organizations, Liberal and Radical. Liberal being your polite protest and lobbying guys, and radical being your kick-the-poo poo-out-of-the-fash guys. I think this hopelessly misrepresents the reality of it. I propose there are actually 4 broad classes anti-fascist organizations. 1) Intstitutional anti-fascists(Liberal/Authoritarian): These guys tend to focus on lobbying, education and working with police to reduce the influence of racism in the State Apparatus. They are "Liberal" by definition, but still have an important role in getting legal protections for minorities up and providing nemesis against nazis in the courts. They place responsibility on the government and police to solve it. Sometimes crosses over with mass and research based groups, somewhat alergic to direct action groups. Canonical examples;- Southern Poverty Law Centre(US). Hope not Hate(UK). 2) Mass based anti-fascists(Socialist): These guys tend to eschew violent confrontation with fascists favoring instead mass based large protests, working with unions and the labor movement, and emphasizing the failure of the traditional left/labor moveent to provide answers to the working class as to why fascism is the wrong answer. Sometimes crosses over with research and institutional groups. At times antagonistic(publically), and at times supportive(privately) of direct action groups. Canonical examples: United against Fascism(UK). Rock against Racism(Int). 3) Direct action anti-fascism(anti-authoritarian): These guys respect the need for mass action, but see their role as providing physical nemesis to fascists. These guys seek to protect minorities and activists from violence by physically defending them, and to make being a fascist a dangerous proposition. Sometimes crosses over with research based groups. Antagonistic to institutional groups, and mixed relationship to mass based groups whilst supporting their goal. Canonical examples: Red action squads(UK). Anti Fascist Action(Int). 4) Forensic/Research anti-fascists(academic): These guys infiltrate, observe, and manipulate fascist groups behind the scenes attempting to pit them against each other, gather data to facilitate targettedinterventions, gather evidence for lawyers (and sometimes police, touch nose, say no more) and provide key data to Direct action, Mass based, and Institutional groups to ensure all three types of group operate most effectively. These groups tend to have relationships with all three types of groups, but publically might eschew association with Direct action groups to avoid compromizing legitimacy of Institutional comrades. The academic base of these groups mean they sometimes get involved with policy work. Canonical examples;- Searchlight(UK), FightDemBack(Aus), Expo(Swe) I'd argue all four groups are necessary as they defend society the following wasys. 1) Institutional groups defend the state from fascist/racist takeover. 2) Mass based groups build broad social change. 3) Direct action groups defend minorities and the streets from hardcore nazis/fascists. 4) Research groups ensure all 3 groups operate with the best information available and shine a bright light on the hiding places of cockaroaches. If your missing any one of these sorts of groups in your local antifa ecosystem, I suggest filling that void. HOWEVER, Direct action is NOT necessarily the right approach if the nazis are not attacking people or organizing publically. Don't start a war with angry skinheads unless you absolutely have to. I wrote a paper about this, 4-5 years ago, but couldn't get the loving thing published anywhere because Institutional groups seem to dislike anything saying that we need street headkickers, and street headkickers are alergic to anything that involves being nice to cops. Bit loving annoying as I'd argue all approaches are needed. duck monster fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
^^^ A good summary, duck monster, but I think you're understating the case on the headkickers. In my experience they're mostly in it for the aggro rather than to genuinely combat fascism. As such, they're averse to anything other than violent response including all other branches of anti-fascism, who they see as talking when they should be acting.Lead out in cuffs posted:A guy with 88 in his name coming in to post in a thread about fascism and then making posts apologising for the Greek Golden Dawn and rambling about racial purity is either a cunning troll or so hopelessly clueless he shouldn't be posting in DnD at all. No, no, you misunderstand. He happened to see an Arab friend of his passing by while he was talking and called out a greeting - "Hi, al-Hitla!" When he stuck out his right arm he was waving to attract his friend's attention. All perfectly innocent, I have no idea where you get these horrible libellous opinions from. Jedit fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 11:28
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:I think you're probably right about that. Picture if you will a Nazi library and a Bolshevist library. In the Nazi library there's a thousand copies of Mein Kampf that have never been touched--they're just there to be praised. And, a bunch of picture books about idyllic German life, children's stories about ancient Nordic supermen. This is extremely naive. You are conflating mass base and intellectual vanguard. Fascism has intellectuals and ideologues, like any ideology. I assure you, there are fascists with huge libraries, filled with philosophy and political theory. Some of these are even very popular in more mainstream academia (Schmitt, Croce, Hegel). More political knowledge and theoretical or historical reading does not prevent you from becoming or staying fascist. Look at Evelyn Waugh. Antwan3K fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
Jedit posted:
Just for the record I do not like Hitler or Nazism because I do not like Socialism on any level because of the mandated levies needed to support it. Also killing all the Jews is a waste of man power he should of just let them be German citizens but you know, grandparents. I like the idea of Nations because we are all different and have different views so we should segregate ourselves and let each have their own laws while we trade internationally with no tarriffs. But that would never happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:Just for the record I do not like Hitler or Nazism because I do not like Socialism on any level because of the mandated levies needed to support it. Also killing all the Jews is a waste of man power he should of just let them be German citizens but you know, grandparents. You are a liberal. What you describe is classical liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
Antwan3K posted:You are a liberal. What you describe is classical liberalism. No, it's libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Classical liberalism is libertarianism Mill talks about groups of people unfit for liberty and calls them barbarians or something like that Either way, liberalism is the overarching justifying framework of the bourgeoisie, it is also a literal mental illness that somehow escaped institutionalization
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:Classical liberalism is libertarianism No it's not. Classical liberals believe in the Social Contract, while libertarians believe every man is an island. That's a pretty fundamental distinction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:No it's not. Classical liberals believe in the Social Contract, while libertarians believe every man is an island. That's a pretty fundamental distinction. Most libertarians will tell you the enforcement of literal contracts is one of the only roles for the state. The jump from this to the theoretical 'Social Contract' is not that hard. American libertarians probably just don't like the word social as it reminds them of socialism. That was not a concern for nineteenth-century liberals. Antwan3K fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Antwan3K posted:Most libertarians will tell you the enforcement of literal contracts is one of the only roles for the state. The jump from this to the theoretical 'Social Contract' is not that hard. American libertarians probably just don't like the word social as it reminds them of socialism. That was not a concern for nineteenth-century liberals. I don't like the word liberty. I am more for Freedom than liberty. But I guess I am close to a classic liberal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:Well I swore I saw this comment before. Actually I learned what 88 is used for in this thread. So I make for a poor fascist. Antifascists might assume and make bigoted comments faster than fascist themselves. hahaha hey this thing looks cool. lets tack it onto my screenname without even bothering to look it up
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:hahaha hey this thing looks cool. lets tack it onto my screenname without even bothering to look it up He might have been born in 1988? Not that that makes him a less terrible poster, mind you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:No it's not. Classical liberals believe in the Social Contract, while libertarians believe every man is an island. That's a pretty fundamental distinction. It fits pretty well with the liberal tradition, if you stress Locke and Hume. Smith and Mill not quite as much, though in the final analysis their social concerns seem somewhat shallow in comparison to their worry about taxes..
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Antwan3K posted:Most libertarians will tell you the enforcement of literal contracts is one of the only roles for the state. The jump from this to the theoretical 'Social Contract' is not that hard. It actually is hard. The libertarian viewpoint is that people never explicitly agree to a social contract, and therefore it is immoral/unethical to force them to adhere to it. That's why they are hardcore anti-government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
Sorry but minarchism encompasses the nightwatchman state which is hella libertarian
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:I like the idea of Nations because we are all different and have different views so we should segregate ourselves and let each have their own laws while we trade internationally with no tarriffs. But that would never happen. Would you say that when it comes to nationality and race, you'd prefer a realistic approach?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Would you say that when it comes to nationality and race, you'd prefer a realistic approach? I'm sure he does. What's wrong with wanting black and white people to remain separate but equal, after all? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Would you say that when it comes to nationality and race, you'd prefer a realistic approach? Nationality and culture. I don't care about race but it seems that certain thug cultures irritate me. Especially when my house gets broken into like 4 times in a couple years. Do I blame a race? No only culture and religion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:Nationality and culture. I don't care about race but it seems that certain thug cultures irritate me. Especially when my house gets broken into like 4 times in a couple years. Do I blame a race? No only culture and religion. Ahhhhhhh, thank you. Ever since Emden got run out on a rail we've had no one to fill this particular niche. Pray tell, what common element(s) make up these "thug cultures" you find so irritating? Can you think of any current examples?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Ahhhhhhh, thank you. Ever since Emden got run out on a rail we've had no one to fill this particular niche. Well generally younger people around my generation. Even my younger brother got suckered into it and spends his time in jail. I guess from poorer families to. Young and poor seem to basically fill the common elements. E: seem also meth head and hard drug users might be a common element. darthzeta88 fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:Well generally younger people around my generation. Even my younger brother got suckered into it and spends his time in jail. I guess from poorer families to. Young and poor seem to basically fill the common elements. So, poverty and substance abuse are common elements in your eyes. Doesn't seem like much for an entire "culture" as you term it to rest on. Similarly "younger people" doesn't strike me as a particularly useful example, since young people tend to act moronic across board, heaven knows I did my share of dumb crap when I was younger. Can you be a little more specific?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:Nationality and culture. I don't care about race but it seems that certain thug cultures irritate me. Especially when my house gets broken into like 4 times in a couple years. Do I blame a race? No only culture and religion. What culture holds burglary as a tenet, what religion proclaims "thou shalt boost thy neighbor's poo poo from his home"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:What culture holds burglary as a tenet, what religion proclaims "thou shalt boost thy neighbor's poo poo from his home"? You know, those guys. Them, over there! Those guys slightly different than us! Git 'em! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:15
|
|
