Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Social fascism
Options
-
22-04-2007 1:26pm#1Social fascism is a term widely credited to Stalin that first originated in the 1920's at the Communist International (third international) in which it was argued that the end of capitalism was imminent and could only be prevented by the counter revolutionary activities by fascists and social democrats.
This was a position that they adopted in response to their opponents in the 'Second International' which collapsed during WW1 when the social democratic parties took a position of 'Social Patriotism' in favour of the ruling classes in their respective countries and refused to form a united socialist front against fascism and Capitalism.
Their logic was simple enough. They believed that the socialists willingness to accept incremental improvements will eventually lead to their being corrupted and subsumed by the capitalist classes and then use their position of trust to re-order society once more in the interests of the capitalist fascist elements of society. They also had a highly critical view of the social patriotism that resulted in collapsing international workers solidarity in favour of patriotism, nationalism and hopes of nominal improvements in material conditions at home.
Fast forward to the 21st century and new discourses on Social fascism are starting to emerge, mainly from Latin American academics, but they also apply in western social democracies.
The reason d'etre for social democrats in the first place was the struggle to overthrow capitalism (eventually) This goal then evolved to a struggle to win workers rights in opposition to the demands of ever expanding wealth accumulation by capitalists. Then it evolved into a 'balance' between workers rights and capitalist accumulation, and now it's moved into reverse. Self described social democracies are now reducing government regulation on corporations at the expense of social and workers rights, in favour of competing in the international globalized evonomy. Meaningful international solidarity has become reduced to holding Music concerts petitioning capitalist institutions to drop crippling and unjust debt (which the Imperialist capitalist institutions pretend to agree to and then proceed to ignore).
The U.K. labour party is the perfect example of this shift over time from a nominal workers party, into a party for the elites, more conservative than the conservatives themselves, but it is also happening in the even most successful social democracies in the world (Sweden and Finland just elected 'centre right' parliaments and France look set to vote in a neo-liberal Pro American president in the coming weeks)
Academics like Arturo Escobar blame this on the inevitable processes inherent within the imperialist capitalist model. The fact that western governments can pretend to have high moral, sometimes socialist ideals at home (despite them still allowing slums and extreme poverty and social exclusion to exist) while still pursuing the worst kinds of oppressive economic and military activities abroad. He argues that pseudo-reformist "social democracies" are just as responsible for the massive global and class inequalities that are evident in the world today, as even the more overtly fascist regimes (that are fully supported by those social democracies) The question being, if you install and/or support a fascist regime, aren't you guilty of fascism yourself?
(source attached)One of the main consequences, for Santos, of the collapse of emancipation into regulation is the structural predominance of exclusion over inclusion. Either because of the exclusion of many of those formerly included, or because those who in the past were candidates for inclusion are now prevented from being so, the problematic of exclusion has become terribly accentuated, with ever growing numbers of people thrown into a veritable ‘state of nature’. The size of the excluded class varies of course with the centrality of the country in the world system, but it is particularly staggering in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The result is a new type of social fascism as ‘a social and civilizational regime’.20 This regime, paradoxically, coexists with democratic societies, hence its novelty.
This fascism may operate in various modes: in terms of spatial exclusion;
territories struggled over by armed actors; the fascism of insecurity; and of
course the deadly financial fascism, which at times dictates the marginalisation of entire regions and countries that do not fulfil the conditions needed for capital, according to the IMF and its faithful management consultants.21 To the former Third World correspond the highest levels of social fascism of these kinds. This is, in sum, the world that is being created by globalisation from above, or hegemonic globalisation......0
Comments
-
I'm a fan of Escobar. And I'm disappointed to see him use the term 'fascism'. While he has said in the past, 'words are strategic sites of struggle', I'm not convinced this is the one to struggle over.
Fascism, IMO, was a specific historical phenomenon in Europe, with very peculiar traits. It was a result of the trauma of WWI, rapid industrialisation, social crisis, the breakdown of monarchicalism, the consequent mutation of nationalism into hyper-nationalism. Have I left anything out?
We are now in very different times with our own phenomena, and it would, I think, be more helpful to invent a new term for what we face today. It's not that tenets of fascism are not evident in today's world, but it's simply not the same. There is also the danger of 'fascism' gaining currency and giving those who rule the world another concept to free-ride people into oppression.
I've only read some of the article, but much of it reminds me of 'Empire' and 'Multitude' by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Perhaps from a Eurocentric viewpoint (justified in their opinion), they prefer to use the terms 'Empire' to denote neoliberal dominance over people's lives, and 'Multitude' to denote the majority world who, at once, are singular in their local identities but united in how we are affected by Empire and desire change. This seems to resonate with Escobar's endorsement of de Souza Santos who emphasises the politics of place.
But what I'm particularly intruiged by is Escobar's call to go 'beyond the Third World'. In typical post-development style, he claims that modernity has exhausted itself - modernity cannot solve the problems that it has created (though does he define 'modernity'?). The 'Third World' is a creation of modernity, and so it must come to pass that any new paradigm must divine much of its wisdom from 'tradition' - knowledge suppressed by modernity to support the global domination of Empire. Solutions lie in collapsing this 'modernity/tradition' distinction.
Again, Hardt and Negri spend all their time in 'Multitude' explaining that, right now, we are in an 'interregnum' between one paradigm and a new one as yet unmade. But that paradigm can go two ways: towards an even more oppressive Empire, or global democracy.0 -
I agree with DadaKopf (that hurt to say).DadaKopf wrote:I'm a fan of Escobar. And I'm disappointed to see him use the term 'fascism'. While he has said in the past, 'words are strategic sites of struggle', I'm not convinced this is the one to struggle over.
Fascism, IMO, was a specific historical phenomenon in Europe, with very peculiar traits. It was a result of the trauma of WWI, rapid industrialisation, social crisis, the breakdown of monarchicalism, the consequent mutation of nationalism into hyper-nationalism.
It also gave an alternative democratic model, although badly implemented in pretty much all cases (Italy, Germany, Spain, Argentina, etc.).Have I left anything out?0 -
'Alternative democratic model'? Explain.0
-
Corporatism. Whether you agree with it or not it was/is an alternative democratic (political/economic) model.DadaKopf wrote:'Alternative democratic model'? Explain.0 -
Well, there are different kinds of corporatism. Care to go into a weencie bit more detail?0
-
Advertisement
-
I've gone into pretty much as much detail as you did, so not really.DadaKopf wrote:Well, there are different kinds of corporatism. Care to go into a weencie bit more detail?0 -
What is 'social fascism'?
How could you call someone a Fascist and a capitalist?
Where are these Fascist countries? Fascism died with Franco. Sure there is people still supporting Fascist ideals but wouldnt really be any strong movement.0 -
DadaKopf wrote:I'm a fan of Escobar. And I'm disappointed to see him use the term 'fascism'. While he has said in the past, 'words are strategic sites of struggle', I'm not convinced this is the one to struggle over.
There are no words in popular discourse that have the same impact as fascism
We could come up with a new specific term to refer to the current exact geo-political situation, but that would just start a whole new semantic debate that would take generations to have the same impact that fascism has following a century of war and oppression. National Socialism (NAZIism) didn't have the impact it has now until WWII was already underway and by then it was too late.
The current words like Neo-Liberalism, Globalization etc are not powerful enough across the spectrum to fully convey the extremely harsh reality of the impacts they describe, maybe they will in 20 years, but by then millions more will have died. Corporatism would have been a good word, but it's already been used to describe something different.
There is an element of poetic license here that is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. His point is that 'social democracies' try to absolve themselves from any connection with the appalling injustices that they cause and perpetuate through their participation in global capitalism0 -
If you're not even going to bother reading the thread, why bother posting with silly questions?Dontico wrote:What is 'social fascism'?
How could you call someone a Fascist and a capitalist?
Where are these Fascist countries? Fascism died with Franco. Sure there is people still supporting Fascist ideals but wouldnt really be any strong movement.
(and your statement 'fascism died with Franco' is ludicrous.0 -
I disagree. I think it does the Movement a disservice to call what is happening social fascism, even though what *is* happening may exhibit elements of it.Akrasia wrote:There are no words in popular discourse that have the same impact as fascism
We could come up with a new specific term to refer to the current exact geo-political situation, but that would just start a whole new semantic debate that would take generations to have the same impact that fascism has following a century of war and oppression. National Socialism (NAZIism) didn't have the impact it has now until WWII was already underway and by then it was too late.
The current words like Neo-Liberalism, Globalization etc are not powerful enough across the spectrum to fully convey the extremely harsh reality of the impacts they describe, maybe they will in 20 years, but by then millions more will have died. Corporatism would have been a good word, but it's already been used to describe something different.
There is an element of poetic license here that is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. His point is that 'social democracies' try to absolve themselves from any connection with the appalling injustices that they cause and perpetuate through their participation in global capitalism
There's a perfectly good word worth claiming. It's called 'Empire'. It's currently in vogue, Escobar uses it in that article, neoliberals use it, and it's worth claiming for the critical left.
However, I think his use of the phrase 'social fascism' reflects a new, potentially unfortunate development in, er, developments around the world. Nationalism, or more specifically, 'neo-nationalism'. Anthropologists and development researchers call this the rise of 'identity politics' - but while this is a nice, neutral phrase in principle, political developments in France, Poland, Russia, Sudan and India to name a few are pointing towards a new wave of nationalism that can only end in more blood and iron.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, but Empire or the convoluted 'neo-emperialism' is being widely used to refer specifically to the actions of the U.S. and to a lesser extent Britain, It would be a very difficult debate to equate the likes of Sweden or Holland (in the 21st century with the violent expansionist foreign policy of the United States, but these countries are at least partially responsible for the problems caused by Empire building. Social fascism, which is a term almost as old as the term fascism itself implies that the social democrat system itself is beyond redemption and it asserts further Escobar's desire to find a completely new way and build a completely new world.DadaKopf wrote:I disagree. I think it does the Movement a disservice to call what is happening social fascism, even though what *is* happening may exhibit elements of it.
There's a perfectly good word worth claiming. It's called 'Empire'. It's currently in vogue, Escobar uses it in that article, neoliberals use it, and it's worth claiming for the critical left.
However, I think his use of the phrase 'social fascism' reflects a new, potentially unfortunate development in, er, developments around the world. Nationalism, or more specifically, 'neo-nationalism'. Anthropologists and development researchers call this the rise of 'identity politics' - but while this is a nice, neutral phrase in principle, political developments in France, Poland, Russia, Sudan and India to name a few are pointing towards a new wave of nationalism that can only end in more blood and iron.0 -
-
No, really, your comments are indecipherable.
Akrasia, 'Empire' doesn't *have* to refer to the US. It's been used to refer to different things at different times, remember the "Evil Empire"?
Today, 'Empire' refers not explicity to the USA (except among neocons), but to global capitalist social relations - it places emphasis on the system and its constituent parts. History has shown that it's dangerous to play the blame-game.
Surely 'social fascism' is a cloaked word for 'George Bush'.
It's just not as simple as that. At least, to me, 'Empire' points toward deep systemic issues that must be solved through negating empire.0 -
Actually you are attempting to use a popularly miscategorised term to convey an emotive (irrational) message. At best this is patronising and at worst it is an attempt to defame by association.Akrasia wrote:There is an element of poetic license here that is not a form of intellectual dishonesty.
Emotively the term Fascism creates associations with National Socialism, which in turn is associated with its part in the mass extermination of millions of ethnic groups throughout Europe.
By your use of the term, what you are attempting to do is create the same emotive association between something that has little or nothing to do with Fascism, National Socialism, let alone mass exterminations. It's actually the height of intellectual dishonesty.0 -
Just because something is emotive doesn't make it irrational. Perhaps Dadakopf is correct and we should focus on different terms like Empire or something/The Corinthian wrote:Actually you are attempting to use a popularly miscategorised term to convey an emotive (irrational) message. At best this is patronising and at worst it is an attempt to defame by association.
Not really, Naziism is associated with genocide, fascism is the broader term that includes monsters like Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet etcEmotively the term Fascism creates associations with National Socialism, which in turn is associated with its part in the mass extermination of millions of ethnic groups throughout Europe.
Anyway, the limitations of language are unfortunate
Fascism is not about mass exterminations. At it's most basic level, it's a philosophy that emphasises economic power above human needs.By your use of the term, what you are attempting to do is create the same emotive association between something that has little or nothing to do with Fascism, National Socialism, let alone mass exterminations. It's actually the height of intellectual dishonesty.0 -
Fascism, to my knowledge, is about the personification of state power under the leadership of one person which puts national prestige and economic prowess above human liberties as subjects are absorbed as machines of the former.
That's very different to a critical understanding of capitalism, which isn't identical with fascism.0 -
Fascism, in my view, has the folowing characteristics:
Economic: Dirigiste, corporatist, economic central planning with private enterprise "co-operating" with government decree, effectively becoming an arm of government. Opposed to laissez-faire economics. Trade unions suppressed or incorporated into state machinery. Prediliction for grandiose public works - "fascist architecture"
Civil Society: Authoritarian/Totalitarian. Concept of rights replaced by idealistic state paternalism.
Ideological: Strongly nationalist. Statist. Supremecy of state over people. Extreme concept of patriotism. Cult of personality based on leader. Zenophobic. Racist.
Political: Single party government - opposition suppressed. Anti-communist.
Cultural: Government control of newspapers, media. Artists encouraged (often generously) to spout the party line. Firm control of education.
Gender Politics: Mysogynist, Anti-gay, espouses so-called "family values" Population growth often encouraged.
Military: Highly militaristic culture. Aggressive towards foreign states and particularly towards internal minorities that are not identified with the state.
Of the above, corporatism, nationalism and authoritarianism are the most distinctive defining elements. In that sense, it has a very specific meaning. Classic fascist states were Germany, pre-Anschluss Austria, Italy, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, the Baltic Republics, Spain, Portugal. I don't see the point of using the word as a catch all-term for any authoritarian right-wing regime. Nor is neo-liberalism or globalisation the same as fascism.0 -
But it will only be rational by coincidence, if at all. Emotion - by definition - is not a product of reason, but typically a product of its absence.Akrasia wrote:Just because something is emotive doesn't make it irrational.
Dadakopf is correct because he’s pointing out that your argument is essentially a pile of steaming crap that falls apart whenever anyone challenges it even superficially. He’s not the only one to point this out to you.Perhaps Dadakopf is correct and we should focus on different terms like Empire or something/
Essentially you’re trying to argue that Charlie Chaplin is a Nazi, because he had a moustache like Hitler’s and thus that’s good enough reason to attach the label, presumably so that the unwashed masses will naturally feel inclined to dislike poor old Charlie.
I actually think it’s bizarre that you seem to be at pains to cite the differences between Fascism and National Socialism when you’re so cavalier with those between Fascism and Western (liberal) democracies. Either you haven’t thought this through or you’re actually being actively disingenuous.Not really, Naziism is associated with genocide, fascism is the broader term that includes monsters like Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet etc
I think you mean the limitations of reality. You’re attempting to portray one ideology in terms of another because it’ll hit the right emotional buttons. Problem is that your comparison fails dismally, which leaves us with nothing more than an attempt at deception upon your part.Anyway, the limitations of language are unfortunate
That’s a horribly simplistic and arguably inaccurate statement that seems only to betray how little you actually know about the subject. And, TBH, and even if it were it’s frankly an accusation that could be levelled at any ideology – five year plan anyone?Fascism is not about mass exterminations. At it's most basic level, it's a philosophy that emphasises economic power above human needs.0 -
Actually Fascism wasn’t racist. You’ll find that National Socialism, and any Fascist ideology that it essentially controlled, was pretty much the only one that was – and very much so. Most Fascist movements saw the nation as a cultural rather than racial concept.Ideological: Strongly nationalist. Statist. Supremecy of state over people. Extreme concept of patriotism. Cult of personality based on leader. Zenophobic. Racist.
Of course this is not to say that they did not contain elements of racism, but then again you have to look at the period in question. Both France and Britain were happy to impose radical laws in their colonies too at the same time. Not nice, but that’s how the World was back then.
Again there’s an element of the period in question to look at. The inter war years were tumultuous politically in Europe and pretty much every radical movement at the time was belligerent. That’s not to say that it would not have been militaristic regardless, but it was not in all cases, as we saw with Peronism (which people tend to forget was essentially Fascist). So I do think it is a debatable point.Military: Highly militaristic culture. Aggressive towards foreign states and particularly towards internal minorities that are not identified with the state.0 -
Ummm. Is there really a much of a difference? Culture has an inherent element of race and ethnicity and fascism played this up.The Corinthian wrote:Actually Fascism wasn’t racist. You’ll find that National Socialism, and any Fascist ideology that it essentially controlled, was pretty much the only one that was – and very much so. Most Fascist movements saw the nation as a cultural rather than racial concept.
Point taken. It was a turbulent time. But an essential component of fascism is an effective state security apparatus. Once this exists, it can gain popular acceptance by being turned against internal or external perceived enemies. This also cements the desired identification of the citizen with the state. Thus I say fascism, of its nature, tends to produce military aggression. (Of course the same point could be made about other political systems too!)The Corinthian wrote:Again there’s an element of the period in question to look at. The inter war years were tumultuous politically in Europe and pretty much every radical movement at the time was belligerent. That’s not to say that it would not have been militaristic regardless, but it was not in all cases, as we saw with Peronism (which people tend to forget was essentially Fascist). So I do think it is a debatable point.0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually there is a huge difference. If one looks at one of the principle historical inspirations of Fascism, ancient Rome, citizenship was extended from Rome, through to Italy and ultimately throughout the empire by 212 AD. Typically it was a cultural concept, extended towards Romanised territories, although it also often done for political and economic reasons – however it was never racially based.Ummm. Is there really a much of a difference? Culture has an inherent element of race and ethnicity and fascism played this up.
In the Fascist states on the twenties and thirties, none of them defined citizenship in terms of race (outside of the racism that was common to all European nations with respect to their colonial subjects), with the exception of German Fascism. As Germany became more influential this racialism was exported, first to Italy (which saw numerous protests from Jewish Fascists, in such books as Abramo Levi’s Noi Ebrei) and later to her puppet states in France, Romania, etc.
However, outside of the National Socialist sphere (before and after World War II) of influence there’s actually very limited evidence of racially driven policies in Fascism.
I would not have said that an essential component of Fascism is an effective state security apparatus – at least any more than any other centralised governmental system. What there was that would support what you’re saying was cultural militarism, that those qualities that are found in the military sphere (strength, discipline, honour, etc) were exalted in Fascist society.Point taken. It was a turbulent time. But an essential component of fascism is an effective state security apparatus. Once this exists, it can gain popular acceptance by being turned against internal or external perceived enemies. This also cements the desired identification of the citizen with the state. Thus I say fascism, of its nature, tends to produce military aggression. (Of course the same point could be made about other political systems too!)
This certainly was the case in most Fascist doctrines and would have contributed towards being aggressive and potentially belligerent, however one must consider how much of this was a product of the era in which Fascism existed. Post War Fascist states, few as they were, tended to slowly relegate militarism to a ceremonial importance (such as Spain) or were even largely devoid of it (such as Argentina). However I’d agree the tendency is certainly there in the ideology.
I do think it is important to view Fascism in the context of what it actually is, a fairly short lived ideology that existed in a tumultuous time and that due to one of its proponents being racially driven to the point of genocide, has essentially been damned forever more. Except for the last bit, you could say the same of Socialism, except it has been able to evolve into more mainstream ideologies today that are far less flawed than the disastrous implementations of Stalin and Mao.0 -
Y'see, Akrasia? Instead of talking about global social injustice, we're talking about fascism. This is what unhelpful labels do. When writing a policy document on anti-corruption for Irish NGOs, I inserted a section on the historical and structural reasons for corruption in sub-Saharan Africa. Rightly so, I was asked to remove it because including it in public debate would take attention away from the real issues (among them, the massive bribes paid by rich countries in the 'normal' course of business) to debate the minutiae of these historical factors.
It's much more helpful, when speaking generally, as Escobar does in that article, to focus on common social relations - which puts the blame back on the social relations of capitalism and its regional variants. This, to me, is a more fruitful approach.
This small-mindedness always happens, as people zone in on tiny issues to ignore the big picture, in order to, or as it happens to, stifle meaningful, normative discussion.0 -
You appear to have a rather generous definition of what are "tiny issues", at least when it suits your purpose. Would you prefer if we turn a blind eye to people coming out with horseshìt of the good of "the Big Picture"?DadaKopf wrote:This small-mindedness always happens, as people zone in on tiny issues to ignore the big picture, in order to, or as it happens to, stifle meaningful, normative discussion.
However, you are right in that using erroneous devices in argument are likely to destroy whatever good they were meant to support.0 -
So you see fit to deny a whole chunk of the human experience? Emotion is not exclusive of rationality. Politics is far from scientific, emotions (hopes, fears, desires, compassion, etc) play a huge part. And language is not a neutral device.The Corinthian wrote:But it will only be rational by coincidence, if at all. Emotion - by definition - is not a product of reason, but typically a product of its absence.
Excuse me, but do i detect a bit of emotion in that statement? Wouldn't 'steaming crap' be a statement designed to arouse a certain image to convey your distain for what I had to say.Dadakopf is correct because he’s pointing out that your argument is essentially a pile of steaming crap that falls apart whenever anyone challenges it even superficially. He’s not the only one to point this out to you.
What exactly is 'my argument' anyway? The reference to a term 'social fascism' which has been around for 86 years which I only used because it was used in turn by a highly respected academic?
If that is what you think I am saying then no wonder you think it's a pile of steaming crap. I wasn't saying anything like that. Or perhaps you are deliberately misrepresenting my opinion.Essentially you’re trying to argue that Charlie Chaplin is a Nazi, because he had a moustache like Hitler’s and thus that’s good enough reason to attach the label, presumably so that the unwashed masses will naturally feel inclined to dislike poor old Charlie.
I was pointing it out because you brought it up. And you only brought it up as some kind of statement about the inflexibility of language while yourself making a flase statement about what you believe fascism to be.I actually think it’s bizarre that you seem to be at pains to cite the differences between Fascism and National Socialism when you’re so cavalier with those between Fascism and Western (liberal) democracies. Either you haven’t thought this through or you’re actually being actively disingenuous.
I am using a word because it communicates the seriousness of the problem. When you called my argument a steaming pile of crap, did you mean it was actually warm faeces?I think you mean the limitations of reality. You’re attempting to portray one ideology in terms of another because it’ll hit the right emotional buttons. Problem is that your comparison fails dismally, which leaves us with nothing more than an attempt at deception upon your part.
And I think if George Orwell can use the term and device of fascism to describe something that didn't exactly fit the specific criteria that you insist on applying in 1984 without resulting in an infinite regress of semantics and linguistics, then perhaps you should lighten up a little
It was simplistic, but it is what the vast majority of people think of when they hear the word fascism. And it can't be levelled at 'any ideology' (I'm not a communist)That’s a horribly simplistic and arguably inaccurate statement that seems only to betray how little you actually know about the subject. And, TBH, and even if it were it’s frankly an accusation that could be levelled at any ideology – five year plan anyone?0 -
Actually you'll find that emotion is exclusive of rationality. There may be good evolutionary reasons for many emotions, but ultimately it's not cognitive, which is necessary for reason.Akrasia wrote:So you see fit to deny a whole chunk of the human experience? Emotion is not exclusive of rationality. Politics is far from scientific, emotions (hopes, fears, desires, compassion, etc) play a huge part. And language is not a neutral device.
Who were you expecting? Spock?Excuse me, but do i detect a bit of emotion in that statement? Wouldn't 'steaming crap' be a statement designed to arouse a certain image to convey your distain for what I had to say.
Because, by your own admission, the term was used for the purposes of engendering an emotive response that cannot be engendered by simply using facts and reason. 'Social Fascism' has been little more than a soap box term for decades, you and the article's author simply keeping that tradition alive.What exactly is 'my argument' anyway? The reference to a term 'social fascism' which has been around for 86 years which I only used because it was used in turn by a highly respected academic?
Firstly you appear to believe that language should be used regardless of it's true meaning or any facts behind it simply because it is expedient to your argument.I was pointing it out because you brought it up. And you only brought it up as some kind of statement about the inflexibility of language while yourself making a flase statement about what you believe fascism to be.
Secondly what false statement did I make? Would you care to expand, preferably with less rhetoric and more facts?
That's a distinct possibility.I am using a word because it communicates the seriousness of the problem. When you called my argument a steaming pile of crap, did you mean it was actually warm faeces?
Or perhaps you should read more books. I am not for a moment denying that the term is used in literature or mobs, but that does not make it any more accurate or true. You're trying t convey a message, but to do so you're happy to manipulate language and truth for that purpose, to "communicates the seriousness of the problem" as you put it. Essentially the end justifies the means.And I think if George Orwell can use the term and device of fascism to describe something that didn't exactly fit the specific criteria that you insist on applying in 1984 without resulting in an infinite regress of semantics and linguistics, then perhaps you should lighten up a little
Then preach to a more simplistic audience.It was simplistic, but it is what the vast majority of people think of when they hear the word fascism. And it can't be levelled at 'any ideology' (I'm not a communist)0 -
I really do not appreciate being patronised.The Corinthian wrote:Actually you'll find that emotion is exclusive of rationality. There may be good evolutionary reasons for many emotions, but ultimately it's not cognitive, which is necessary for reason.
Your statement of fact is by no means an undisputed truth. Emotion and rationality are not separate. There is no room for emotion in the physical sciences, but politics is a social science, and we base our 'reason' on values that are derived from human emotion.
http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/news/colloquia/pdf/spring2007/pham.pdfa major function of emotion appears
to be the promotion of socially and morally desirable
behavior and the deterrence of undesirable behavior.
Emotions are a necessary component of empathic
responses, which are important drivers of pro-social
behavior. Emotions are also very sensitive to the
fulfillment or violation of social and moral norms,
and therefore an essential component of social and
moral self-regulation. Finally, in social and economic
interactions, emotions promote the fulfillment and
enforcement of social and moral obligations by
overriding the players’ material self-interests. In this
sense, the emotional person is not irrational, but
ecologically rational.
Well, you do seem to idolise his 'rationality' devoid of emotion.Who were you expecting? Spock?
By my own admission, Words are an important battleground in politics. When the discourse is dominated by words that sanitize (or ignore) all of the crimes and atrocities that are committed daily on our behalf, it is necessary to change that discourse to reflect the reality. Strong words are needed. I don't really care if the word is fascism, or Imperialism, or capitalism. As long as it focuses people on the root of the problem. The worship of money, the consolidation of global power in the hands of a tiny elite, the subjugation of billions of people into slavery and the wanton destruction of our environment by pirates and plunderers.Because, by your own admission, the term was used for the purposes of engendering an emotive response that cannot be engendered by simply using facts and reason. 'Social Fascism' has been little more than a soap box term for decades, you and the article's author simply keeping that tradition alive.
Words don't have one true meaning. That's the great thing about language. It's organic. It's about communicating meaning As long as people understand what is meant by the word fascism in this context, then it's a valid word to use. Whether it's a good choice tactically is debatable (using these words tends to de-rail a debate, but there wouldn't have been a debate if I didn't start this thread...Firstly you appear to believe that language should be used regardless of it's true meaning or any facts behind it simply because it is expedient to your argument.
You equated fascism with the holocaust. Meanwhile you were engaging me in a semantic argument about me not using words in their 100% accurate (as decided by you) contextSecondly what false statement did I make? Would you care to expand, preferably with less rhetoric and more facts?
So you're saying that Orwell's 1984 didn't refer to a kind of fascist society? Perhaps you'd like to write a dissertation semantically deconstructing 1984 because it wasn't an exact mirror image of the self described fascist dictators of the early 20th century?Or perhaps you should read more books. I am not for a moment denying that the term is used in literature or mobs, but that does not make it any more accurate or true.
Manipulate language? Isn't that called speaking? or communicating? You called my argument 'a steaming pile of crap' But it wasn't a steaming pile of crap which can not exist in cyberspace and does not technically refer to any kind of argument. How dare you manipulate language to convey a message?You're trying t convey a message, but to do so you're happy to manipulate language and truth for that purpose, to "communicates the seriousness of the problem" as you put it. Essentially the end justifies the means.
Your debating skills are pretty simplistic "I'm right, you're wrong" It's only "truth" if I say soThen preach to a more simplistic audience.0 -
Can we do this without the handbags, please?
kthxbye.0 -
I would have thought you'd be used to it by now.Akrasia wrote:I really do not appreciate being patronised.
Did you bother to read either what I wrote or the piece that you've just quoted? You'll find that I already pointed out what you've just quoted.
Words however do have very wrong meanings. A woman who has had a few sexual partners is not a whore or prostitute. Certainly a mob may choose to see her as this and treat her accordinly, but those are not the actions of a reasoned debate, which is what we supposidely should be having here.Words don't have one true meaning. That's the great thing about language.
We can call McDowell a fascist, if it makes us feel better or because we don't like him, but factually there's very little in common between him and Fascits. Essentially you're confusing intellectual discource with soapbox rhetoric.
Actually I didn't equate Fascism with the Holocaust. Read what I wrote again.You equated fascism with the holocaust. Meanwhile you were engaging me in a semantic argument about me not using words in their 100% accurate (as decided by you) context
Actually you'll find we was talking about a dystrophic Socialist society.So you're saying that Orwell's 1984 didn't refer to a kind of fascist society?
No, when you manipulate language to say something that is untrue, it's called lying, or deciving.Manipulate language? Isn't that called speaking? or communicating?
With respects I'm not terribly interested in your opinions of my debating skills.Your debating skills are pretty simplistic "I'm right, you're wrong" It's only "truth" if I say so0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I've been around boards as long as you, OB, and I've realised that genuine debate about a particular topic is impossible. Threads only take off when people insult each other, politely or not.0
Advertisement