[Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

Mon Aug 17 18:56:25 CDT 2009

Mort,

I am not going to attend to the issue of empirical evidence of what the
majority of U.S. people think at any given time in or throughout U.S.
History since I am inclined to agree with you that there are no valid,
reliable and valid statistics available and those indicators that might be
found tend to be skewed or biased.  All sides have the right to put forth
their unsubstantiated opinions backed by impressions and anecdotes.

However, I will attempt to address the second question pertaining to the
definition of fascism and if “authoritarianism” is a necessary property of
fascism.  First. As suggested “Fascism” and Fascist” with capital “F”s are
proper names of a specific political regimes ideological doctrine and of a
specific political party and its members and supporters.  When used with a
lower case “f,” it does not designate a proper name but something much more
generic and general  than a specific concrete regime or political party or
the actual members and supporters of that concrete political party or
regime.  Dictionary definitions typically define terms in light of either
their specialized or formal technical uses or in terms of their common
everyday usage.  Such uses are language uses and not philosophical uses in
which fascism with a lower case “f” refers to a political theory and its
substantive content of which there are a number of variants and not to
concrete manifestation of either attempts to implement the political theory
or  instances where a concrete entity seeks to appropriate the name for its
use as a name for itself or its ideology.

As for the fact that some dictionary includes the term and even the notion
of “authoritarianism” or “authoritarian” in their definition of “Fascism” or
“fascism,” it is obvious that they are using popular notions of  both
fascism and authoritarianism which obscures and ignores the fact that the
popular versions of these notions are very vague and ambiguous from a
theoretical and empirical perspective.  In political theory and philosophy,
fascism does not call for authoritarianism or authoritarian leadership or
actions by name or by description as a key or essential element.  In fact,
the  term and/or notion and/or concept of authoritarian and authoritarianism
have little or not actual standing – much less definitions.  The terms and
notions do have some standing in psychology and social psychology as well as
a technical definition which refers to and is based on a personality type
with  set of personality traits that characterize people to a greater or
lesser extent.  Each of these traits in the set according to the theory
presents a continuum and not an “either/or” trait  in which various
configurations of  the traits in the set might constitute or characterize an
authoritarian personality of for different given  individuals.  There has
been a popular tendency to generalize these individual traits and project
them into political theory and onto states, political arrangements,
political parties, groups ,ideologies, and political theories and
philosophies in an “either/or” reified fashion.  I take these dictionary
definitions with a grain of salt and do not take the alleged contradiction
between dictionary definitions and philosophical or theoretical traditions.

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Brussel
Morton K.
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 4:40 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: 'E. Wayne Johnson'; 'Peace-discuss List'
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

I hesitate to enter this discussion, but have been struck by the number of
unsubstantiated assertions in it. Does anyone have a studied grasp of the
facts concerning what the majority of U.S. people think at any time or
through our history? If so, I haven't seen it in the discussion. Rather,
there have only been personal impressions, many of which could possibly be
valid, but which are less than compelling due to lack of reliable and
extensive data. 

On another tack:

As to the use of the words "fascism" or "fascist", here is what (the
Larousse and Robert) dictionaries say:

Fascism:  

1) Regime established in Italy from 1922 to 1945 installed by Mussolini and
founded on the dictatorship of a single party, exalting nationalism, and
corporatism. 

2) The doctrine or practice aiming to establish a comparable regime. in
varying degrees, to Italian fascism. 

1) Doctrine, tendency, or political system aiming to install an
authoritarian regime which is nationalistic, totalitarian, corporatist and
respectful of  capitalistic structures. 

Fascist: 

One who follows the ideas/doctrines of fascism. The word has also been
employed in a general pejorative sense in light of the the 20th century
regimes in Italy under Mussolini, Germany under Hitler, Spain under Franco,
Chile under Pinochet, etc. 

To state that "authoritarian" is not to be found in the definition of facism
goes against the above definitions. 

--mkb

On Aug 16, 2009, at 2:30 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:

First, I did not use the term in my actual postings.  Carl used in  his post
to me where he spoke of “proto-fascist.”  I replied that I was not talking
about “proto-“ anything but that I thought that the masses were the real
thing – “fascists” plain and simple without any qualification such as
“proto.”  In making my comments, I was assuming that Carl’s notion of
“fascism” was one that he felt covered what I had described so I went along
with the use of the term.  Thus, you probably should either ask Carl for his
definition; or if you make the same assumption that I did – namely that
fascism is Carl’s name for the traits I described in an earlier post, you
should go back and read my earlier posts directed toward Dave Johnson.

In my usage, if the term “facism” is used to name or define a political
theory, it is intended to cover a theory philosophy that promotes state
owned or controlled corporate capitalism in which the ends of the state are
given priority over those of the individual and the individual’s interests
are advanced or achieved as a by-product of the state bringing about the
common good or interest as differentiated from the individual good or
interest.  Notions of “authoritarian” do not enter into the definition or
conception or theory as an essential or necessary element.  If the term is
being used in everyday language, then I generally mean some authoritarian
attempt to engage in totalitarian control over individuals or groups of
individuals by other individuals or groups of individuals either under the
color of official or unofficial governmental action (legitimate or not) or
not under the color of official or unofficial governmental action but rather
as a private action (legitimate or not).

From: E. Wayne Johnson [mailto:ewj at pigs.ag] 
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 1:37 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: 'C. G. Estabrook'; 'Peace-discuss List'
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

Laurie,
Please define "fascist" so that I can understand what you mean when you use
this word.  Orwell said fascist has no meaning at all.  For some "fascist"
is 
a synonym for "authoritarian"--- there are other meanings, and Mussolini
and the Italian economists certainly did not intend for "fascist" to be used
in
a negative context.  Many of the people I communicate with regularly would
consider
both Obama and McCain to be fascists.   I suspect that your meaning is
different.

I have quit using the word fascist myself because I was too oft
misunderstood.

In China the language changes every few hundred yards in Gen. 11 style.  I
have no problem
with your private definitions of words but if we are to understand each
other we
must have some definition of terms.

Wayne

On 8/16/2009 11:06 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:

It very well maybe to their interests Carl; but I know from personal
experience as indicated and supported by the reactions of people to many of
the positions I take on this and other lists (some of which are made up of
fellow members of the choir allegedly) that in fact my views tend to be out
of step with the mass of my fellow citizens.  I do find it difficult to see
how it would be to the corporate media's interest to convince me that the
mass of my fellow citizens are proto-fascists; and in point of fact, the
corporate media deliberately attempts to convince me and others that the
opposite is the case and true (i.e., the mass of my fellow citizens are
decent upstanding respectable and responsible human being and are even more
so than the citizens of any other country; it is the deviant, irresponsible,
minority of criminal extremists and terrorists that do not accept and
conform to establishment ways that are the crazies and proto-fascists).  

Moreover, I do not believe that the masses are proto-fascist; I think that
under the surface, they are real live full blown fascists - no "proto" about
it.  And of course, I recognize that there are and always be some who do not
fit the characterization.  Some of these may be visibly fascist; and some
may not be fascist in any way shape or fashion.  My argument is not to what
degree any given individual fits the characterization; it is a statement as
to the national character in general as it has revealed itself when push
comes to shove and some threat or hardship exists.  The "my country right or
wrong attitude" that underlies everything that this country does and which
the people tacitly or overtly support for the most part from the very
beginnings of the country and even before during the colonial period. It is
the reluctance to stand out from the crowd and take actual steps that put
one's self and future at risk in order to oppose informal and formal, covert
and overt, institutional and non-institutional intolerance, bigotry, racism,
ethnic prejudices, class biases, etc. and support all non-conformity, all
diversity, the interests and welfare of those who are not like us in ways
aside from only talk and throwing money at things.  

What I am suggesting is that the "Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" and the
"Ugly American" still exist and still characterize the attitudes, beliefs,
and values of Americans - elites and masses alike just as they have in the
past. It is this that supplies the audiences for the talk radio commentators
like Lou Dobbs, Hannity, Beck, et al of today and the Father Caughlins,
Walter Winchels, and Drew Pearsons of yesterday and creates the popular
demand that keeps them on the air and attracts corporate advertisers and
support.  If they did not have a significantly large audience or demand for
what they were putting out, the corporate interests would turn their
attention and support on those that do and engage in using and manipulating
them for the corporate interests.  To deny or ignore the size and
pervasiveness of this popular following and demand is to act foolishly.  Not
to recognize that those who oppose such commentators and what they have to
say are in the minority and a minority that is not all that effective is
stupid and possibly delusional.

-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
Estabrook
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:26 AM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: 'Peace-discuss List'
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

I think it's to the interest of the corporate media to convince you that
your
views are unusual, and that the mass of your fellow citizens are
proto-fascists.

I don't think they are. I've not infrequently had people say to me, "I agree
with what you say on News from Neptune, but I thought that I was practically
the
only one who thought that way."  --CGE

LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:

Who says I was?  I am sure that I am not totally exempt and what

exemptions I

have may come from a set of more or less than ordinary - if not unique - 
biographically determined experience or history.  This history may not

have 

significantly altered the nature of my character but it did effect the 
content.  In short I hate and am prejudiced against different people than 
them and maybe most other Americans, my enemies are different than theirs

and

maybe most other Americans , my fears are different than theirs and maybe
most other Americans, etc.

-----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook
[mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 9:43 PM To:
LAURIE SOLOMON Cc: 'unionyes'; 'Peace-discuss List' Subject: Re:
[Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

How were you able to escape these defects?

LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:

Very simply and to the point the people of the U.S. , for the most part,

are

and have been inherently  all the things that Dobbs, Beck, Hannity,

Limbaugh

et al stand for. They comprise a natural audience for these commentators

and

those like them and, therefore, represent a significant demand for their

type

of commentary, which can be denied and ignored at one’s own peril.

To elaborate:

If anything these commentators are catering to the inherent racism, 
intolerance,  ethnic bigotry, religious prejudices, social Dawinian

biases,

fearfulness, desires for conformity, love of violence, etc. that is part

and

parcel of America and its people.  The people already have these traits

and

have no need for corporations or the corporate establishment to instill, 
encourage, or bring out such attitudes and values since they pre-existed

the

rise of corporations in the US and of corporate America.  Hence, they are

not

the creatures of corporate power, money or spin.  To be sure,

contemporary 

corporations make use of the existence of these attitudes and values for 
their own purposes – often to maintain control over the workings of the 
society so that it works in their interests – whenever possible.

However, 

the corporate establishment is not the source of these attitudes and

values.

Hence there exists a significantly large native group who hold these and 
similar values, beliefs, and attitudes which make up a natural audience

for

the Dobbs. Becks et al which create a demand for what Dobbs, beck et al

are

giving them.  To deny this or to minimize it is to play ostrich and stick

one’s head in the ground.

*From:* unionyes [mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net] *Sent:* Saturday, August

15,

2009 8:20 PM *To:* Peace-discuss List; LAURIE SOLOMON *Subject:* Re: 
[Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

And your point Laurie in 50 words or less ?

David J.

P.S. I am NOT trying to be " flippant " or disrespectfull, becaue I

truely 

respect your opinion and knowldge ~!

----- Original Message -----

*From:* LAURIE SOLOMON  <mailto:LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
<mailto:LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>

*To:* 'unionyes'  <mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net>
<mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net>

*Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 8:12 PM

*Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

I guess that may be where we disagree; I think that there is a tendency

to 

give too little credence to the fact that there is this demand and that

it 

comes from a significant and large segment of the U.S. public who may be 
guided by corporate spin  bought by corporate money but which nonetheless

represent and embodies some very fundamental values and beliefs that are 
actually deeply held by a large number of the American public and masses.

American racism, ethnic and religious prejudice, cultural biases against 
intellectual as opposed to practical education, and fear and hatred of

new

immigrants and people from other countries, intolerance, bigotry, and

demand

for conformity are somethings that preexisted the rise of corporations in

America or corporate America.  The corporate establishment with its power

and

wealth has been able to use these characteristics of the American public

to

their advantage very effectively in modern times; but it is not the

source,

cause, or grounds for said attitudes, values, or love of violence toward 
other living creatures and properties. As was once said by Stockley 
Carmicheal, I believe, “Violence is as American as Apple Pie.”  I would

add

that so is lawlessness, intolerance, prejudice, conformity, as well as 
notions of racial, ethnic, and  religious supremacy, as American as apple

pie.  They all have roots that pre-date the rise of American corporations

and

are part of our cultural and psychological heritage.

*From:* unionyes [mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net] *Sent:* Saturday, August

15,

2009 3:05 PM *To:* LAURIE SOLOMON *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou 
Dobbs is dangerous

It's not so much that ; Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, etc., have a demand for

their shows from a large segment of the U.S. public, but instead is a 
function of what the corporate advertisers, the rest of corporate america

and

the wealthy right-wing foundations want and will pay for !

David J.

----- Original Message -----

*From:* LAURIE SOLOMON  <mailto:LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
<mailto:LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>

*To:* 'Neil Parthun'  <mailto:lennybrucefan at gmail.com>
<mailto:lennybrucefan at gmail.com> ; 
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net

 <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
<mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>

*Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:36 AM

*Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

Whether or not one is engaged in censorship in this case appears to

depend

on

one’s referent level being addressed.  Your point about Lou Dobbs, the 
person, may have some merit vis-à-vis the difference between censorship

and

access to the exulted platform of radio & TV; however if you move the

level

of reference up to the radio/TV station level, then one might be seen as 
engaging in the censorship of the station and its broadcast content.

While no one guarantees the right to have a nationally televised show, no

one

guarantees anyone the right to prevent someone from having such a show

or, 

for that matter prevents someone from having such a show.  In the case of

radio/TV, the air waves allegedly belong to the public to license to

actors

for use. The radio/TV stations and networks are among those actors; and 
within legally prescribed restrictions they are free to air whatever

content

they see fit,  independent of what the public or any portion of the

public 

might desire although in this country that decision is driven by the

market

(audience share and advertising money).  Obviously, if one wants to alter

the

legal restrictions, one needs to go through the process of changing the 
legal framework , statutes, and administrative rules pertaining to the 
conditions of licensing.

If one moves up a level to the ownership and control over the air waves, 
which belong legally to the public, then I am afraid that those who wish

to

see Dobbs shut down are going to lose for now and in the near future

since 

they do not compose a majority of the public – or enough to force a

change

in

the licensing requirements for the stations and their personnel as to the

sorts of content that they can air and when.  Like the other right-wing

talk

commentators, his station and he appear to have strong national following

that support and demand him be given air time and are willing to put

their 

money where their mouths are.  That cannot be said for the progressives,

the

left, or even the moderate reformers.  If they comprised a significantly 
large population and if each contributed $5 or $10 each per year for

purposes

of buying advertising on the stations that carry Dobbs, they could

probably

use that as leverage to get the stations to either reel him and other in

or

take them off the air.  But it seems that the progressives, the left,

liberal

and moderate reformers would rather hold on to their money  or spend it 
elsewhere and exercise their lungs shouting and crying about him and his 
content instead.

*From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net 
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Neil

Parthun

*Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 10:13 PM *To:* C.G.Estabrook *Cc:* 
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou

Dobbs

is dangerous

Banning speech and requesting that such speech does not have a

hyper-exulted

platform to amplify it are two very different things.

Nobody is saying Lou Dobbs doesn't have a right to say whatever he wants.

He

has that right.  However, no person is guaranteed the right to have a 
nationally televised show to promote their views and perspectives on any 
topic.

Solidarity,

-N.

Neil Parthun

IEA Region 9 Grassroots Political Activist

Writer/Facilitator for Champaign-Urbana Public i

"Early in life I had learned that if you want something, you had better

make

some noise." - Malcolm X

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing

list

Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing

list

Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list

Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090817/adb3496f/attachment-0001.htm