[Peace-discuss] Fascism authoritarian?
Brussel Morton K.
mkbrussel at comcast.net
Tue Aug 18 00:16:26 CDT 2009
Laurie,
I'm afraid I'm not persuaded by your remarks about fascism and
authoritarianism. Rather, I have consulted a discussion of fascism in
the Columbia encyclopedia, 3rd edition, 1963 (page 699), wherein the
philosophical roots of fascism are described, to me rather
convincingly, under the title "Origins of Fascist Philosophy". Among
other key concepts cited as basic to fascism, it lists the
"glorification of the state and the total subordination of the
individual in it." It also states " Salvation from the rule by the
mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected
only by an authoritarian leader who embodies in his person the highest
ideals of the nation" …
Perhaps you have other (better?) sources, but the totalitarian/
authoritarian aspect of fascism, as implied above, seems generally
accepted, and are not inconsistent with the definitions quoted earlier.
Mort
On Aug 17, 2009, at 6:56 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
> 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.
N.B. The dictionary definitions cited took this into consideration.
> 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>
>
> *To:* 'unionyes' <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>
>
> *To:* 'Neil Parthun' <mailto:lennybrucefan at gmail.com> ;
> 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/20090818/7c4770a1/attachment.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list