[Peace-discuss] Fascism authoritarian?
unionyes
unionyes at ameritech.net
Tue Aug 18 11:04:57 CDT 2009
Where and when did this happen Robert ?
David J.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Dunn
To: mkbrussel at comcast.net
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Fascism authoritarian?
All hail the Messiah, Obama Obama! Mussolini had his Black Shirts, Hitler, his Brown Shirts, now Obama has his Purple shirts with the letters S.E.I.U. on them. My father just got attacked by a group of union thugs only for having the audacity to disagree with them! My Dad is a peaceful man, having served in Vietnam, hates war and violence. Look, unfortunately, the violence is happening on both sides, my Dad would not make this shit up!
Enough already,
RObert
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mkbrussel at comcast.net
To: LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:16:26 -0500
CC: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fascism authoritarian?
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 personalexperience as indicated and supported by the reactions of people to many ofthe positions I take on this and other lists (some of which are made up offellow members of the choir allegedly) that in fact my views tend to be outof step with the mass of my fellow citizens. I do find it difficult to seehow it would be to the corporate media's interest to convince me that themass of my fellow citizens are proto-fascists; and in point of fact, thecorporate media deliberately attempts to convince me and others that theopposite is the case and true (i.e., the mass of my fellow citizens aredecent upstanding respectable and responsible human being and are even moreso than the citizens of any other country; it is the deviant, irresponsible,minority of criminal extremists and terrorists that do not accept andconform to establishment ways that are the crazies and proto-fascists). Moreover, I do not believe that the masses are proto-fascist; I think thatunder the surface, they are real live full blown fascists - no "proto" aboutit. And of course, I recognize that there are and always be some who do notfit the characterization. Some of these may be visibly fascist; and somemay not be fascist in any way shape or fashion. My argument is not to whatdegree any given individual fits the characterization; it is a statement asto the national character in general as it has revealed itself when pushcomes to shove and some threat or hardship exists. The "my country right orwrong attitude" that underlies everything that this country does and whichthe people tacitly or overtly support for the most part from the verybeginnings of the country and even before during the colonial period. It isthe reluctance to stand out from the crowd and take actual steps that putone's self and future at risk in order to oppose informal and formal, covertand overt, institutional and non-institutional intolerance, bigotry, racism,ethnic prejudices, class biases, etc. and support all non-conformity, alldiversity, the interests and welfare of those who are not like us in waysaside 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 thepast. It is this that supplies the audiences for the talk radio commentatorslike Lou Dobbs, Hannity, Beck, et al of today and the Father Caughlins,Walter Winchels, and Drew Pearsons of yesterday and creates the populardemand that keeps them on the air and attracts corporate advertisers andsupport. If they did not have a significantly large audience or demand forwhat they were putting out, the corporate interests would turn theirattention and support on those that do and engage in using and manipulatingthem for the corporate interests. To deny or ignore the size andpervasiveness of this popular following and demand is to act foolishly. Notto recognize that those who oppose such commentators and what they have tosay are in the minority and a minority that is not all that effective isstupid 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.EstabrookSent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:26 AMTo: LAURIE SOLOMONCc: '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 thatyourviews are unusual, and that the mass of your fellow citizens areproto-fascists. I don't think they are. I've not infrequently had people say to me, "I agreewith what you say on News from Neptune, but I thought that I was practicallytheonly 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 maybemost 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 listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttp://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttp://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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Try it now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20090818/3d273e70/attachment.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list