| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/8 |
| 2004/7/22 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32415 Activity:insanely high |
7/21 I typed "What is fascism" in Google because I never really understood
what the hell it is... the closest I ever came to a definition was
"It's the opposite of communism. SO opposite that they are very
similar." Anyway, here's the first link:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
What's wrong w/ fascism and how different is it from our society?
\_ Remember that Mussolini started out as a strong left-winger.
Fascism was a combination of nationalism and statism--the idea
being to bind the population very strongly to the state, and
to essentially let industry run its course as long as it supports
the goals of the (authoritarian) state. Usually associated with
militarization and a pronounced regimentation of society, and
almost always gone horribly wrong. -John
almost always gone horribly wrong--as with communism, stemming
from partially understandable (admirable, for some) ideals, any
ideology that provides for strong state control is easily misused
by bad people in jackboots. Comes from the fasces, or rods & axe,
used as a symbol of Roman justice (cue psb) -John
\_ Oh yeah, you can also enter 'define xyz' on Google. -John
\_ People in America is completely blind when we are talking about
fascism, especially consider we have concluded that
Nazi = absolute Evil, and Hitler = some sort of anti-Christ.
The reality is that American and Nazi are not *ALL* that different
in terms of their view on communism, and their view on race.
\_ troll
\_ Dear MOTD, I recently acquired a baby chicom troll. He's
cute, and aside from an amusing inability to conjugate verbs,
very amusing to me and my guests. Unfortunately, he wets
the couch almost daily! Am I feeding him wrong?
\_ dict fascism
\_ um, we already had this thread. search for "mussolini":
/home/digital/mehlhaff/tmp/motd,v
are you just trolling? "what's wrong with absolute authority?"
\_ THis is a delayed response to that thread. That thread was more
negative towards fascism (did you read the original url?) and
also more political, as it was more about Bush and the present
day. This thread more hints at that and is more theoretical.
I asked the question because in italy i met so many ppl who called
themselves fascist, and i didnt really understadn waht the meant.
\_ Why do some people have a problem with the term
"Islamofascist?" Every definition of fascism I've seen fits
the Islamic militants perfectly.
\_ Maybe because it equates all Islam with fascism?
\_ Does it? Does "Germanic Fascism" equate all germans with
fascists?
\_ I dunno. Generally when I've seen the phrase in action,
such equating is what's going on.
\_ Hmm.. if you say so. I've only seen it used a few
times. I don't remember the context. I just
remember someone on the motd getting all huffy
about it a few weeks ago.
\_ I recommend this great essay on fascism by David Neiwert:
http://www.cursor.org/stories/fascismintroduction.php
\_ I knew the essay was going to be good when I saw the picture at
the top... it didn't disappoint. -- ilyas
the top... it didn't disappoint. To summarize: 'proto-fascist
movements' are any movements I, the educated liberal, do not
like, including the gun nuts, the libertarian groups, etc.
If any of their ideology contradicts historical fascism,
then that's because fascism is 'mutative.' Once those guys
acquire power, they ll start with the Jew burning like the Nazis.
Basically, I have license to call anything fascism. The end.
Rush Limbaugh calls things he doesn't like 'fascist' but he is
both an entertainer AND an idiot. The author of the essay has
no such excuse. -- ilyas
\_ I'm curious ilya. Why do you think being an 'entertainer'
lets someone off the hook for being a demagogue and/or an
idiot? Entertainers have just as much impact on the
dialectic than serious thinkers, if not much more in our
dumbed down "pop" driven culture.
\_ No that is not what that series of articles says at all.
Did you even read the whole thing? I am a pretty fast
reader and it took me four hours from the time it was
posted to the motd. I am disappointed with you.
\_ It is pretty clear he didn't read any more than what
proved his initial hypothesis based on the picture. No,
it couldn't be that he was, gasp!, a little intellectually
lazy? Give the articles a read and some time. I found them
insightful and well-informed.
\_ You have far too much time on your hands. |
| 7/8 |
|
| www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html Back to Modern History SourceBook Modern History Sourcebook: Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932 Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome . Mussolini came to power after the "March on Rome" in 1922, and was appointed Prime Minister by King Victor Emmanuel. In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism. Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death.... The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after... Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.... conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress.... For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State.... The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State.... The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook. |
| www.cursor.org/stories/fascismintroduction.php David Neiwert POSTED AUGUST 30, 2003 -- Introduction Is fascism an obsolete term? Even if it resurrects itself as a significant political threat, can we use the term with any effectiveness? archy, wonders if the degraded state of the term has rendered it useless. After all, it has in many respects become a catchall for any kind of totalitarianism, rather than the special and certainly cause-specific phenomenon it was. Anyone using the word nowadays is most often merely participating in this degradation. Nonetheless, I think Robert O Paxton has it right in his essay "The Five Stages of Fascism": We cannot give up in the face of these difficulties. Indeed, fascism is the most original political novelty of the twentieth century, no less. If we cannot examine fascism synthetically, we risk being unable to understand this century, or the next. We must have a word, and for lack of a better one, we must employ the word that Mussolini borrowed from the vocabulary of the Italian Left in 1919, before his movement had assumed its mature form. Obliged to use the term fascism, we ought to use it well. Its purpose is, if nothing else, to give the reader a clear understanding of fascism not merely as a historical force but a living one. Orcinus, sparked by an erroneous report of something Rush Limbaugh reportedly had told his radio audience. The error was soon corrected, but the remarks had in any event stirred me to write about my concerns about the way the political climate in America is heading, based on material and information I'd been gathering on a variety of issues pertaining to the radical right and its increasing ideological traffic with mainstream conservatism. Because Orcinus is generally intended as an actual journal -- a place for me to work out writing ideas and to post original source material on news stories and events that interest me -- much of what appeared on the blog was in many ways a rough draft. Moreover, since it is a public enterprise, I obtained much feedback during the course of writing it, some of which affected the content and nature of the essay and appears in the current text. The version that appears before you is, of course, considerably edited and rewritten. There is a good deal of new material that did not appear anywhere on the blog. Whole sections have been rearranged and edited down, and the order of the argument is not exactly what appears on the blog. In this respect, it may be an instructive exercise for anyone interested in the writing process to compare the two; but in any event, this version is the definitive edition, since a number of errors and repetitions, as well as logical missteps, can be found in the rough draft, naturally. While I establish early in the essay that this is an attempt at a "scholarly" discussion of fascism, I should however clarify that I am in fact merely a journalist, not a scholar, nor do I pretend to be one. The following essay is more in the way of a journalistic survey of the academic literature regarding fascism, and an attempt at a kind of lay analysis of the literature's contents as it relates to the current political context. However, none of the ideas regarding the core of fascism, nor its many accompanying traits, are my own. "Rush" is mostly drawn from a body of scholarly work on fascism that's broadly accepted as the important texts on the subject, and I'll urge anyone interested in examining the matter seriously to read them. The core of my interest in fascism is closely connected to my work in trying to understand the motivations of right-wing extremists, because my experience was that in most regards many of these folks were seemingly ordinary people. And I was furthermore intrigued by the historical phenomenon of the Holocaust, particularly the problem of how a nation full ordinary people could allow such a monstrosity to happen. I'm interested in fascism as a real-world phenomenon and not an abstract and distant concept. As such, I'm hoping this essay if nothing else helps advance a wider understanding of fascism in the general public, because I've come to understand that this awareness is essential if we are to combat it. I'd like to thank the many people who have contributed to "Rush" both in the collection of material beforehand as well as during the writing process: * My fellow bloggers who contributed ideas and points that became part of the text, including John McKay at archy; David Neiwert is a freelance journalist based in Seattle. com on domestic terrorism won the National Press Club Award for Distinguished Online Journalism in 2000. He is the author of In God's Country: The Patriot Movement and the Pacific Northwest (1999, WSU Press), as well as the forthcoming Death on the Fourth of July: Hate Crimes and the American Landscape (Palgrave/St. Martin's Press, 2004) and Strawberry Days: The Rise and Fall of the Bellevue Japanese-American Community (publisher pending, 2004). com, the Washington Post, MSNBC and various other publications. |