Re: Re: Jim Crow Fascism (was Re: bullying)
In a message dated 10/4/02 4:26:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Tom, I just want to repeat something I said earlier. Maybe you missed it, it is easy to do that on this prolific list. Fascism is a concept as well as a word with historical-polical meaning. You can take the overall intent and structure of fascism and abstract it from its historical context to come up with a concept of "fascism" which can then be used to describe other historical phenomena with the same overall structure and intent. This is done all of the time both in ordinary and theoretical discourse. I don't understand what the problem is unless someone simply is afraid that the word is too controversial. In that case we are arguing about the connotation rather than the applicability of the descriptor. There are a few ways to go with that. You can either change your word, as in communist who might call herself a socialist to distance herself from association with the CP and the USSR, or you can use the word so as to take it back, as t! he anarchists have begun to do with the term "libertarian" which has traditionally been a word used by anarchists until the right wing libertarians lifted in for their own purposes in the US. I have already argued against the first course of measure and for the second. We might want to qualify this unique-to-our-historical-moment brand of fascism with another descriptor, but we should recognize the difference between fascism the concept and fascism the historical phenomenon so that we don't keep calling a concept anachronistic, which it really can't be. That would be like saying every contemporary expose on virtue ethics is anachronistic since Aristotle wrote about virtue ethics 2500 years ago. Virtue ethics has an overall structure which can have many variants, not just the one Aristotle constructed. And though virtue ethics is an old concept popularized by Aristotle, it is not anachronistic to expound today upon the overall structure of the concept.! I have not read the numerous comments in this thread so I apologize if I have duplicated someone else's point. I am reading them backwards to the last time I posted. The email is so busy I drown in it sometimes. Sorry to split hairs, Tom, but it is important for us to be able to agree upon the language we will use to discuss this very heavy shxt. As far as qualifying the term for our historical moment, I don't think "Jim Crow Fascism" has staying power. How about "Corporate Totalitarianism," or "Corporate Fascism?" Lisa S. P.S. Courtesy of the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition: fascism (noun) 1. Often Fascism. a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive dictatorial control. fascist (noun) 1. Often Fascist. An advocate or adherent of fascism. 2. A reactionary or dictatorial person. [my italics]. fascist (adj) 1. Often Fascist. Of, advocating or practicing fascism. 2. Fascist. Of or relating to the regime of the Fascisti. Fascisti (noun, plural) 1. The members of an Italian political organization that controlled Italy under the fascist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini from 1922 to 1943. Tom's suggestion of the words "Jim Crow Fascism" are not offense to me, although I have an analysis of the entire period in question. This of course meant the political and economic content of the Civil War and its aftermath called Reconstruction and the counterrevolution. American history is profoundly economic and all of our questions can be answered. Race theory is part of our heritage and will not go away because I think it wrong. Race theoy blinds us but not like it did in the past. I like the term "Jim Crow Fascism" for the period involved. I read Tom's presentation of material concerning the 1903 gathering of the NAM. It is worth reading again to discern the differences in sentiment of sectors of the ruling class. Hey . . . "A political force, constructed and funded by finance capital, which overthrows a legal bourgeois democratic government and substitutes as a state form the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic elements of finance capital is called fascist. Such a political state we call fascism. " This definition is not in the dictionary. The definitions sited above do not define fascism as a totality and my definition did not either. The difference is that I choice to speak to the term "Jim Crow Fascism." You are in the right place at the right time. Actually I love splitting hairs. Melvin P.
Re: Jim Crow Fascism (was Re: bullying)
Title: Re: [PEN-L:30870] Jim Crow Fascism (was Re: bullying) Hi Tom, I just want to repeat something I said earlier. Maybe you missed it, it is easy to do that on this prolific list. Fascism is a concept as well as a word with historical-polical meaning. You can take the overall intent and structure of fascism and abstract it from its historical context to come up with a concept of fascism which can then be used to describe other historical phenomena with the same overall structure and intent. This is done all of the time both in ordinary and theoretical discourse. I don't understand what the problem is unless someone simply is afraid that the word is too controversial. In that case we are arguing about the connotation rather than the applicability of the descriptor. There are a few ways to go with that. You can either change your word, as in communist who might call herself a socialist to distance herself from association with the CP and the USSR, or you can use the word so as to take it back, as the anarchists have begun to do with the term libertarian which has traditionally been a word used by anarchists until the right wing libertarians lifted in for their own purposes in the US. I have already argued against the first course of measure and for the second. We might want to qualify this unique-to-our-historical-moment brand of fascism with another descriptor, but we should recognize the difference between fascism the concept and fascism the historical phenomenon so that we don't keep calling a concept anachronistic, which it really can't be. That would be like saying every contemporary expose on virtue ethics is anachronistic since Aristotle wrote about virtue ethics 2500 years ago. Virtue ethics has an overall structure which can have many variants, not just the one Aristotle constructed. And though virtue ethics is an old concept popularized by Aristotle, it is not anachronistic to expound today upon the overall structure of the concept. I have not read the numerous comments in this thread so I apologize if I have duplicated someone else's point. I am reading them backwards to the last time I posted. The email is so busy I drown in it sometimes. Sorry to split hairs, Tom, but it is important for us to be able to agree upon the language we will use to discuss this very heavy shxt. As far as qualifying the term for our historical moment, I don't think Jim Crow Fascism has staying power. How about Corporate Totalitarianism, or Corporate Fascism? Lisa S. P.S. Courtesy of the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition: fascism (noun) 1. Often Fascism. a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive dictatorial control. fascist (noun) 1. Often Fascist. An advocate or adherent of fascism. 2. A reactionary or dictatorial person. [my italics]. fascist (adj) 1. Often Fascist. Of, advocating or practicing fascism. 2. Fascist. Of or relating to the regime of the Fascisti. Fascisti (noun, plural) 1. The members of an Italian political organization that controlled Italy under the fascist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini from 1922 to 1943. ... totalitarian (adj) Of, relating to, being or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul. totalitarian (noun) A practitioner or supporter of such a government. on 10/03/2002 2:06 PM, Tom Walker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I welcome Melvin P.'s corrective to my own forgetting, which is itself systematic. Indeed, the overthrow of bourgeois democracy in the United States has always been founded on a *southern strategy* of anti-democratic terror that predates European fascism. To call it fascism is anachronistic, but to not call it fascism leaves it without a name. Jim Crow perhaps carries too much of a connotation of mere discrimination and too much of illusion of containment -- as if it is something whose political consequences were confined to the south and whose historical dynamic has somehow been attenuated by civil rights legislation and Brown v. the Board of Education. Maybe if we call it Jim Crow Fascism, we can open up a space to recall that this is not some exotic import or faded relic. In my post, I talked about the anti-labor policies of the National Association of Manufacturers. It's important to add that the southern strategy was from the outset a key element of the N.A.M. campaigns. This is very clear in the rationale and symbolism put
Re: Re: bullying/Fascism
In a message dated 10/1/02 7:28:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Carrol Cox wrote: But again, my central point is that incontinent use of the label "fascist" shows a naive faith in the goodness of simple capitalist democracy. If capitalist democracy were such a total sham, how come you're not in jail? Is it just because you're so marginal? Or is the thing actually a little roommier than Germany in 1938? Doug Michael Perelman wrote: When is the last time anyone stood up to the US? Castro in the 50s? The NYT says that the Europeans caved on the world court. The Dems cave on everything. Bush probably can buy the Russians and cow the French on the Security Council. It is all very depressing. I recall hearing how all the Germans left Hitler , but hell, I feel like a powerless German must have felt. Depressed and feeling the need to mindlessly rant. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Comment I feel you. There are contradictions within the ruling class but the fundamental division into political wings, by which capital soared to its apogee in history no longer, exists. We are faced with a uniquely different political situation. Arguing within the politico's of capital over the appropriateness of military action is not the meaning of "left" and "right" or "a split in capital." The resurgence of the fascist movement - the drive towards police state rule, within the multi-national state of the USNA is real. The division of "left" and "right" - that arose on the basis of the French revolution, has lost economic reality and in the context of the current drive to war expresses itself as the lack of political division within the politico's of capital. Today the economy is truly global. No matter what party rules in our country, it must be based in the political reality of the South. Here is the political basis for the consolidation of the modern police state (fascist) movement. The differences between Republicans and Democrats are sectarian and rivets on how to win elections. The problem is that American history needs to be more closely examined and understood. The tendency to equate fascism with the classical military form in Germany is a mistake. German fascism arose and assumed its form in response to the Soviet Revolution and in history was the cutting edge of "European" continental reaction to establishing public property relations in the industrial infrastructure. The historic fascist movement in America has always assumed another form because of the specific development of "our" capitalism. German fascism most reactionary and chauvinistic sector of finance capital was identified with the industrial sector and its need to crush the working class internally as the basis for assault on Soviet Power. In America we are in a unique position to analyze the emergence of the fascist movement in world history because this political movement appeared here first. We are not dealing with British, Germany or French colonialism and imperialism. Everything starts somewhere. Financial imperialism has remote roots, but the American form of financial imperialism and colonization applied to Latin America was first applied to the South in the 1870s. This meant buying up the productive process and then concentrating on, or creating division to maintain its rule. The key to grasping fascism in a specific American context resides in grasping the post-Civil War period and the counter-revolution. Race theory prevents the revolutionaries and American people from understanding that the words "counter revolution" and "overthrowing Reconstruction Governments" meant and will forever mean "the emergence of a form of fascist state rule." "The emergence of a form of fascist state rule" is best understood in our history as "police state" or government by terror, murder and lynch ropes. The emergence of the fascist form of state rule throughout large areas of the South as a region and the former large plantation areas could not and did not assume the military form of rule because the Southern armies of reaction were defeated on the battle field and shattered. Further, government by terror in the deep South was based on a specific alignment and linking of financial-industrial capital with the remnants of the Slave Power. Here is how Peery briefly describes the setting in his "The Future is Up to Us" "The Future Is Up To Us: A Revolutionary Talking Politics With The American People" by Nelson Peery. http//www.Irna.org/speakers. $9.95 or call 1-800-691-6888 "The war ended with a pro-Southern president in office. All the Southern legislators who had resigned their seats at the beginning of the war showed up to legally claim them. What the South had lost on the battlefield they were about to win politically. The radical wing of the Republicans frantically looked for a way to outvote the resurgent
Re: Re: bullying
In a message dated 10/1/02 6:07:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Carrol Cox wrote,
To call the Bush administration fascist is capitalist apologetics.
It is also bad American history. The Bush administration's ideological
extremism is as "American as cherry pie". Fascism was European and too
damned intellectual.
The U.S. had an organized, well-financed, ideologically extreme and
politically influential anti-labor, anti-democratic movement back in the
days when Mussolini was still a Marxist labor union organizer. It was called
the National Association of Manufacturers (and its front groups like the
Citizens' Industrial Associations), although it was referred to as the
"invisible government" when the scandal broke about the extent of its power
and corruption. These folks developed their own labels and slogans
"Americanism," "The Free Enterprise System," "Right to Work." Jack London's
The Iron Heel (a bad novel in my opinion) was not a premonition about
European fascism, it was a melodramatic extrapolation of the policies of the
N.A.M.
The lineage of this faction of the U.S. ruling class runs right through
subsequent U.S. history: N.A.M. opposition to the Roosevelt New Deal through
its "American Way" propaganda, the passage of Taft-Hartley after the second
world war, the House Un-American Activities Committee. It has had a large
presence in the Republican party throughout the 20th century, but is not
identical with it. While fascism borrowed from European intellectual
currents, extreme right "Americanism" owes more to revival tent evangelism
and "patent" medicine shows.
Tom Walker
604 255 4812
Extreme right Americanism?
O.K. Fine.
The fascist movement in world history was birthed in America in the aftermath of the Civil War and is that phase of history called the defeat of Reconstruction. It is of course valid to ask what was being reconstructed, which constituted Reconstruction? Without knowing this part of American history, one can only drift into race theory.
Where do the Right to Work laws hold sway? Why?
In American history the rule of fascism ("The lineage") as a political form of state authority in governing the core area of the slave oligarchy is not connected with the industrial sector of capital - is not connected with the industrial sector of capital. Rather, the fascist movement is connected with the domination of the financier - Wall Street, over the defeated slave oligarchy - the buying up of productive capacity in the old plantation areas, and the merging of the large landowners with finance capital after the Civil War.
Race theory and race ideology confuses the obvious.
The Bush administration is obviously moving in the direction of creating a fascist political form of rule. But, then again, finance capital has always been the custodian of fascist terror within the continental boundaries of the US State and throughout the sphere of influence of USNA imperialism.
It is remarkable that the second most brutal period in all of American history has been wiped from the consciousness of the progressives. Talk about "bad American history." To this very day political reaction is based in the South and this includes the structure of our political democracy. Bush - Texas and Bush Florida and throughout the South into the heart of the old plantation areas is the current basis of the political reaction in America. How can this not be understood?
The political South Controls the nation and Wall Street controls the South was pointed out by Dr. Dubois and others many many decades ago. The monumental bloodletting and murder that ushered in the counterrevolution and the overthrow of the bourgeois democratic Reconstruction governments was not a fascist movement in the mind of many but the result of the inferiority of the Negro - according to the "right" and the "meanness" of white people - racial antagonism, according to the "left."
In history the Radical Wing of the Republican Party represented interests of industrial capital. The demand to parcel out the land to the Freemen did not come from finance capital or Wall Street. Actually, it was the demands of industry that made the integration of the black into the heart of the proletariat an immediate issue.
It is true that distinct lines of political division are not so clean, neat and clear in politics but in history sector logic dictated specific policy.
We are still caught up on "European" modality and the evolution of German fascism, which is completely different from the evolution of finance capital in our country. German fascism was a response to the Soviet Revolution and insurgency of the working class. Southern reaction - fascism, was a response to the need to break the movement to parcel out the land to freemen and small farmers. And reconstitute the Southern reactionaries under the domination of Wall Street.
To this very day this is the most reactionary, backwards, chauvinistic, jingoistic and
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: bullying-2
"What made up the fascist character of the counter revolution was not simply its brutality or violence, but the fact that the 'revolt of the poor whites' cloaked itself in the mantle of saving the South. The fascist led 'revolt' was the absolute agent of finance capital of the North. The counterrevolution attacked and overthrew the Reconstruction bourgeois democratic governments. Then, the fascist substituted a reign of terror as the new state form of domination . . . . In the Anglo American nation (North - M.P.) the capitalist in the main relied on deception, bribery and fraud; in short on bourgeois democracy. This was not the case in the Black Belt! Here, the rule of finance capital was maintained by an unheard of reign of terror, legal and extra legal, both by police and the KKK." Page 39 "A political force, constructed and funded by finance capital, which overthrows a legal bourgeois democratic government and substitutes as a state form the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic elements of finance capital is called fascist. Such a political state we call fascism. " The point is that fascist rule within continental America is not a new feature of the political landscape or unprecedented in our history. Our specific history reveals that fascism is not necessarily a political assertion of the industrial capitalist or rather the striving of the industrial sector of finance capital. Identifying the industrial sector of financial-industrial capital as the most reactionary, terrorist and chauvinistic sector of capital - as a fixed category, is contrary to the American reality. Actually, the buying up of productive capacity of the Black belt area - so named after the rich soil and not skin color, by Wall Street Imperialism represented a political shift rooted in a distinct economic sector of capital in the 1870-1900 period. The industrial sector of capital expressed a political program of breaking up the large plantations and carrying out certain visionary demands connected with what in our country is called Jeffersonian democracy. Hence, the ! political and economic demand of the Radical Republicans promising the freemen "40 arches and a mule." The merging of the interest of Wall Street - finance capital, and the former slaveholding elite meant that the political program of capital would be "not one mule to the black" and "he only arches a nigger will be given is the ones he will work for me." Condemning 5 million black sharecroppers to extreme poverty also meant dragging down 6 million white sharecroppers and with them an entire region in America. While much of the above rivets on the Marxist conception of imperialism and finance-capital, the essence of American political history has been misunderstood by generations of revolutionaries. This misunderstanding found its echo in the previous decade with descriptions of financial imperialism as "neo-liberal policy" and "neo-liberal speculative capital." There is nothing liberal about the export of capital, the wholesale destruction of peoples and the reorganization of their economic life, i.e. the domination of the money economy. This was true at the birth of capital as a social power in the form of the slave trade, the destruction of the country side and the domination of the "towns," the consolidation of the colonial system and its dismantling, and then the rise to dominance of the speculator over the world total social capital. Fascism is imperialism turned inward and imperialism is the rule of terror and violence over the subject peoples and subject areas of the! world. Much has changed since the era of Reconstruction and its aftermath. Capital has reach its economic apogee - the point in which all the quantitative and qualitative expansion is exhausted, and transition to a new mode of production unfolds. The historic fascist movement in America and Germany occurred during the era of the fundamental drive to begin and complete the emergence of financial capital and the mechanization of agriculture or what is the same, the completion of the development of the industrial infrastructure. The fascist movement on continental America has always been under the direct political direction financiers as opposed to the industrial sector. This political reality emerged as the result of the Civil War and birthed American financial capital. The purpose - most 'things' have a purpose, was to keep 11 million sharecroppers (5 million black) pinned to the toil of agricultural production and pickin that cotton under the domination of the large landowners. Whereas the Russian Revolution broke the power of capital and the large landowners, in America - under remarkably similar economic and social conditions in the core of the South, the landowners triumphed under the domination of Wall Street - financial imperialism. America of course is not Germany and in our history the fascist movement was buttressed by extra legal terrorist
RE: Re: bullying
Title: RE: [PEN-L:30837] Re: bullying I wrote:I'm not the one doing the reifying. It's the people in the U.S. who do so. If the left ever wants to get anywhere, it needs to be conscious of political opinion (without kow-towing to it). Charles J. writes: Why don't you cite just one opinion poll that supports your assertion--at least that way I'll have something of substance to rip to shreds. Otherwise, I'm not even sure its our little doggies that are being wagged. I don't understand the emotional origin of this combative tone. I don't see it as productive, either, either for intellectual clarity or for political progress. My statement about the opinions of people is based on personal experience, not on opinion polls. I know that this kind of anecdotal evidence won't stand up in social-science court, but it can't be rejected out of hand, either. Amplifying, my experience is that, outside of certain sectors of the professional middle class [*], people in the U.S. are perfectly willing to admit problems with democracy. But there are a lot who would rather _not_ have democracy (as with the JBS, who want the U.S. to be a republic, not a democracy). More common are those who simply wallow in cynicism, not an especially progressive emotion. Among other things, the cynicism is aimed at the left (which of course includes its own quota of cynics, which in turn justifies cynicism toward the left). [*](The middle classes, especially the white male members of those groups, are more likely to overlook the flaws of U.S. democracy because they have some representation in government.) The Bill of Rights wasn't given. It represents a victory of the more plebian social forces of the age (an era before the rise of the proletariat). Charles: By the time the Bill of Rights was written up, the course of the American Revolution was a quite conservative thing. the B of R and other moderation of the original Federalist plans were a response to the anti-Federalist movements, including tax revolts (e.g., the Shays rebellion). The Federalists, of course, were an anti-plebian movement. The B of R's establishment convinced recalcitrant states to endorse the constitution. Note, too, how quickly those rights were taken away once the new republic hit its first crisis. Of course. The actually-existing state of civil liberties and rights is not something that jumps off the page of some document. Laws are made to be broken, or re-interpreted or not enforced at all. The state of civil liberties and rights arises from the continuous process of class conflict (and intra-class competition), along with ethnic, gender, etc. conflicts. The B of R was mostly a victory for the plebian forces, but that doesn't mean it was a permanent victory (or totally unflawed). There are no permanent victories until capitalism is abolished and replaced by something better (on a world scale). JD
Re: bullying
--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote:I'm not the one doing the reifying. It's the people in the U.S. who do so. If the left ever wants to get anywhere, it needs to be conscious of political opinion (without kow-towing to it). Charles J. writes: Why don't you cite just one opinion poll that supports your assertion--at least that way I'll have something of substance to rip to shreds. Otherwise, I'm not even sure its our little doggies that are being wagged. I don't understand the emotional origin of this combative tone. I don't see it as productive, either, either for intellectual clarity or for political progress. I didn't think it was emotively combative at all, as I also told list moderator. Sorry you saw it that way. My statement about the opinions of people is based on personal experience, not on opinion polls. I know that this kind of anecdotal evidence won't stand up in social-science court, but it can't be rejected out of hand, either. And as I already said, my personal experience is must different than that. Amplifying, my experience is that, outside of certain sectors of the professional middle class [*], people in the U.S. are perfectly willing to admit problems with democracy. But there are a lot who would rather _not_ have democracy (as with the JBS, who want the U.S. to be a republic, not a democracy). More common are those who simply wallow in cynicism, not an especially progressive emotion. So why don't you go after those people for their cyncicism? Or better yet, why do you think they are cynical? Among other things, the cynicism is aimed at the left (which of course includes its own quota of cynics, which in turn justifies cynicism toward the left). [*](The middle classes, especially the white male members of those groups, are more likely to overlook the flaws of U.S. democracy because they have some representation in government.) But I know plenty of people who aren't. This is why I mentioned the African American people, most middle aged and elderly, calling into C-Span to blast the rush to war. They aren't satisfied, but they didn't sound too cynical to me. The Bill of Rights wasn't given. It represents a victory of the more plebian social forces of the age (an era before the rise of the proletariat). Charles: By the time the Bill of Rights was written up, the course of the American Revolution was a quite conservative thing. the B of R and other moderation of the original Federalist plans were a response to the anti-Federalist movements, including tax revolts (e.g., the Shays rebellion). The Federalists, of course, were an anti-plebian movement. The B of R's establishment convinced recalcitrant states to endorse the constitution. Note, too, how quickly those rights were taken away once the new republic hit its first crisis. Of course. The actually-existing state of civil liberties and rights is not something that jumps off the page of some document. Laws are made to be broken, or re-interpreted or not enforced at all. The state of civil liberties and rights arises from the continuous process of class conflict (and intra-class competition), along with ethnic, gender, etc. conflicts. It was basically establishment libertarian thinking that gave us the Bill of Rights, not plebian. The B of R was mostly a victory for the plebian forces, but that doesn't mean it was a permanent victory (or totally unflawed). There are no permanent victories until capitalism is abolished and replaced by something better (on a world scale). JD Got ahead of myself. I'm just trying to get America wrapped up in the idea of scaling back military spending and 'intelligence', and working on national health insurance for all Americans for cripes sake. Sorry if I'm too cynical for you. Americans have to see just how 'exceptional' isn't always better. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: bullying
When I see evidence of the rise of a fascist government, my own government, it is my duty and my nature to say 'yep, looks like fascism to me.' When I hear a person express frustration at the lack of visible resistance to what is shaping up to be unchecked global military domination, the least I can do is offer my solidarity. The irony is that the chunk of geography in many ways least integrated into this system of deadly domination and exploitation is only now being PROPERLY got around to. You could say Americans have been paying for it, and it indeed they have. For example, 40 million with no health insurance. But the Europeans, the E. Asians and the oil-rich Middle East has been financing it as well. (CENTCOM in Florida was put in place back in the 70s so that the US could project power more rapidly than it could through NATO or any alliance (though it looks rather sclerotic now, which is why Rumsfeld wants to work around even it to some extent). But the idea was to project and repress all points globally outside the continental US.) So now we get this: 6. Military launches homeland defense command By Bryan Bender, Global Security Newswire A new U.S. military command responsible for North America began operating Tuesday, codifying the Pentagons new role in supporting homeland defense. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz joined Northern Command leader Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart to dedicate the new Northern Command, which will begin operations with an annual budget of $70 million and 582 employees in Colorado Springs, Colo., and other locations around the country. For the first time in the countrys history, a single military command will be assigned the mission of defending the continental United States and Alaska. In addition, the new command will oversee U.S. military activities in Canada, Mexico, the Virgin Islands, the Bahamas, Puerto Rico and the oceans surrounding the United States out to 500 miles. Hawaii will remain the responsibility of the U.S. Pacific Command. Full story: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1002/100102gsn1.htm __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: bullying
Hi Tom, In the July/August 2002 Monthly Review, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz writes about left organizing and Okies nearly a century ago: Between 1906 and 1917, the Wobblies and the Socialist Party won converts on a mass scale in Oklahoma. They adopted the religious evangelist techniqueindeed many evangelists were themselves converts to socialismof holding huge week-long encampments with speakers, usually near small towns. In 1915 alone, 205 of the mass encampments were held. The Socialists never won a statewide race in Oklahoma, but their percentage steadily increased from 1907 to 1914. In 1914, the Socialist candidates for governor and senator won 21 percent of the vote and they won five seats in the state legislature, along with many local offices. These phenomena were occurring in the states Indian and African-American communities as well as the white ones. full: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0702dunbar.htm US-style leftism is a complex thing :- Seth Sandronsky Re: bullying by Tom Walker 02 October 2002 Carrol Cox wrote, To call the Bush administration fascist is capitalist apologetics. It is also bad American history. The Bush administration's ideological extremism is as American as cherry pie. Fascism was European and too damned intellectual. The U.S. had an organized, well-financed, ideologically extreme and politically influential anti-labor, anti-democratic movement back in the days when Mussolini was still a marxist labor union organizer. It was called the National Association of Manufacturers (and its front groups like the Citizens' Industrial Associations), although it was referred to as the invisible government when the scandal broke about the extent of its power and corruption. These folks developed their own labels and slogans Americanism, The Free Enterprise System, Right to Work. Jack London's The Iron Heel (a bad novel in my opinion) was not a premonition about European fascism, it was a melodramatic extrapolation of the policies of the N.A.M. The lineage of this faction of the U.S. ruling class runs right through subsequent U.S. history: N.A.M. opposition to the Roosevelt New Deal through its American Way propaganda, the passage of Taft-Hartley after the second world war, the House Un-American Activities Committee. It has had a large presence in the Republican party throughout the 20th century, but is not identical with it. While fascism borrowed from European intellectual currents, extreme right Americanism owes more to revival tent evangelism and patent medicine shows. Tom Walker 604 255 4812 _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
RE: Re: bullying
You can say the US leadership are bullies, I agree with you. But they still rule from within the law, and with a mandate from the America people. Sure they manipulate the press as much as they can, but ultimately the press is free, and the people will search out the free press. Yes Saddam is a bully, yes the North Korean leadership are bullies they deserve to get kicked out and hope they both do. Iran seems to be a democracy, as much as the US (and more so then the UK), so I do not think it is fair to include them Bush's famous Axis of Evil comment. Bullies only understand force and force is probably what we should give them. -Original Message- From: Charles Jannuzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:30792] Re: bullying BTW2, after Saddam (and before him, Milosevic), who will be official US Hitler du jour? should pen-l start a pool on this question? JD At this point the N. Korean leadership would admit to cattle mutilations and UFOs to avoid being singled out for vitiation by the empire. Iran is past the cult of personality of the Ayatollah K. and is in many ways more democratic than S. Arabia. But I'm pretty sure the US establishment wants to revise some history here. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: bullying
But they still rule from within the law, and with a mandate from the America people. Which laws are we talking about? Milosevic ruled from within the laws of his own country in doing some of the things he now stands internationally condemned for doing, though he also violated many, too. As for the mandate of the American people, that would depend on the functionality of 'American democracy', and that is quite doubtful. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: bullying
--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: whatever the functionality of of 'American democracy' is, we have to recognize that the vast majority of U.S. citizens see the country as democratic, though they usually see that democracy as flawed. The Bill of Rights is especially popular. Sure, people in the armed forces would tell you they were happy with American democracy, even though most don't even have the basic rights of citizens. Most wouldn't know they had given up those rights when they joined. Most would think they were still citizens of the democracy. But the functioning of a political system or society doesn't necessarily turn on reified opinion gathering about abstractions like 'American democracy' our founding fathers gave us and the 'Bill of Rights'. Ask people about their rights in the workplace or in their local community, and you get a far different picture. If the US experiences a prolonged recession and the usual misguided overshoot/shots in the foot in trying to deal with it, disillusionment in institutions is sure to grow. I was watching C-Span while back in the States and they had an interesting call in program where the 'objective' host read excerpts from newspapers on the coming war with Iraq and then took 'yes' or 'no' calls. All the 'no' calls sounded like they were middle aged or elderly African Americans (as far as I could tell from the accents and diction). CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Re: bullying
I was disappointed that my note about the real bullying of the United States degenerated into a rhetorical debate until Seth jumped in. His point about the rise of socialism in the early part of the last century was interesting, but, in fact, socialism was growing very rapidly throughout the United States and Europe. Interestingly enough, debates about humanitarian intervention destroyed the momentum of socialism in the Atlantic economies. Some socialists argued that the first world war was justified; others disagreed. Seth Sandronsky wrote: Hi Tom, In the July/August 2002 Monthly Review, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz writes about left organizing and Okies nearly a century ago: Between 1906 and 1917, the Wobblies and the Socialist Party won converts on a mass scale in Oklahoma. They adopted the religious evangelist techniqueindeed many evangelists were themselves converts to socialismof holding huge week-long encampments with speakers, usually near small towns. In 1915 alone, 205 of the mass encampments were held. The Socialists never won a statewide race in Oklahoma, but their percentage steadily increased from 1907 to 1914. In 1914, the Socialist candidates for governor and senator won 21 percent of the vote and they won five seats in the state legislature, along with many local offices. These phenomena were occurring in the states Indian and African-American communities as well as the white ones. full: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0702dunbar.htm US-style leftism is a complex thing :- Seth Sandronsky Re: bullying by Tom Walker 02 October 2002 Carrol Cox wrote, To call the Bush administration fascist is capitalist apologetics. It is also bad American history. The Bush administration's ideological extremism is as American as cherry pie. Fascism was European and too damned intellectual. The U.S. had an organized, well-financed, ideologically extreme and politically influential anti-labor, anti-democratic movement back in the days when Mussolini was still a marxist labor union organizer. It was called the National Association of Manufacturers (and its front groups like the Citizens' Industrial Associations), although it was referred to as the invisible government when the scandal broke about the extent of its power and corruption. These folks developed their own labels and slogans Americanism, The Free Enterprise System, Right to Work. Jack London's The Iron Heel (a bad novel in my opinion) was not a premonition about European fascism, it was a melodramatic extrapolation of the policies of the N.A.M. The lineage of this faction of the U.S. ruling class runs right through subsequent U.S. history: N.A.M. opposition to the Roosevelt New Deal through its American Way propaganda, the passage of Taft-Hartley after the second world war, the House Un-American Activities Committee. It has had a large presence in the Republican party throughout the 20th century, but is not identical with it. While fascism borrowed from European intellectual currents, extreme right Americanism owes more to revival tent evangelism and patent medicine shows. Tom Walker 604 255 4812 _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
RE: Re: bullying
Title: RE: [PEN-L:30825] Re: bullying Charles writes: Sure, people in the armed forces would tell you they were happy with American democracy, even though most don't even have the basic rights of citizens. Most wouldn't know they had given up those rights when they joined. Most would think they were still citizens of the democracy. But the functioning of a political system or society doesn't necessarily turn on reified opinion gathering about abstractions like 'American democracy' our founding fathers gave us and the 'Bill of Rights'. I'm not the one doing the reifying. It's the people in the U.S. who do so. If the left ever wants to get anywhere, it needs to be conscious of political opinion (without kow-towing to it). The Bill of Rights wasn't given. It represents a victory of the more plebian social forces of the age (an era before the rise of the proletariat). Ask people about their rights in the workplace or in their local community, and you get a far different picture. If the US experiences a prolonged recession and the usual misguided overshoot/shots in the foot in trying to deal with it, disillusionment in institutions is sure to grow. Of course, disillusionment could be harnessed by the right-wing forces, too. Many take their disillusionment and turn it into support for _laissez-faire_. JD
Re: bullying
I'm not the one doing the reifying. It's the people in the U.S. who do so. If the left ever wants to get anywhere, it needs to be conscious of political opinion (without kow-towing to it). The Bill of Rights wasn't given. It represents a victory of the more plebian social forces of the age (an era before the rise of the proletariat). Why don't you cite just one opinion poll that supports your assertion--at least that way I'll have something of substance to rip to shreds. Otherwise, I'm not even sure its our little doggies that are being wagged. By the time the Bill of Rights was written up, the course of the American Revolution was a quite conservative thing. Note, too, how quickly those rights were taken away once the new republic hit its first crisis. Michael, don't be too disappointed that it degenerated into rhetorical debate. It started when you posted. That's the nature of the beast. I will say, well, the Sandanistas stood up to the US and look what it got them--a Clash 3 disk l.p. named after them and the start of urban guerilla chic. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Re: bullying
This is not the way that we communicate here on this list. Please, cool it. On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:04:18PM -0700, Charles Jannuzi wrote: Why don't you cite just one opinion poll that supports your assertion--at least that way I'll have something of substance to rip to shreds. Otherwise, I'm not even sure its our little doggies that are being wagged. Michael, don't be too disappointed that it degenerated into rhetorical debate. It started when you posted. That's the nature of the beast. I will say, well, the Sandanistas stood up to the US and look what it got them--a Clash 3 disk l.p. named after them and the start of urban guerilla chic. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bullying
Michael You are reading far too much emotion into it. Obviously, it's a complete failure to communicate, which seems to characterize much of your list when it's the same key players as Doug Fernwood's list,including Fernwood himself. I mean, just how do you guys communicate? It looks about as pathetic as that other list. Moderate and lead discussion or shut up. If you are looking for some sort of contest to establish who is alpha eunich on your list, then you can have it to yourself. You and Fernwood and Brad Delong and the like can duke it out on each others' lists. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Re: bullying
That would be your decision. You have considerable information to contribute, but bringing disputes over from other lists poisons the discussion here. It's your choice whether you want to participate or not, but participation will require a moderation of the behavior. On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:11:27PM -0700, Charles Jannuzi wrote: Michael You are reading far too much emotion into it. Obviously, it's a complete failure to communicate, which seems to characterize much of your list when it's the same key players as Doug Fernwood's list,including Fernwood himself. I mean, just how do you guys communicate? It looks about as pathetic as that other list. Moderate and lead discussion or shut up. If you are looking for some sort of contest to establish who is alpha eunich on your list, then you can have it to yourself. You and Fernwood and Brad Delong and the like can duke it out on each others' lists. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bullying
Michael 1. I answered your rhetorical question: it was the Sandanistas who stood up to the US. Noriega did too, and actually put together a better military campaign against US forces than Hussein. 2. Why would you go out on the list as if to say the discussion was so unfruitful since for the most part you started it and then said very little? 3. The post which you just excoriated me on list for had nothing whatsoever to do with my clashes with Fernwood. 4. Almost none of what I have posted on this list has anything whatsoever to do with my clashes with Fernwood or his immoderate behaviour toward people he doesn't like. 5. Stop reading things into my posts because you think you know me from somewhere. 6. Please direct requests for clarification about what someone meant and calls for moderation when disputes arise (though this time I don't think there was even a disupte, unless JD wants to discuss the nature of the American revolution) to individual mails OFFLIST. Thanks C Jannuzi __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: bullying
I don't think your rant is mindless, Michael. I really do believe we are watching the rise of a kinder, sneakier fascism. It is just as racist and as violent as the old fascism, but more totalitarian and therefore more sublimated, couched in euphemisms about ending world hunger and such. Don't be depressed. Decide what resistance means to you and go do it. You might think that it is hopeless, but it's not. Not even the cops really want the world the fascists are building for us. Lisa S. on 10/01/2002 12:26 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When is the last time anyone stood up to the US? Castro in the 50s? The NYT says that the Europeans caved on the world court. The Dems cave on everything. Bush probably can buy the Russians and cow the French on the Security Council. It is all very depressing. I recall hearing how all the Germans left Hitler , but hell, I feel like a powerless German must have felt. Depressed and feeling the need to mindlessly rant. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: bullying
Lisa Stolarski wrote: I don't think your rant is mindless, Michael. I really do believe we are watching the rise of a kinder, sneakier fascism. It is just as racist and as violent as the old fascism, but more totalitarian and therefore more sublimated, couched in euphemisms about ending world hunger and such. Let's leave aside what was an aberration even for fascism, the Holocaust. Let's also get rid of that word totalitarianism, the primary reason for its use being to equate Stalin with Hitler. (I'm neither defending nor attacking Stalin, I'm just assuming that the equation is useless for purposes of understanding either regime.) So Fascism was just one of the many forms that capitalist repression of the working class has taken, and it was a form which, I think, was specific to the inter-war period. This tendency to simply call any repressive regime we don't like fascist is, substantively, a naive underestimation of the repressive powers of _all_ capitalist regimes, including good old parliamentary democracy. It was democracy (capitalist democracy but democracy nevertheless) that presided over the destruction of how many million lives of African slaves in the u.s. It was democracy which presided over the genocide of the Indians in the U.S. It was a democracy that conducted the brutal war to suppress the Philippine independence movement in the first decade of the 20th century. It was democracy that led France England and the U.S. into the mass slaughter of World War I. It was democracy which not only allowed the atrocities of Jim Crow. (I read _Black Boy_ when it came out during WW 2, and what struck me was the parallel between Wright's escape from the south and the movies and popular fiction of the time which centered on escapes from Germany or from occupied Europe.) And a kinder, sneakier fascism is, precisely, not fascism, for fascism was above all a mass movement which exulted in its lack of kindness, in its quite unsneaky brutality. The phrase blurs understanding of _both_ fascism and (for example) the police terror which has ruled over u.s. blacks for a century and a half or the atrocities committed by England in India, Sudan, Ireland, etc etc etc. So while I agree with the remainder of your post, I do not think that building a movement against u.s. imperialist aggression is aided by the endemic tendency of leftists over the last 50 years to throw the word fascism about. A minor but still worthwhile reason for a less incontinent use of fascism: While nothing can really be done to stop the ravings of such finks as Cooper, we needn't give them added ammunition -- and even among those who are ready now to respond positively to anti-war agitation, the reaction of many to the word fascism will be to contrast their dramatic image of fascism with their own personal experience in the U.S. and say, nonsense. This list, after all, could not have existed in Italy or Germany in 1938. Carrol Don't be depressed. Decide what resistance means to you and go do it. You might think that it is hopeless, but it's not. Not even the cops really want the world the fascists are building for us. Lisa S. on 10/01/2002 12:26 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When is the last time anyone stood up to the US? Castro in the 50s? The NYT says that the Europeans caved on the world court. The Dems cave on everything. Bush probably can buy the Russians and cow the French on the Security Council. It is all very depressing. I recall hearing how all the Germans left Hitler , but hell, I feel like a powerless German must have felt. Depressed and feeling the need to mindlessly rant.
Re: bullying
--- Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's leave aside what was an aberration even for fascism, the Holocaust. Let's also get rid of that word totalitarianism, the primary reason for its use being to equate Stalin with Hitler. (I'm neither defending nor attacking Stalin, I'm just assuming that the equation is useless for purposes of understanding either regime.) So Fascism was just one of the many forms that capitalist repression of the working class has taken, and it was a form which, I think, was specific to the inter-war period. This is almost like self-enforced 'political correctness' from concerned parties of the left. Don't use that word 'fascist', they'll just make us eat our words. Perhaps, instead, we could say there is the historic Fascism to which you refer (though again we could argue til the next world war occurs if Fascism, Nazism, Francoism, or even military rule of Japan, among other things, were more or less the same). So there is 'historic fascism' and there is 'semantic fascism'. Lexico-semantically speaking, the term has usefulness--such as when someone calls their tyrant of a boss a fascist. As for the current situation with the US national security-corporatist state (will 2001-? be seen as an aberration, the end of something, the beginning of something quite different, etc.?), I think we need to start coming historically to terms with it in and of itself. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
RE: Re: bullying
Title: RE: [PEN-L:30786] Re: bullying This is almost like self-enforced 'political correctness' from concerned parties of the left. Don't use that word 'fascist', they'll just make us eat our words. I think the problem is that the word fascism has been over-used. Back in the 1960s, it became a psychological concept (following the Frankfurt School's F-scale), which moves toward being meaningless. Perhaps, instead, we could say there is the historic Fascism to which you refer (though again we could argue til the next world war occurs if Fascism, Nazism, Francoism, or even military rule of Japan, among other things, were more or less the same). So there is 'historic fascism' and there is 'semantic fascism'. Lexico-semantically speaking, the term has usefulness--such as when someone calls their tyrant of a boss a fascist. That makes sense to me, but I think Carrol was talking about the _left_ using the word. As for the current situation with the US national security-corporatist state (will 2001-? be seen as an aberration, the end of something, the beginning of something quite different, etc.?), I think we need to start coming historically to terms with it in and of itself. at this stage, excessive rhetoric hurts an already very-weak left. It's probably best to be concrete on such things, rather than using an abstraction such as fascism. BTW, it used to be that warmonger was one of those words that had become totally rhetorical and thus meaningless to most. But the Bush administration has brought it back to relevance in everyday speech, by being warmongers in practice, every day. BTW2, after Saddam (and before him, Milosevic), who will be official US Hitler du jour? should pen-l start a pool on this question? JD
Re: RE: Re: bullying
Devine, James wrote: This is almost like self-enforced 'political correctness' from concerned parties of the left. Don't use that word 'fascist', they'll just make us eat our words. I think the problem is that the word fascism has been over-used. Back in the 1960s, it became a psychological concept (following the Frankfurt School's F-scale), which moves toward being meaningless. I haven't gotten to the original post, so I don't know who wrote that, but to start out with the point about rhetoric is to miss the point of my post almost entirely. The point is that it is plain inaccurate to call the Bush administration _fascist_: it is sloppy language whether or not it backfires rhetorically. And the reason it will backfire rhetorically is because it's a false label. It presupposes that there is an ideal capitalist democracy from which fascism is a departure. This is bullshit. Capitalist Democracy is Repressive. Capitalist Democracy regularly slaughters large numbers of people. To call the Bush administration fascist is capitalist apologetics. It pretends that capitalism is intrinsically a good system. And by focusing attention on a mere rhetorical boogy man it deflects attentions from real threats to the loss of what (real) freedoms we do have. ALSO: In the unlikely case that the future merely duplicates the past and fascism does reappear, calling current forms capitalist outrage fascist will make it difficult to recognize the new form of it. Jim is right that Fascism has been overused by leftists, but flour is used all the time to name that fluffy stuff we bake with and it hasn't become stale or overused. Fascism has been oversused because it has been used falsely, to describe things that may well be horrible (most things under capitalism are) but which are NOT fascism. Repression, killer cops, etc. have not been overused because they name aspects of our world accurately. But again, my central point is that incontinent use of the label fascist shows a naive faith in the goodness of simple capitalist democracy. Carrol
Re: Re: RE: Re: bullying
Carrol Cox wrote: But again, my central point is that incontinent use of the label fascist shows a naive faith in the goodness of simple capitalist democracy. If capitalist democracy were such a total sham, how come you're not in jail? Is it just because you're so marginal? Or is the thing actually a little roommier than Germany in 1938? Doug
Re: bullying
If capitalist democracy were such a total sham, how come you're not in jail? Is it just because you're so marginal? Or is the thing actually a little roommier than Germany in 1938? Doug Doesn't the US criminal justice system now encompass 2 million incarcerated and 1 million under court supervision? Carrol's purgatorio is more spiritual, I think. I agree with Carrol, but I wouldn't call the thing he is referring to 'capitalist democracy'. I just did call it a corporatist national security state. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: bullying
Stark alternatives -- those who don't have naive faith must believe the thing is a total sham. One could base a fundamentalism on such a dichotomy. It may sound like a pedantic distinction, but capitalist democracy is not a synonym for bourgeois democracy. Capitalist democracy or democratic capitalism is an Irving Kristol neo-logism, in spirit if not in strict etymological fact. The trajectory of its well-spun connotation is an inflection away from social democracy or democratic socialism and its moral claim is that ONLY capitalism and NOT socialism can be democratic. This moral has practical implications too. If only capitalism can be democratic, then it is perfectly democratic to not let socialists play at democracy. Whether or not one idealizes bourgeois democracy, democratic capitalism has no more to do with it than does, say, democratic centralism. Capitalist democracy is Americanism plus Free Enterprise plus the Right to Work. Perhaps the U.S. in 2002 is roommier than Germany in 1938 only to the extent that capitalist democracy hasn't entirely triumphed over bourgeois democracy. Carrol Cox wrote: But again, my central point is that incontinent use of the label fascist shows a naive faith in the goodness of simple capitalist democracy. Doug Henwood wrote, If capitalist democracy were such a total sham, how come you're not in jail? Is it just because you're so marginal? Or is the thing actually a little roommier than Germany in 1938? Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: bullying
Tom wrote: Stark alternatives -- those who don't have naive faith must believe the thing is a total sham. One could base a fundamentalism on such a dichotomy. This has always been my problem with many a discussions on this and most other lists. It is as if people, not just the ones on this list, read stuff not with their eyes and brains but using some other organs. Or maybe, they say things that they don't really mean; or maybe, I am just too naive. Sabri
Re: bullying
--- Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ; or maybe, I am just too naive. Sabri, you simply have to acknowledge that a maillist post, usually a fairly hastily written first draft, and almost always rather short for the topics being covered, is not an article in a scholarly journal. Doug's song-and-dance about binaries (except when _he_ commits them) is wholly founded on studiously not allowing for the generic limits of maillist communication. Even more, for certain maillist 'personalities', it's as if communication isn't even taking place with them. Little wonder then that their posts consist of ignoring the most substantive parts of real exchanges in order to try and make someone flounder in a digression of self-contradiction. Perhaps such people would do better to stick with an edited forum. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: bullying
Carrol Cox wrote: But again, my central point is that incontinent use of the label fascist shows a naive faith in the goodness of simple capitalist democracy. If capitalist democracy were such a total sham, how come you're not in jail? Is it just because you're so marginal? Or is the thing actually a little roommier than Germany in 1938? Doug Because we are very marginal, economy has yet to become a disaster, and nothing like 9.11 has happened here since then. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Re: bullying
--- Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Carrol Cox wrote, To call the Bush administration fascist is capitalist apologetics. It is also bad American history. The Bush administration's ideological extremism is as American as cherry pie. Fascism was European and too damned intellectual. Political opportunism at the top of a modern nationa state to the point of deadly ruthlessness isn't limited to historic period labels or circular culture-based arguments. Mussolini identified with intellectuals and even intellectualized himself, then betrayed the intellectuals. He supported socialism, then betrayed socialism. At least he never got the chance to ask ALL of Italy to go down in flames with him because it was not up to the task he had set for it. Luigi Barzini, an Italian conservative, said that the Americans are through and through Europeans. Looking at all that 'classical' architecture in the empire's capital seems to reveal some sort of fixation. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Re: bullying
Tom Walker wrote: Stark alternatives -- those who don't have naive faith must believe the thing is a total sham. One could base a fundamentalism on such a dichotomy. It may sound like a pedantic distinction, but capitalist democracy is not a synonym for bourgeois democracy. And Doug talks about how horrible binaries are at least 3 times a week. From his perspective, all that is needed to condemn an argument is to identify it as posing a binary. :-) Tsk. Tsk. And in my preceding post on the same topic I had made quite a point of this list existing and of us not being in jail. Doug himself put the point rather nicely back in '97 or '98. He summarized a few achievements of the Clinton Administration, and commented, with this, who needs fascism. Carrol
Re: Re: bullying
Sabri Oncu wrote: Tom wrote: Stark alternatives -- those who don't have naive faith must believe the thing is a total sham. One could base a fundamentalism on such a dichotomy. This has always been my problem with many a discussions on this and most other lists. It is as if people, not just the ones on this list, read stuff not with their eyes and brains but using some other organs. Or maybe, they say things that they don't really mean; or maybe, I am just too naive. Sabri, you simply have to acknowledge that a maillist post, usually a fairly hastily written first draft, and almost always rather short for the topics being covered, is not an article in a scholarly journal. Doug's song-and-dance about binaries (except when _he_ commits them) is wholly founded on studiously not allowing for the generic limits of maillist communication. Sabri
Re: RE: Re: bullying
Title: Re: [PEN-L:30788] RE: Re: bullying Well perhaps it might be helpful to define what I mean when I use the word 'fascist' since I brought it up. I mean a military industrial complex which increasingly seeks control of its own people as well as other peoples and nations. I mean a political rationale which attempts to gain respect in the world forum through dominance, intimidation and dehumanization of anyone who protests its increasing grab for power or stands for a more equitable point of view. I mean a government of elites who, by decree or in practice, strip world citizens of civil liberties, human rights and self determination. Just as the basic concepts that signify 'socialism' or 'capitalism' or 'humanism' take many historical shapes, so does the basic concept 'fascism.' Fascism is 83 days of 24 hour curfew in Palestine under which a person can be shot for sneaking out to go to the market for food. Does this not recall to the mind the Warsaw ghettos. Fascism is a newly published 'doctrine' of justification for bombing and invading a country which has attacked no-one... a 'doctrine' of justification for potentially bombing and invading a string of countries. Fascism is the arrogance and rhetoric which attempts to justify in the name of freedom the prolonged starvation, radiation and denial of medicine to millions of Iraqi people. It is the totalitarian mentality which answers a call for peace with the simplistic words you're either with us or against us. There is nothing 'meaningless' about the Frankfurt School. In fact, I would say that Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm, Benjamin, et. all, as intellectuals and Jews fleeing Germany, were intimately familiar with both the concept and the reality of fascism. Their critique is relevant. One cannot tacitly dismiss the first generation Frankfurt School in this discussion nor can you label and discount the left. We are not in a contest of sound bites and nobody is going to make me eat my words. Most people are far more intelligent than the media assumes. What should we care if the media decides that we have used a word that has historical context instead of a newer, more digestable, more postmodern word. The media has interests and people are beginning to understand this. When that German minister called it with the Hitler remark eight corporate media conglomerates gasped with indignation but billions of people around the world no doubt cried out at the news stand 'you tell it sister.' I had not thought about it, but perhaps I prefer this 'dated' word precisely because it *has* historical and conceptual meaning. It is an emotional word, a grave word, and I use it to describe a grave and emotional world situation. I am not for letting the media limit my discussion by declaring certain words off limits. If we allow this then they will keep taking away the words until we are left with horror devoid of expression. When I see evidence of the rise of a fascist government, my own government, it is my duty and my nature to say 'yep, looks like fascism to me.' When I hear a person express frustration at the lack of visible resistance to what is shaping up to be unchecked global military domination, the least I can do is offer my solidarity. Maybe this is oh-so-twentieth-century of me, but it is relevant. I really don't care what Reuters would think. I care what Michael thinks, and the rest of you because you are the people who matter in this discussion. Lisa S. on 10/01/2002 4:47 PM, Devine, James at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is almost like self-enforced 'political correctness' from concerned parties of the left. Don't use that word 'fascist', they'll just make us eat our words. I think the problem is that the word fascism has been over-used. Back in the 1960s, it became a psychological concept (following the Frankfurt School's F-scale), which moves toward being meaningless. Perhaps, instead, we could say there is the historic Fascism to which you refer (though again we could argue til the next world war occurs if Fascism, Nazism, Francoism, or even military rule of Japan, among other things, were more or less the same). So there is 'historic fascism' and there is 'semantic fascism'. Lexico-semantically speaking, the term has usefulness--such as when someone calls their tyrant of a boss a fascist. That makes sense to me, but I think Carrol was talking about the _left_ using the word. As for the current situation with the US national security-corporatist state (will 2001-? be seen as an aberration, the end of something, the beginning of something quite different, etc.?), I think we need to start coming historically to terms with it in and of itself. at this stage, excessive rhetoric hurts an already very-weak left. It's probably best to be concrete on such things, rather than using an abstraction such as fascism. BTW, it used to be that warmonger was one of those words that had become totally
