Left wing fascism tends to be communism or some extreme form of
socialism, while right wing fascism tends to be racism or nationalism.
In the constant battle between the haves and have-nots, the right wing
wants to keep everything as it is because those who have wealth or power
earned and deserve it, and the left wing wants to redistribute wealth to
all equally among the community. At least this is the political
landscape as it used to be, right?
Fascism is a fuzzy concept because it is not clearly defined. It is
better defined in terms of what it is not, or in terms of who is to
blame. It always easier to convince people to be against something than
to be in favor of something. Examples are to be against a certain race,
or color (racism), or to be against exploitation by the rich
(communism), or to be against the Jews (antisemitism, nazism). Mussolini
said he was against capitalism and communism, but of course he didn't
say what is the alternative. Hitler went one step further and said the
Jews are to blame for everything.
The modern world is complex and consists of many different
interconnected systems, economic, political, financial, cultural,
religious, etc. Totalitarianism means two or more of these systems
merge, because one systems wants to control the others, too. In total we
have less systems. Nazism in Nazi Germany was the worst form
totalitarianism, since all systems merged. Communism in the Soviet Union
was bad, too (state controlled planned economy means political and
economic systems merge).
http://blog.cas-group.net/2013/07/fascism-and-cancer/
It looks like these state-controlled forms of totalitarianism are over,
but there is still a lot of inequality in the world, and we are ruled by
the rich. More than half of Congress members are millionaires. The 85
richest people on Earth own as much as the rest of the people. According
to Oxfam and the Guardian, the 85 richest people together are as wealthy
as the poorest half of the world. At the World Economic Forum in Davos
right now, some of them discuss this delicate issue.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world
Will the new digital world offer new forms of *-isms as well? We observe
currently what happens when 5 billion people come online. Who will shape
this new digital world, people like Edward Snowden? The CEOs of the big
IT corporations?
-J.
On 01/20/2014 07:05 AM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote:
I tend to think there's a left-wing totalitarianism and a right-wing
totalitarianism, but since they are both police states they tend to be
indistinguishable. Fascism is a right wing route to totalitarianism.
Robert C
On 1/19/14 3:37 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
Interesting link about fascism from George Orwell. I think
totalitarianism is the more general term, Hannah Arendt wrote a book
about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
-J.
Sent from Android
-------- Original message --------
From "Robert J. Cordingley" <[email protected]>
Date: 15/01/2014 20:39 (GMT+01:00)
To The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Subject Re: [FRIAM] Fascism?
In 1944 George Orwell wrote "What is Fascism"
<http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc> . Has
anything really changed - tho' the bit about Catholics seems a tad harsh?
On 1/15/14 10:17 AM, glen wrote:
On 01/14/2014 07:45 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
Berkeley, the center of uber-liberalism, has become, in it's collective
character and in it's specific approach to governing, quite fascist...
despite applying it to a very liberal agenda.
I think we've discussed this before, but perhaps only off list. Now's
my chance to throw down the gauntlet publicly. ;-)
I don't think you're using the word "fascist" properly at all, here. I
admit that _an_ essence of fascism is control. And perhaps that's all
you mean... a kind of limited degrees of freedom due to an ensnaring web
of byzantine rules. Toss in a good amount of shaming, political
correctness, hate speech constraints, etc. and I can see how the
environment you describe could be called tightly controlled.
But I don't think that's what most people mean by the word "fascist".
Although I can also admit that most of the people who _currently_ shout
"fascism" at the drop of a hat may well mean that. So, perhaps the word
is newly defined (evolved) and you're using the new definition?
Traditionally (from the dictionary and other sources) I think fascism
requires:
o a fetish for the military, including paramilitary, and
war/battle/fighting,
o some sort of dictator/autocrat, and
o reliance on physical force, not merely verbal or psychological coercion.
I don't know Berkeley at all. I do vaguely remember some news coverage
during the Occupy noise about a mayor of Berkeley tending towards more
use of police (dressed in very military looking gear). So, it would be
easy for you to convince me that Berkeley has _become_ more fascist over
the years. But it wouldn't be in correlation with uber-liberalism. It
would (I think) correlate more with traditionally fascist aspects.
I can tell that I've miscommunicated significantly in this (and this
thread only?) thread...
Bah! Cheers to miscommunication! One of my favorite aphorisms is "The
problem with communication is the illusion that it exists." I have no
idea who first said or and I've forgotten who I heard it from. But it
always rings true to me.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
