Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism

[Plane]

Was this term an invention of Marx?

How did Napoleion use concepts that were conceived years later?

I wonder if Marx invented the whole class?

Seriously? I have encountered quite a few attacks, most of which were not based on anything remotely close to what I have said, but this one takes the cake for downright silliness!

So no one experienced a phobia before psychology was invented and psychologists classified phobias? No one had a sexual fetish before sexual fetishes were discovered and classified by those same psychologists? No one retold tales of gallant conquests before Herodotus appeared and began the study of history?

Napoleon III employed the concepts, Marx merely discusses the how and why. If you truly wish to know more then please read the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, it is truly a brilliant read and one of Marx's best essays.

every well run business is a meritocracy

The sad thing is, I am certain that you truly believe that. It is of course complete bullshit and having worked for a number of Fortune 400 companies, some near the very top, the inefficiencies and lack of meritocracy are astounding. As I said, meritocracy was originally a pejorative and is useful as such.

I am sorry if you do not understand , but your failure to catch on is not proof of "sillyness".

If Marx can coin a word and define it as a term , does not prove that he understood anything.

I understand how Napolion betrayed the sans -coluats and why he was willing to release Lousiana and Hati for cash.

I understand Napolion as an emperor , not significantly diffrent than other successfull emperors except only a minority of emperors ever rose from the ranks of commoners.

This is a simularity that Napolion has with Mao , Stalin , Hitler and few others. Napolion betrayed the class he depended on for his initial rise , is this another simularity?

[_JS]

I think that Tee is separating the bourgeoisie from the proletariat, but I could possibly be wrong.

By the way, XO is not wrong. A major part of Fascism was denying any sort of class division and uniting the people, especially with patriotic pride and symbols of nationalism.

Plane, I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. I would enjoy discussing the 18th Brumaire with you, which compares Napoleon and Napoleon III, but you'd have to read it first. It is available online.

[Plane]

Plane, I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.

You seem reasonably intelligent , you will catch up.

[_JS]

OK, here is the deal with Fascism. I don't know why some here are so defensive with it.

Here is why some people here who have talked about fighting fascism are more likely to go right along with it, while others would likely fight it (or be consumed by it).

Fascism:
1. Primarily made up of the petty bourgeoisie with help from the lumpenproletariat.
2. Strongly Christian and uses religious symbolism.
3. Does not believe in laissez-faire economics, but does protect the small business owners (i.e. petty-bourgeoisie).
4. Exceptionally Nationalist. Uses every possible form of national symbolism and pride.
5. Fetishization of the Military. The military enjoys a near-religious sacred status.
6. No class divide is recognized, strikes and unions are discouraged (or completely illegal).
7. National security is at a premium.
8. Often uses a race, creed, religion, or another group as a scapegoat for national ills.
9. Social Darwinist in nature and social welfare. Mussolini famously stated, "I do not respect — I even hate — those men that leech a tenth of the riches produced by others"
10. Generally a union of conservative and traditionalist interests. Almost always this results in one, unifying, demagogic leader.

Fascists are generally opposed to capitalists, but of course worked with them in the cases of Germany and Italy. As a general rule though, capitalism in its truest form is not very compatible with Fascism. Fascists are extremely opposed to socialists and communists.

The books I referred to were penned by JRR Tolkein, The Lord of the Rings. Can anyone figure out who represented the fascists, who represented the capitalists, and who represented the communists?

[Universe Prince]

No class divide is recognized

That is not the same as denial of class struggle. Near as I can tell, the Nazis at least did not deny class struggle so much as they blamed it on Jews and Negros and socialists, et cetera.

Social Darwinist in nature and social welfare.

True enough, yet social programs to provide employment were major parts of domestic policy in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Each also held that protection and benefit, i.e. service, to the state/society was more important than protection of or benefit to any individual. Fascism is not characterized by individualism. It is a collectivist ideology. That, and not the denial of class struggle, is the essence of fascism.

[Michael Tee]

<<I think that Tee is separating the bourgeoisie from the proletariat, but I could possibly be wrong.>>

I was actually responding to BT's response to a capsule description of fascism, the capsule description being:

<<The idea is that the workers are organized into state-affiliated syndicates, called corporations, and the government, the capitalists, and the workers are joined together in a common national purpose>>,

to which BT had responded:  <<And this is a bad system because . . . ?>>

BT was in effect asking for (or challenging anyone to show) a reason why the system (fascism) being described was a bad system.  While there are other major defects in the fascist system, I chose to limit my response to the elements of the capsule description, the most obviously "bad" being the idea that class enemies (capitalists and workers) could ever be joined together in a common "national purpose."  

What usually happens is that the "common national purpose" is defined first by the ruling class, and obviously in its own class interest, with a few sold-out union "leaders"  induced by various shady means, to lend their names to the "common national purpose" in betrayal of real class interests.  

The other flaw in the description, of course, is the false portrayal of a supposedly tri-partite partnership of "government," capitalists and workers.  The "government" is nothing more than a creature of the capitalists, serving their interests  and heavily bribed and subsidized by them to do so.  So the "tri-partite partnership" is really a partnership of only two.  The fascist system is actually a dictatorship in both form and substance, with the workers getting nothing but a "partnership" in name only with their class enemy, which retains the  fully dominant position within the "partnership."

[Amianthus]

The books I referred to were penned by JRR Tolkein, The Lord of the Rings. Can anyone figure out who represented the fascists, who represented the capitalists, and who represented the communists?

Others may have read that into his books, but that's not by author's intent. Tolkien has denied many times that he used allegory in his books; as a matter of fact, he despised allegory as a tool.

Of course, people have read similar intent (again, not intended by the author) into CS Lewis' books, which would have also therefore been a correct answer to your initial question.

[BT]

While there are other major defects in the fascist system, I chose to limit my response to the elements of the capsule description, the most obviously "bad" being the idea that class enemies (capitalists and workers) could ever be joined together in a common "national purpose."   

Is home ownership considered to be a "national purpose" and a value to be promoted?

Is the financing of this national value a classic example of cooperation between workers and capitalists.

[_JS]

No class divide is recognized

That is not the same as denial of class struggle. Near as I can tell, the Nazis at least did not deny class struggle so much as they blamed it on Jews and Negros and socialists, et cetera.

Social Darwinist in nature and social welfare.

True enough, yet social programs to provide employment were major parts of domestic policy in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Each also held that protection and benefit, i.e. service, to the state/society was more important than protection of or benefit to any individual. Fascism is not characterized by individualism. It is a collectivist ideology. That, and not the denial of class struggle, is the essence of fascism.

Yes, and they blamed it on the Jews with very good reason. Many of the top Communist thinkers were Jews. In fact, Nazism considered communism to be something of a filthy Jewish conspiracy.

Not collectivist, corporatist and there is a difference. Moreover, the benefit of the state trumped everything. Therefore any dangers to the state were considered everyone's immediate concern, which is why preventive wars and Gestapo invasion of anyone's privacy were completely permissible. The Nation was sacred.

[_JS]

The books I referred to were penned by JRR Tolkein, The Lord of the Rings. Can anyone figure out who represented the fascists, who represented the capitalists, and who represented the communists?

Others may have read that into his books, but that's not by author's intent. Tolkien has denied many times that he used allegory in his books; as a matter of fact, he despised allegory as a tool.

Of course, people have read similar intent (again, not intended by the author) into CS Lewis' books, which would have also therefore been a correct answer to your initial question.

True enough Ami. I've never really read this in Lewis' works, which seem more anti-Modernist than anything. Though Lewis certainly used allegory.

Tolkein's work seems to be a very naive fascism and notice that Peter Jackson leaves much of the evidence out of his movies. Where were the hordes of black men from the south? A very major character is completely missing. The Nazgul are not fully described and explained. When they return to the shires it has become an industrial wasteland.

Of course Jackson had major time restraints and no one wants to see a thirty-six hour trilogy except the most die-hard geek. Still, for me the evidence is rather overwhelming and not strange to Britain at that time. In fact, Britain and the US had a great many people who admired Fascism until (and even after) the war.

I don't think Tolkein was some sort of horrible Nazi, and that was my point.

[Amianthus]

When they return to the shires it has become an industrial wasteland.

Well, in the movie they killed off Saruman before he could make his way back to the Shire and enslave it.

I don't think Tolkein was some sort of horrible Nazi, and that was my point.

Nor was he writing a book about fascism. He was writing a creation myth for the Anglo-Saxons, something that they did not have. His profession and passion was Anglo-Saxon literature, after all.

[Michael Tee]

<<Is home ownership considered to be a "national purpose" and a value to be promoted?>>

Perhaps you are confusing "housing" with "home ownership."  Housing of course is a national purpose, or should be.  It sure as hell is in Cuba where the government has made every effort to house the population adequately in cooperatively built housing.  "Home ownership" is a particularly wasteful form of housing in which each individual is encouraged to get his own land and build a house on it, or buy the land with the home already built.

<<Is the financing of this national value a classic example of cooperation between workers and capitalists. >>

Of course not.  What it is a classic example of is capitalist rip-off of the working class, most of whom spend a lifetime of labour paying banks and other financial institutions for the right to live in a home of one's own.  I haven't looked at the comparative figures for years, but the average cost of housing as a percentage of worker income was at much higher in the U.S.A. than in socialist countries such as the U.S.S.R., where decent housing built and maintained to standard was considered a basic right.

Slum neighbourhoods which are all too common in the U.S.A. are or were relatively rare in Western Europe, where the governments are generally much more active than in the U.S. in providing housing,  which is looked upon as "socialistic" and unhealthy in the U.S.A.

[BT]

Perhaps you are confusing "housing" with "home ownership."

No I meant home ownership.

Do you rent or own?

[_JS]

When they return to the shires it has become an industrial wasteland.

Well, in the movie they killed off Saruman before he could make his way back to the Shire and enslave it.

I don't think Tolkein was some sort of horrible Nazi, and that was my point.

Nor was he writing a book about fascism. He was writing a creation myth for the Anglo-Saxons, something that they did not have. His profession and passion was Anglo-Saxon literature, after all.

It seems to me that rampant industrialization of the English countryside would have far more to do with the time of Tolkien's life than some Anglo-Saxon creation story. The fact that he also explicitly supported Franco and the clerico-fascism of that time may have influenced the work as well. There is no mutual exclusivity that prevents The Lord of the Rings from being a naive fascist work and a creation myth, along with a somewhat naturalist tale.

[Amianthus]

Overlooking the denials by Tolkien again...