Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - _JS

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 234
3DHS / Re: Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism
« on: April 18, 2010, 12:00:52 AM »
No need, my Aunt lives in one in Berlin and I have a good friend who lives in one near London.

Of course there is nothing wrong with a Marxist having a normal job, house, wife, and children. As I've explained, you won't bother to understand historical materialism, so you cry foul when any Marxist or communist is actually successful in your capitalist society.

Knowing how capitalism works is part of being a good Marxist. It doesn't mean one has to like the machinations of your beloved bourgeoisie society or that there are not actions one can take to help the proletariat achieve class consciousness.

Mike, nor I really have to give a shit less what petty bourgeoisie sluggards have to say about lifestyle. Marxism is not a lifestyle. It is an historical movement towards the liberation of the worker and ultimate liberation of humanity from the class struggle. Mike may see the progression towards this goal differently than I, but I'm certain that we have the same ends in mind. To be honest, what the petty bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie proper, the elite, or the lumpenproletariat think of me, personally, is so far into the weeds of minutiae as to be irrelevant when compared to the massive weight of history.

If it takes being called a "hypocrite" or far worse, being jailed, being killed, tortured, or just dying of old age and knowing that I've done something to move a few workers a bit further towards that end of liberation - then I can die happy with a simple sign saying, "here lies a comrade."

3DHS / Re: Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism
« on: April 17, 2010, 11:23:58 PM »
I rather like the idea of communes. Though I'm not sure why living in a commune and violent direct action would be mutually exclusive.

Violence does seem to be a more powerful tool than non-violence to make changes and it certainly seems to scare the hell out of bourgeoisie society far more than non-violent protest.

3DHS / Re: Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism
« on: April 17, 2010, 11:01:38 PM »
I'm not trying to call you a hypocrite. I'm just wondering how you can advocate a lifestyle that is totally different from the one you live, and not make the necessary adjustments to bring that philosophy closer to your reality.

So do you think Michael Tee and I would be less hypocritical if we took our collective capital and formed something akin to the Baader-Meinhof gang or the IRA and began kidnapping major capitalists and bombing those who advocate the bourgeoisie lifestyle?

3DHS / Re: Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism
« on: April 17, 2010, 10:58:06 PM »
Overlooking the obvious again.

So, the books mean what you say they mean? The author just didn't know what he was writing?

Bit of a God complex there?

Not at all. What I am saying is that Tolkien clearly wrote some of his beliefs into the books. He wrote the books from the late 30's through the late 40's. Yet, they were not published until the mid 1950's. It was not exactly a great time to tell the world, "look at my awesome books on pastoral fascism! See, aren't they epic?!?"

So, I have no doubt that he would never have publicly affirmed such a notion. And note that he did not support the Nazi take on Fascism, but the clerico-fascist views of Franco, which were different. And indeed, he did poke fun at his friend and fellow Inkling, Lewis, for making such use of such obvious allegory in the Narnia series (but then Tolkien was a bit of a douchebag like that).

So, do you honestly think that the rapid industrialization of the shire had absolutely nothing to do with the industrialization of the English countryside? There was no allegory used at all? No allegorical good and evil?

3DHS / Re: Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism
« on: April 17, 2010, 08:39:42 PM »
Overlooking the denials by Tolkien again...

Overlooking the obvious again.

3DHS / Re: Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism
« on: April 17, 2010, 07:43:05 PM »
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.

3DHS / Re: Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism
« on: April 17, 2010, 02:29:06 PM »
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.

3DHS / Re: Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism
« on: April 17, 2010, 02:21:25 PM »

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.

3DHS / Re: Are Michael Tee and Karl Marx pissed about this?
« on: April 17, 2010, 02:14:58 PM »
You seem to be assuming they will all turn to Marxism in some form. I am sure some will. I don't believe they all will. And I am not sure current experiments in socialism outside of the U.S. and Europe are actually selling the idea well. And the longer they go on, the less attractive they will become, imo. And once again, you seem to think I am defending the status quo. I am not. I want to see all sorts of economic and political change. But I do not believe Marxism/socialism is the best plan or an inevitable destination. People are already figuring out that what natives of poor nations in Africa and Latin America need is not more massive aid programs, but property rights and entrepreneurship. Technology, barring some apocalyptic return to agrarianism, will make individual liberty and individualism more attractive and achievable.

I do not think you defend the status quo UP. I am simply conveying the realities of capitalism as it is. What has property rights really achieved? What has consumerism really achieved?

You seem to assume that I do not want a liberated people. I do, in fact that is the ultimate goal. I simply have no use for any false sense of liberation. he truth is that we cannot be a liberated people without discarding the chains of class - and yes, that will include property rights and some of the bourgeoisie structures the middle class holds so dear.

I am not convinced that "the notion of fulfillment in consumerism and the pursuit of individual selfishness" is as widespread as you think. That some or many people find a measure of happiness in owning toys like iPads, 42" flat panel television sets, a certain pair of shoes or a new fly fishing rod does not mean they are finding or think they are finding fulfillment in consumerism. And there are a wide variety of charities and non-profit groups that many if not most people support. If anything, the selfish, cynical attitude comes from people who would rather see the government take from other people than to give of themselves. I'm not saying consumerism doesn't exist or that there isn't a problem. But I do also think it would be an exaggeration to say that someone who has an objection to, say, government run welfare or government run health care, holds a "fuck society" attitude. And does seem to be what you're implying.

Now you are assuming. Government-run welfare and healthcare are bourgeoisie notions as well. The proletariat will take the reigns through revolution, not reform. Please don't confuse me with a social democrat. There are numerous non-profit and charitable groups and in the end they cannot make any significant change because there is no possible way they can overcome bourgeoisie structures put in place to keep workers exactly where they are.

I'm implying that as we travel down the road of postmodern-capitalism people are becoming more and more absorbed into finding happiness from their consumerism. If everyone was the rational economic man, then there is no possible reason for flooding the market with products. And many of those products would be substantitally different from one another - but they are not. In fact, a great number of products are simply re-packaged and sold again at a different price after a different marketing campaign.

3DHS / Re: Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism
« on: April 17, 2010, 03:22:46 AM »
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).

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?

3DHS / Re: Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism
« on: April 17, 2010, 03:03:38 AM »
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.

3DHS / Re: Are Michael Tee and Karl Marx pissed about this?
« on: April 17, 2010, 02:57:58 AM »
Perhaps post-modernism is on the wane, that seems a bit difficult to ascertain right now. I would not doubt it, but until a clear successor emerges, it is too nebulous to really proclaim a new dominant school of thought. Also, post-modernism has really had a rather short-reign as dominant philosophies go. I'd be surprised to see it pass so quickly.

I don't really see the Green Revolution as a "Great Narrative" as much as a reaction to surface events. For example, no one created a systematic philosophy in the same manner as Kant, Hegel, or Marx did in their works. Can you see the difference? This is not a value judgment, I'm not arguing one is a better form over another, but there is no overarching systematic philosophy, painstakingly and methodically derived in the Green Revolution (or any other postmodern event).

Actually, I think that the shift from a hierarchical social order to a more decentralized social order is probably for the best. Please keep in mind that while I believe postmodernism has tendencies that lead to destructive behavior when intertwined with capitalism, that does not mean there are not positives aspects of both.

Individualism does not equate directly to rebellion. In fact, coupled with capitalism, even rebellion in postmodern times is nothing more than making specific consumer purchases (i.e. wearing the right shirt and getting the right haircut or tattoo). The problem, of course, comes from the notion of fulfillment in consumerism and the pursuit of individual selfishness, even at the expense of others. We then have the situation of an individual who accumulates massive capital while others cannot meet basic needs. A cynical postmodern attitude (Lady Thatcher summed this attitude well) is to simply say, "fuck society, I earned my accumulated capital."

You keep bringing up "critics of postmodernism" and then reference me. I suppose I am somewhat a critic, but also a fan. As I said earlier, it has both pros and cons (as most man-made systems do). If people who are critical of postmodernism are cynical then you'll have to excuse them, as they only know a postmodern method of critique. ;) And again, is cynicism bad? Yes and no. It is good in that it prevents tyranny and the simple acceptance of people like Stalin. It is bad because sometimes we, as humans, tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. We were burned (collectively) by the nastiness of World War II and the Cold War. Perhaps we are overcautious now to the point that we are completely resistant to anything but incremental change.

I respect your difference in views. I see it much as the bourgeoisie must have seen it when it looked as though feudalism was showing serious weak spots, but still holding together - like a dam struggling to hold back a reservoir. I sincerely don't believe that the masses of workers on the Earth can tolerate the existence eeked out to them for much longer. Consider that 80% of the proletariat lives outside of Europe and the United States in 2010.

3DHS / Re: Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism
« on: April 16, 2010, 10:38:48 PM »
No it is not. You are not "keeping to the basics." You are defining something by using a definition that is simply (and completely) untrue.

A Fascist state is one in which the Government is primarly running the private sector.

Bullshit. The German, Italian, Spanish, Chilean, and Argentinean private sectors were not run by the state.

With both regimes being extremely detrimental to freedom, and when/if necessary, to be fought against.  And in our current state of being, is precisely the direction, Obama is taking us

Really? Please explain the Obama fascist state beyond your peculiar understanding of Fascist economics.

So, please, for the nth time, what else, BESIDES anger can you apply in trying to compare the tea party movement, with the rise of fascist states?

I have explained Sirs.
The reason they are compared to the fascists is due to their class construction and the mass movement itself. The development is taken from the observations of Leon Trotsky made in a number of his writings (for example his letters to Max Schachtman). In his letters he describes the historical variables and class structures involved in the development of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany. These were the mass movements of the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat. The development is a reaction to a severe crisis in capitalism.

What Chomsky is saying is that there is a parallel in what Trotsky saw in the 1920's and 1930's and what we see today. It has nothing to do with "hate" or "government control". Those are values you added post-fact.

The problem is that you want Fascists to be something they are not. You want them to have policies just like Obama. The problem is that you cannot will it to be so. That is a very postmodern reaction - that because you say Fascism is Y, then in reality it is Y. But it is not. You cannot change history with your will. Your definition is not simple or basic, it is completely wrong and false.

I'm sorry to say that Obama is just a neoliberal, much like Bush before him and Clinton before him. They are capitalists, the lot of them. You'll have to find a different way to channel your aggression towards the current prez.

3DHS / Re: Are Michael Tee and Karl Marx pissed about this?
« on: April 16, 2010, 10:26:31 PM »
I thought about putting a lot of extra research into this, but I thought it would be more genuine if I wrote this without any notes, so to speak.

What is postmodernism?

The easy answer is that it is the dominant intellectual school of thought after modernism. Of course, that is a definition of little value. It is important though to remember that postmodernism is not necessarily in opposition to modernism, though it can be on some points. I think the best way to understand postmodernism is going to be to contrast it with modernism.

What time period are we talking about?

1. Modernism: Late 18th century to the mid 20th century, the peak was around early 1900's
2. Post-Modernism: Roughly began in the 1920's to the Present, especially flourished post WW2

How can there be an overlap?

We're talking about dominant intellectual schools of thought, these things don't just stop and start in small periods of time.

Let's get to the point.

Yes, let's.

Modernism was a time of optimism. Science, reason, and rational thought could conquer anything. The world was filled with objective truth. History was a progressive movement forward for mankind. This was a common belief among most thinkers, whether they be on the political right or left. Think of Hegel here, he inspired many with his view of history as an ever-progressive guided movement.

Modernism also held to hierarchies and ordered society. Monarchs still reigned, and where they did not, even elected leaders were considered to be of "higher stock" than those they governed. Aristocrats still held power in many countries and hierarchies prevailed amongst the higher classes where women and "lesser" races tended to be dominated (and this was generally accepted by an imperialist society as being good for all involved).

This was the age of the "Great Narratives": liberating the workers across the world, finding a "theory of everything", the theory of evolution, preparing God's Kingdom on Earth, even determining the subconscious meaning of dreams. 

What Happened?

First came World War I. There was still a sense of Modernist optimism in World War I, some thought that it could be the "war to end war." It was truly horrific, unlike any war fought in the many centuries preceding it. Yet, in some ways World War I simply sloughed off the dead skin of long dying empires that were never much respected by modernists anyway - Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empires, along with the Czarist Russians had long been in need of changes. Perhaps this was a good thing?

Then came World War II. The scale of horrors involved in World War II is stunning. The systematic murder of Jews and Roma in the death camps of Auschwitz, Dachau and many other locations throughout Nazi territory brought the world a sense of collective terror. More than that, there was a blitzed London, a superheated Dresden, an atomic-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Add to that the millions of dead civilians and military. Add to that the policies of the United States, Britain, and Soviet Union that left WW2 survivors baffled. Nazis, not mere functionaries, but true Nazis were placed right back in power in the newly formed West Germany. Newly formed South Korea was put in the hands of a nasty dictatorship led by Japanese-collaborators who had committed horrid war crimes. Khrushchev released the crimes of Stalinists, so appalling, so abhorrent as to shock the entire eastern bloc. And still...nuclear weapons kept being built, perfected, constructed in a dual annihilation policy that bordered on insanity.

Yeah, so wtf is postmodernism?

With the aforementioned history, modernism no longer seemed to make sense. Optimism? Progressive history? God? Where was the progression of history when millions were dying? Where was God when Jews and Roma were being gassed? You can take optimism and shove it you know where (sorry, got into the spirit there). Once can see where postmodernists were a bit turned off.

Cynicism replaced optimism. A healthy dose of relativism was added into science and reason to ensure that we didn't put too much faith into it. History was no longer seen as progressive, but just existing and relative. Individualism was stressed over hierarchies and disorder was given more of a break compared to order. The great narratives were discarded for fragmentation and "think global, act local."

3DHS / Re: Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism
« on: April 16, 2010, 08:52:55 PM »
Implying/defending this comparsion between Tea Parties & Fascist states with nothing more than anger behind both.  Is that all it takes??  I didn't realize I was visiting such a Fascist household last year when the Angels lost to the Yankees in the ALCS

Where did you get the idea that anger is the only variable involved? I don't recall saying that at all. I'm rather certain that is another false statement attributed to me.

And last I checked, that's referred to as fascism

No it is not. What the hell do you think the fasces stand for? A single stalk of wheat is easy to break, but tied together in a bundle the disparate parties and groups of the right stand strong together in a unified, unbreakable, indestructible union.

You all have soaked up so much History Channel nonsense and Indiana Jones Nazism that you've never bothered to learn anything about Fascism itself. Just like the liberal-left, you've overused it to refer to any form of governance or politics you dislike and any sort of all encompassing evil. Hitler becomes some bizarre monster that can only exist in your rival's image.

I'm willing to bet that the majority of people here liked, nay loved a series of movies based on books (which they may also have loved) that had a very naive fascist theme to them. Anyone willing to take the bet? You Sirs?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 234