DebateGate

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.

Quote from: _JS on April 17, 2010, 08:39:42 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?

Quote from: _JS on April 17, 2010, 02:29:06 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.

Quote from: _JS on April 17, 2010, 02:29:06 PM

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.

Quote from: _JS on April 17, 2010, 03:22:46 AM

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.

Quote from: _JS on April 17, 2010, 03:22:46 AM

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.

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?

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.

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."