DebateGate

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.

And what is it that we're supposed to be "seeing"??  Or do you have some different definition of fascism that isn't related to ideolgy and policy?  What I see is a growing grass roots movement, that strongly disagrees with the direction this country is being forced to take, and the level of exponentially growing Government doing the forcing

A brilliant man once said that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.

I doubt the government has grown exponentially. In fact, I doubt it has changed much as a % of GDP from the previous administration. It is the same Goldman-Sachs cronies running the Treasury Department.

Are you suggesting that Fascism was never a grass roots movement? And what ideology separates these folks from fascists? I'm certain that Mauras could find common ground with the good Tea Party folk.

You'd more likely be cheering the proles for moving against the bourgeoisie. The objections and warnings are not about class.

I cannot speak for Noam Chomsky, clearly.

Why would I cheer the proletariat at a rally of petty bourgeoisie? My warnings are certainly about class. I thought that was rather evident.

If you want to discuss Universal Healthcare, surely we can do so separately.

Struggle will most certainly not end with Communism

Certainly not Plane, class struggle will end with communism, yes. History will most certainly not. The simple fact is that we do not know what will follow communism because the written history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. So no, you accuse me of violating a rule of history to which I most certainly do not contravene.

Has communism had its day, the Soviet Union, blah, blah...of course not. Feudal lords were certainly celebrating the first failures of bourgeoisie revolution. Yet, in the end the sheer inertia of the bourgeoisie class was enough to topple the Feudal system. It took a great deal of bloodshed and horrific brutality, but the dominant class can (and will) be overturned.

and since it's a "comparison" of the tea parties & Fascist states, and the the "petty bourgeoisie" are all up in arms in anger, then the inferrence[sic] is there's your connection to tea parties

No?

I know nothing of any ploys and haven't really followed the tea parties with any real vigor. I have no idea what Obama or anyone says about them, nor do I really care. 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.

As far as i can tell, the difference between the lumpen-proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie is the latter has a job.

What i don't understand is why unifying the petty bourgeoisie is a bad thing yet unifying the lumpen-proletariat is a noble endeavor. Especially when membership in one class or the other is paycheck to paycheck.

Unifying neither should be considered a noble endeavor. The lumpenproletariat are a non-revolutionary class by their very nature and contribute nothing to society. They are mobilized in a Fascist state to be nationalist thugs and given free reign to engage in brutality against those considered to be anti-patriotic. The petty-bourgeoisie are generally dominated by their religious, racial, national, or other typical bourgeoisie fears and notions. They have difficulty achieving any real class-consciousness and rarely throughout history become a class to itself let alone a class for itself. More often they are the tool of the bourgeoisie proper, who play on their irrational fears and use their motivations as a source of power in liberal democracies.

An unthinking leaderless mob?

Just needs someone to throw a halter on it and harness the energy to his own purposes?

Were you thinking this when Obama was winning the hearts of his mob without promiseing much specific?

Meh, Obama like his predecessor is a neoliberal. I have little enthusiasm for voting - it is a mostly pointless action.

Quote from: _JS on April 15, 2010, 09:19:44 AM

The comparison is made because the same classes were involved in constructing both the tea parties and fascist states: the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat.

Who are the lumpenproletariat in this country?

Frankly, I don't think that is why the comparison is made at all. I believe if the Tea Party movement was espousing a liberal and/or socialist ideology, none of the liberal talking heads, including Chomsky, would be trying to warn us about impending fascism. So I question the issue of class being the defining factor.

The lumpenproletariat are the "flotsam of society." Every country has such a class. Is Chomsky biased? Of course. Does the tea party have pseudo-fascist motivations? Of course. They are an angry petty-bourgeoisie. They have some feelings of independence from their masters, it is only natural.

Look, chances are the tea party anger will deflate over time. On the other hand, and I believe what Chomsky is saying, is what if someone comes along who can really harness a message that can tie Christianity, Nationalism, anger, and a sense of class for these petty bourgeoisie folks together? Therein lies your fascism. The chances of such a demagogue appearing are not great. Sarah Palin is an imbecile (sorry if that's tough for some, but she is). Who knows though, maybe a Franco, Mussolini, or even Hitler is out there. I think that is what Chomsky is saying. It would take a great deal of historical variables meeting at one point - but the feasibility is there, even if improbable.    

I find it very peculiar that you've heard of postmodernism only in relation to art, but not to philosophy, literature, or religion - perhaps the three areas where it has had the most profound effects. Yet, postmodernism is not something that exists separately from capitalism or liberal democracy. The three are very much related to one another and dominant in the times in which we live. Does postmodernism contribute to alienation? Yes, but only insomuch as it is caused by capitalism. Does postmodernism enhance the notions of fulfillment in crass consumerism? Of course, but only through capitalism separating us from what we produce.

Perhaps so, though I think that would be a tragedy rather than a benefit for humanity.

Yes, just as those who clung to feudalism were certain that the bourgeoisie were leading us to our demise. People often believe that history ends with them, that no further advancement in economics or governance can be made. This has been especially true of the bourgeoisie and capitalism, peculiar for such a short reign. Unfortunately for capitalists, history does not stop and the proletariat will remove the bourgeoisie and the class struggle will be ended.

The comparison is made because the same classes were involved in constructing both the tea parties and fascist states: the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat. In both cases Christianity was also highly involved (despite the bullshit one sees on the History Channel).

This has nothing to do with the government controlling X% of the private sector. It has to do with just how angry the petty bourgeoisie has become.

By and by, capitalism did rather well with Fascism. Any capitalist worth his salt chose fascism over complete disorder and especially over communism. You may want to look and see who has patents on sarin gas, the work done by Ferdinand Porsche, Siemens, Merck, Fiat, and other major companies during the reign of Fascism. There's a reason communists and socialists were the first to be shown the concentration camps.