Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism

[sirs]

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.

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 is there's your connection to tea parties

No?

If not, pray tell, how do you connect Fascist states with the tea parties?  Just because they're both angry?  See, that's the point I'm making.  You defend the connection, based on nothing more than some seething anger behind each movement.  Is that all it takes to be considered fascist?  Anger??  And what if someone were to help mobilize them into a bigger political power than they currently are??  Again, where the hell is this Fascist dren coming from

Because, if you're honest Js, you'll note that it's been Obama and Company that have been facilitating a greater fascist agenda then anything remotely you could hang onto Bush, or any other Presdient before.  And since the Tea parties are up in arms at Obama's efforts, the only tact left in trying to apply the fascist label onto them, minus any evidence of such, is merely to smear them.

Is that the ploy in effect?

[BT]

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.

[Michael Tee]

I always thought lumpenproletariat included the unemployed and criminal classes, typically the kind of low-lifes portrayed in Brecht's Threepenny Opera and one of its better-known songs, Mack the Knife or Mackie Messer.

Here's what Wikipedia says about 'em:

<<Lumpenproletariat (a German word literally meaning "rag proletariat") is a term first defined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The German Ideology (1845) and later elaborated on in other works by Marx. The term was originally coined by Marx to describe that segment of the working class that would never achieve class consciousness, and was therefore worthless in the context of revolutionary struggle.

<<In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852), Marx refers to the lumpenproletariat as the 'refuse of all classes,' including 'swindlers, confidence tricksters, brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, beggars, and other flotsam of society.' In the Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx describes the lumpenproletariat as a 'class fraction' that constituted the political power base for Louis Bonaparte of France in 1848. In this sense, Marx argued that Bonaparte was able to place himself above the two main classes, the proletariat and bourgeoisie, by resorting to the 'lumpenproletariat' as an apparently independent base of power, while in fact advancing the material interests of the bourgeoisie.>>

[Plane]

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.    

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?

[_JS]

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.

[Plane]

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.

How very quaint!

And yet you go on to state that these Americans have very little class consciousness.

It isn't possible that you are useing terminology and concepts with little (if any) relivance to the actuallity of people who are tired of high taxes and an overweening meddling government?

[_JS]

How very quaint!

And yet you go on to state that these Americans have very little class consciousness.

It isn't possible that you are useing terminology and concepts with little (if any) relivance to the actuallity of people who are tired of high taxes and an overweening meddling government?

That is not what I said. I said that the petty bourgeoisie "have difficulty achieving any real class-consciousness and rarely throughout history become a class to itself let alone a class for itself."

You cannot escape the forces of history. The description you give only makes this particular group fit the concept all the much better. Of course they feel that they've been wronged! High taxes and a meddling government are to blame!

What would you have them do? Blame the free market? That's as sacred to the petty bourgeoisie as Christ Himself! They can't blame America, that's a close second to Christ and the free market...

[Universe Prince]

The lumpenproletariat are the "flotsam of society."

That's rather vague. But okay; so, who are the flotsam of our society?

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.

Again, if the Tea Party movement were holding rallies for, say, government run universal health care, I doubt much you and Chomsky would trying to warn anyone about potential fascism. You'd more likely be cheering the proles for moving against the bourgeoisie. The objections and warnings are not about class. They are about ideology.

Sarah Palin is an imbecile (sorry if that's tough for some, but she is).

No, she is not. She is a woman with a simplified view of things, but that makes her like average, not stupid.

[Plane]

What would you blame on a free market?

(As if we really had a free market)


A free market is like water , mindlessly it distributes itself in its container to form a perfectly level surface on the top .

A government that manipulates the market is like someone offended by a diffrence in depth , pumps water from the deep end and deposits this water in the shallow end hopeing to acheive an equality of depth .


Market forces deserve study , much as do tides  , it is easyer to cope with tides if they are understood better , but understanding them much or little it is useless to command them to stop.






Cnut, with the legend "CNUT REX DÆNOR[UM]" (Cnut, King of Danes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

[_JS]

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.

[sirs]

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.

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, despite strong majority opposition from the electorate.  At no time in this country's history has the Government madated that its citizens buy a commodity or else.  At we won't even bring in the debt being saddled on this country's citizens, their children, and their children's children  

And come Nov, you'll see precisely what I mean by all that

[Plane]

Class consciousness is a way to devide the people .


There is no virtue in it .


A meritocracy is a better idea , in which the divisions of class are not hardened by jelosy and conflict , but fuzzed and made vague by constant crossing.


 Consciously fostering class consciousness can only be an evil act, but would anyone who was ingendering jelosy and fear in this way blame the resulting trouble on his own incitement or on the divisions he beleived were already already there fair game for his exploitation?

[Plane]

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.

Which class do you see in motion then?

[Plane]

<<Lumpenproletariat (a German word literally meaning "rag proletariat") is a term first defined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

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?

Earlyer there were the haves and the have nots and the criminals inhabited both camps.

Now there are haves and have nots and criminals living in both camps.

If Marxism is mainly good for honest have nots , then that would be a minority of the total in the present US that the thing is supposed to be good for and three factions against one hoping against it.

[_JS]

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.