Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism

[_JS]

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?

Meritocracy is a term invented by a socialist as a pejorative. It does not exist in reality. It is a joke, a sham, a con, a ploy of the elite to goad the masses into pretending that one day they too will have a house on the hill if they just buckle down and work harder! It is a spoon filled with shit, fed to blithering fools so that they will work even harder, raise productivity, with no more incentive than a mystical dream. They might as well have offered free unicorn rides with a side of Minotaur steak.

Class existed long before Marx and will exist long after. He simply understood the system, or as he put it, he understood historical materialism and that Hegel's dialectic made sense only when "turned on its head." It isn't some idealistic force that drives history, it is economics - the forces of production - materialism.

[Michael Tee]

Very well said, _JS.  And very true.

[sirs]

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.

Yes, and Bush = Hitler.  Js, you're still in the same loop.  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

You have yet to produce any credible rhetoric, or even action, by tea party folk that demonstrate some underlying goal of a fascist state.  I'm sure this man you refer to is brilliant.  Perhaps he can shed some light on how Tea party folk are comparable to those that pushed for a fascist state, in Germany.

If you want to ignore the massive growth and reach of Government here in the U.S., over the last 2 decades in general, and with this Administration especially, you do so because it negates the facts of what Obama has been doing with his agenda, that of ever increasing Government control of more and more of the private sector, be it banks, student loan industry, automobiles, healthcare, etc.  And last I checked, that's referred to as fascism

[Xavier_Onassis]

The government GIVING money to students would be Socialism.
The government guaranteeing loans and then allowing banks to profit off those loans, with all rish subsidized by the government, that sounds pretty much like Fascism.

The government cutting the banks out of the loop, in consideration of the fact that the banks took no risk and simply profited, simply makes sense.

The government bailing out GM and Chrysler makes sense, unless you want to destroy the US auto industry.

[sirs]

Makes sense in a Facsist or even Socialist state perhaps.  But not here in America, where people have a greater freedom to reap the benefits of their well judged decision making, or suffer the repercussions of bad decision making.  If a particular auto industry fails......it fails.  If a particular bank fails... it fails.  Another industry or bank will step in to take its place.  Those that lose jobs from such failures will have ample opportunity to be re-employed as the next industry or bank takes its place.  Perhaps not immediately for the gratification of many spoiled Americans, but there has always been successes, following failures

And they will succeed if allowed to make their own decisions, leading to better products at lower costs to the consumer.  Let the Government stick to simply its function, that of oversight.  It's NOT the Government's function to take OUR tax money and throw at failing big whatever, be it auto industry or banks, thus making it a functional arm of the Government.  That again would be referred to as Fascism

[Plane]

Meritocracy is a term invented by a socialist as a pejorative. It does not exist in reality. It is a joke, a sham, a con, a ploy of the elite.........

You are quite wrong of course , the NBA is a meritocracy , every well run business is a meritocracy.

Meritocracy is an older idea than Socialism does the term really start with a Socialist?

.....And are you hereby admitting that socilism is not meritocritous? That doing ones job well is futile(in a socialist setting) because meritocricy exists nowhere in  Socialists opinion ,must mean for sure that it doesn't exist in socialism.

[_JS]

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.

[_JS]

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?

[sirs]

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.

Js, please, pay attention.  I keep asking for examples of how you or Chomsky can possibly compare the Tea party movement with the rise of the fascist states in Germany, circa 1930's.  You have yet to produce anything outside of this anger.  I quote, as your initial lead in "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.... It has to do with just how angry the petty bourgeoisie has become."  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??...especially given how the tea party folk support the polar opposite of fascist policy, as currently being implimented by Obama & company

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

No it is not.

Yes it is.  I'm keeping to the basics Js, and not getting muddled down in marxist semantics.  A Fascist state is one in which the Government is primarly running the private sector.  They limit profits, they dictate policy, they set both business guidelines, and in many cases how one is to be reimbursed.  There's still a private industry, but it's largely managed by the Government.  Not to be confused with a Communist regime, in which case the Government itself simply owns everything.

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   

But I digress......please, demonstrate how the hell you can make the defense that the Tea party movement is similar to the rise of fascist states.....minus the anger of course

[_JS]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The essence of Fascism is the denial of class struggle, not government ownership or control. 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, which in Mussolini's Italy was colonialism abroad (in Libya, then in Ethiopia, and eventually Albania) and industrialization, electrification and education at home .

Obama has nothing to do with Fascism. The Socialism we have is what is called "lemon socialism" failing corporations like GM and Chrysler are taken over termporarily by the government to prevent their collapse.

[BT]

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

And this is a bad system because?

[Universe Prince]

The essence of Fascism is the denial of class struggle

You're kidding, right?

[Michael Tee]

<<And this is a bad system because? >>

It's obviously bad because it completely ignores reality.  Reality is the class war.  Workers and capitalists do not have a common interest, so the idea of them working together for the common good is bullshit.

[Universe Prince]

It's obviously bad because it completely ignores reality.  Reality is the class war.  Workers and capitalists do not have a common interest, so the idea of them working together for the common good is bullshit.

I know Michael Tee is ignoring me, but perhaps JS or Xavier can explain why what Michael Tee said is a reflection of reality. It seems to me utterly unconnected to any reality in this universe. "Workers and capitalists do not have a common interest"? Since when are workers and capitalists two mutually exclusive groups?