Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism

[_JS]

Overlooking the denials by Tolkien again...

Overlooking the obvious again.

[Amianthus]

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?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The slogan of Franco Spain was "España, una, grande y libre" , or Spain, One, large and free. By one, he meant that there should be one language (Gallego, Basque and Catalán were forbidden to be used in schools and churches); by big, he meant, no secessions of non-Castillian provinces disposal of the colonies in Africa, and free meant, no foreign influences, such as from France and Russia in particulr. Franco Spain was a monarchy without a king (there were two factions, the Carlistas and the Alfoncistas, and neither wanted to share power with Franco or his military), and elections were only among a couple of loyal Falangistas. The official party was the Falange, or Phalanx, a Roman military marching square, in which all soldiers had an assigned position and all were sworn to obedience. There was a youth group, the Pelayos, similar to Hitler Youth, with ties to Medieval knighthood and such. The military, the Church and the Falange were the three main elements.


It was illegal assembly to have even three people speaking Catalán, Basque or Gallego in any public place. Those who defied the orders were sent off, along with politicaL prisoners, to build the huge Cross and monument at the Valle de los Caidos (The Valley of the Fallen) outside Madrid, near the El Escorial Palace of Felipe II, where all Spanish kings are entombed.

[Michael Tee]

<<No I meant home ownership.

<<Do you rent or own?>>

I own and my mortgages were paid off long ago.  But for the first ten years of our marriage, my wife and I lived in a rented apartment, till the birth of our second child.  I have no problem with apartment living, except that in capitalist countries like Canada, the rents are way too high because it is left to private industry and finance to finance, build and rent.  The government should deal itself a hand, cut out the parasitic middlemen (speculators, builders, owners, bankers, managers) and give the people the kind of housing they deserve at a price they can afford without having to feed an entire horde of parasites, along with their lawyers, advertisers and tax accountants.

But if you meant home ownership, then I'm sure that there would be a lot of people who definitely do not think it should be a national purpose.  It's a very inefficient use of land and housing resources.  One of my favourite scenes from the film Dr. Zhivago was when the aristocrat returns to his mansion after the Revolution and finds that the Revolution has allotted him one unit of it, with the rest of the property divided into other units, each given over to a worker's family.  They're cooking and doing their laundry in what used to be the foyer.  

To the extent that there is any support for home ownership as a national purpose or goal, it's a construct that benefits the ruling class landowners, their banks and financiers at the expense of everyone else.  The "labour leaders"  - - if any - - who support that goal are either fucking idiots or paid off by their class enemies to go along.

[BT]

You talk one way and live quite the other.

[Michael Tee]

<<You talk one way and live quite the other. >>

I spent ten years living in a rented apartment, so I've actually lived both ways.

But I've never advocated for anyone to live a post-Revolutionary life in a pre-Revolutionary society.  That's just plain crazy.  If the Revolution would ever come, I'd gladly make do with less so that the vast majority of my fellow citizens would have more. 

Instead of engaging in the substantive issues, you are just diverting attention to inconsequential ones like my own chosen lifestyle under capitalism.  That tells me you are totally incapable of refuting me on the issues themselves.

[BT]

It is always interesting to watch people backpedal when you divert them from the theoretical/ philosophical approaches to life towards the personal.

Home ownership is a horrible thing except that is exactly what you did, you bought a home.

When you bought that home did you buy to fit your needs at that time or did you look at it as an investment, a potential nest egg for your sunset years?

Do you have other investments? Did you invest in an education to improve the chances of earning a greater salary?

Do you own a vehicle, do you maintain it? Do you protect that investment?

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.

[Michael Tee]

It's very nice of you to try to speak for me, but I think I'll just go on speaking for myself, if you don't mind.

I do not "advocate" any kind of post-Revolutionary lifestyle for anyone still living in a pre-Revolutionary society.

When or if the Revolution comes, sacrifices will be demanded of the privileged minority for the greater good of the non-privileged majority.  I will have no problem making any sacrifice required by Revolutionary principles for the sake of the greater good.  Making that same sacrifice at this point in time would be an extremely foolish act, since there is no "greater good" to be served by it.

To answer one of your questions, we bought a home that met our needs at that time; primarily, we were looking for the very best public school education available for our kids; although my wife clearly saw it as an investment and a nest egg that would necessarily increase in value, I did not know whether it would turn out as she predicted.  Fortunately, she turned out to be correct, but at the time I did not see that as foreordained.

<<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.>>

Well, clearly you misunderstood what I was advocating.  I'm not advocating a lifestyle.  Period.  I am advocating for its own sake a political restructuring that would necessarily involve new lifestyles for everyone.  Since I happen to belong to a privileged class, the lifestyle change for me personally will probably involve less material possessions.  This is OK with me, since most of my fellow-citizens will find that their lifestyle change improves their material situation.  You should think of the lifestyle change in my case as one that I'm prepared to submit to as a minor sacrifice, in exchange for the benefit to the greater good.  I don't really see this as anything that is all that difficult to understand. 

[_JS]

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?

[_JS]

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?

[Amianthus]

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?

Well, either that or join one of the many communes around. But if violence is your thing, I guess what you said would work out better for you.

[BT]

Ami,

You beat me to the punch with that reply.

[_JS]

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.

[BT]

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.

Let's see how that works out.

[Amianthus]

I rather like the idea of communes.

They're all over the place. The Benedictines run one near here. Let me know what part of the world you're interested in and I'll see about finding you one. I have plenty of friends involved with / living in communes.