FASCIST thinking is NOT only a threat from the Right

[Protagoras]

I know we go in fits and spurts here. But of late I've seen an amazing amount of hate, intolerance, and absolutism aimed at..well...just about everyone Left Right and Middle here on DU.

And I've occasionally offered up some good ol quotes from the past to caution those who've apparently snapped.

Gandhi's "And eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

and

Nietzsche's"Battle not with monsters. lest ye become a monster"

But as always, there's a pretty solid contingent of people who simply can't get through the red fog. Who've become so consumed with hatred that a thirst for revenge has displaced progress or hope. They would, probably unknowningly, unseat Bush only to replace him with themeselves and manifest their arrogance and anger in a way that that would be every bit as absolute and intolerant and terrible.

And that is the thing we must guard against more than anything. We have to always remember that we gain nothing by becoming what we condemn. If we become so rigid that we break, so intolerant that we become the persecutors of all who disagree...then we are the enemy.

We must remember that the political spectrum is a circle where if things are pushed too far to the left or right...they meet at the bottom.

That's not to say that we have to be passive, or moderate or DINOs or DLCers or whatever...it is to say that we would do well to apply some caution and act in a slow and calm fashion. Hysteria will drive us off a cliff as fast as a Rhino chasing us.

If our victory over the RW is to ever mean anything, it must be because our tone and approach are ALSO different from theirs. It can't simply be a replacement of their bigotries and biases with our own.

So this is my little encouragement for people to take that second breath before you go down the road of all or nothing...of absolutism...of revenge. Before you become so hypervigilant and reactive that the slightest breeze becomes a repetitive prediction for a hurricane.

Discuss issues, strategy, tactics...disagree over approaches and positions...but try to do so with an eye to the future...and temper it with a bit of humility. Remember that others can differ from you (or me) and still be right. Because if we ever become totally convinced that we are infallible, then we are most likely wrong.

Have fun with it,

Protagoras

[SmokingJacket]

1. Specifics?

If this is a knock at Dean, I'm not interested.

See Plaid Adder.

[LoZoccolo]

3. Ha ha! So what he says could be right...

...unless it's about Dean.

Oh no...we are in big trouble.

[SmokingJacket]

7. Not what I said.

Generalities are not useful here.

"Don't become fascist.": okay, no problem, I have no intention of doing so! Please tell me specifically statements I or others have made that are fascist.

However... if his a cryptic reference to Dean -- a wild guess -- I will defer to Plaid Adder's argument about Dean's tactics. I don't think they're fascist in the least, but her latest posts are far more eloquent than mine.

:hi:

[Protagoras]

15. I think you're reading something into what I'm saying.

Something that isn't there.

This isn't about Dean at all. But it may very much be about some comments some people have made about Dean...and even about Dean's critics.

I'm just preaching some peace here :D

[SmokingJacket]

24. Well, okay!

Sometimes posts are so devoid of specifics, one has to insert one's own specifics and see if they fit.

[martymar64]

23. Go ahead, alienate the left third of the party

Alienate at least a third of the party base and we'll just leave, guaranteeing that the Democratic party will go the way of the Whigs. Try winning any office without us.

If you think the Nice Guy route works, tell that to Tom Daschle. Didn't work for him.

[LoZoccolo]

27. What are you talking about?

I was just pointing out that if someone agreed with some abstract thing, but then rejected it if they found out it was said to demonstrate something in the abstract that applied to Dean supporters in the specific that that's...well, really funny.

And your error is in thinking that there is the Dean route, and the Daschle route, and that's it.

[Protagoras]

33. The error bears repeating

"error is in thinking that there is the Dean route, and the Daschle route, and that's it."

I'm very much trying to keep this a process oriented thread and not have it be about a specific poster or person...because that tends to make people quickly lose site of the bigger issue.

But I have to thank you for clarifying that indeed...it's a false dichotomy to point to Dean and Daschle and hold them out as the only two ways to approach our side of the political spectrum.

I admire a lot that both men have done btw...and I can also see ways that they could both have done things better...which I suppose describes how I feel about most people...including myself. :D

There are a thousand ways...lets not limit ourselves to only the most extreme (and yes...centrism can be as extreme as any other position if it comes from the wrong emotions)

BTW..no, I'm not a centrist...those who might have read my babblings in the past should have a sense that I'm left of Gandhi. :D

[woo me with science]

18. one example

is the increasing number of posts that seem to advocate government control of media if liberals get into power.

I've responded in the past few months to several posts suggesting that free republic or similar conservative websites should be banned. One of them was even worded something along the lines of..."I don't know how a FREE SOCIETY can allow that garbage..."

Another post said that people in Appalachia who voted for Bush should be forced to watch Fahrenheit 911.

I had to laugh, but it was an uneasy laugh. I am seeing this kind of stuff too often, as though people are willing to throw principles of democracy out the window to get what they want. A free society allows free speech. If we forget that, we are doomed.

[SmokingJacket]

25. If the OP were using those specific posts as examples...

I would agree. I myself have never seen anyone advocating the banning of FR, except in hyperbolic terms ("Those whackjobs should be sent to Venus!" or whatever) -- but everything else appears here, so I don't doubt their existence.

I'm just arguing in favor of supported statements, and against coded harangues.

[Protagoras]

36. Sometimes specific issues/examples derail

the more important issue of the process. I'm sorry if that seemed coded. I wasn't trying to call anyone out (actually I was trying hard to avoid it)...My goal was just to discuss the risks we all face when we get emotionally out of control (as opposed to passionate)...

Still, sorry if it appeared to vague for you. I'll try and balance my abstract with the concrete more next time.

be well my friend,

Prot.

[Deja Q]

2. And it's impossible to battle a human because you're then the monster and

once they fight you they become a monster too.

People love words.

I'm waiting for the actions that follow. As do millions, if not billions, worldwide.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. Surely the only action a party in opposition can take *is* words?

The Democrats don't currently have the votes to do anything except fight a rearguard action - they can delay things, but they won't be able to achieve anything of substance.

All that they can try and do is try and win reelection, and that will take talking - they need to decide what policies they are going to run on, and make the case for those policies as forcefully as possible.

You're going to have to wait at least 16 months before you see any real actions, and probably three-and-a-bit years, I fear.

[NorCalDem]

4. I agree with you...

but at this point I'm so pissed off at our government, that I would be more willing to just do away with the whole damn thing and start over. I'm not even sure our current system is salvagable anymore. We really need a new continental congress where we can draft a constitution that lays down the ground work for a system known as "democracy" (it's from the Greek roots demos, meaning people, and kratis, meaning rule). I know it sounds strange, but trust me, a system built on these principles just might work in todays world.

[Protagoras]

9. I don't see it as extremist to consider

lots of possibilities. Perhaps starting fresh is what will ultimately be called for...though how one goes about that in reality evades me.

But a fresh start would need to be that...fresh. And I'm dubious about anything Fresh occurring with the amount of hatred and division I see everywhere these days. I'd like to hope we can do something to keep a more positive feeling alive and driving any attempted reconstruction of our political world.

"Hate is a dead thing. Who of you would be a tomb?"
- Kahlil Gibran

[Lars39]

5. All or nothing?

Yes, it's coming to that. Do nothing and be economic slaves for generations to come. When did truth and justice become expendable?
When did the appeasment start? Why does one side try to play by the rules while the other side are consolidating power in their own little sociopathic way? Embrace the Third Way. :puke:

[Horse with no Name]

6. I started a flame fest this am

because for a point, I framed a letter to our DINO's in the only language they seem to understand (Republispeak)--to make a point--a point that was missed by the way--in an attempt to portray me by some as an extremist.
I do not support fascism or absolutism in any form, however, when that is the language that "OUR" ELECTED representatives are responding to and supporting--then it shows that the bigger problem is a communication barrier between "we the people" and "they the people".
How do you make that any clearer when some people will take offense to anything and respond accordingly?
You see it in the Dean threads, the feminism threads, and the Obama threads and any thread that a reader perceives that you are attacking one of the above.

[RoyGBiv]

8. Fascism ...

Actually, fascist thinking, by definition, is a threat from the right.

The word or characterization you're seeking is something along the lines of the Jacobins, or you're concerned that we're in danger of becoming Jacobins. I share this concern and so understand what you're saying, but I do wish people would get their words straight.

Fascism is real and somewhat specific. If we dilute its meaning by not using it in the appropriate context, we increase the problem of facing and defeating it.

[Protagoras]

16. I think the term is a bit more flexible than that.

A lot depends on what source you're using when you reference it. Certainly it encompasses a number of fundamental concepts. But the point is really if we push too hard one one side...our extremism begins to translate into something that looks remarkably like that thing we fear on the other side of the political spectrum.

- Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Or we can use Wikipedia or Laurence W. Britt's analysis of it. But really..it's not about a specific parsing of the term for me...it's about the general process. I think that once hate and intolerance become overwhelming...it stops mattering what the primary motivator was (religion, corporatism, nationalism, whatever) and you're just left with a howling mob.

If you prefer to use Jacobin, or some more specifically left term and that works for you then that's fine. I'm happy for specificity...however the term Fascism was picked precisely to cause people to reflect on how our extremism on one side of the political circle can force us to resemble THEM more than US (or perhaps we become them...thinking of Animal Farm)...but I'm open to the idea of constructing it differently...using the Eysenck model or playing with the Nolan chart or whatever works for you.

In the end though, it's worked well for me to see it as a circle...a circle where we meet in a very unpleasant place if we let things go to far on their side...or carry things too far on our own.

Guess that's the long and short of it for me. I'd hate to think that got lost in a semantic argument over the exact and eternal meaning of fascism...since it appears that such a thing is at least slightly subjective.

Peace either way,

Protagoras (who's working at making himself a better person)

[RoyGBiv]

21. Flexibility of the term ...

The term is flexible enough that it could describe both the governments of Mussolini's Italy and Germany's Hitler. Both were fascist flavors. The American Heritage Dictionary's one-sentence summary is fine definition as far as it goes but fails to explore the complexities that would indicate why this is the case and so is inadequate here. The stages and elements of fascism is a widely studied topic. While a universal definition is not available -- disagreement exists, for example, on whether the United States has fully incorporated fascist principles in its current state of existence -- enough universality exists within that definition to indicate that which you are properly criticizing falls well outside those boundaries.

Is it a semantic disagreement? To some extent it is, yes, but I object to the implication that semantics are somehow unimportant. A good part of the current shift toward fascism occurs along with a perversion of the language so that terms no longer mean what they originally meant, mostly with regard to the moral implications. This mutation of the language is an essential component. Some of it is as dramatic as a subversion that turns war into peace, but much of it is far more subtle. Indeed the subtle shifts are necessary for us to accept the dramatic shifts wholesale. Read Orwell's essays on this subject or those by Ursula K. Leguin. They are profound.

Understanding why we may be in danger of becoming Jaboins specifically and not fascists is essential to avoiding that fate. For those paying attention to such things, it is easy enough to determine we are not becoming fascists, and if that is all that we are charged with avoiding, we may consider our duty complete even as we build the gallows upon which we will execute our enemies. Labels pregnant with these kinds of meaning are important to our understanding of ourselves and what we must avoid.

In essence what we need to avoid is resurrecting the ghost of Robespierre to fight the ghost of Mussolini, all the while maintaining the distinction between the two. In all seriousness, I saw a post today from an individual who seemed to be approving of Robespierre and his tactics. I suspect very strongly this same person would ignore your suggestion he or she was in danger of being a fascist and so would ignore any subsequent discussion of why it would be a good thing to avoid this. Refer to this person as a Jacobin, an idea that he or she clearly supported, and he would take notice.

[K-W]

35. No it really isnt. It is a system of government, period.

You are apparently referring to your own personal theory of facism, which you should refer to as such.

Facism is the form of government. Whatever you think causes facism isnt facism, it is potentially a cause of facism.

[Protagoras]

37. Ok, you disagree with the term.

Again, happy to use a different term if you prefer. But lets not let that blind us to the larger topic at hand.

How do you feel about the underlying problems of extremism and absolutism that arise on both sides of the spectrum?

Can you help suggest some ways we can encourage people to balance their passions so that they don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater" so to speak?

[K-W]

39. I think you are overstating the threat of idealogues on an internet forum.

I think it is a fallacy to scapegoat extremism and absolutism when the problem isnt how dearly and exclusively a given idea is held, but whether or not that idea is good or bad. Facism isnt caused by extremism or absolutism, it is caused by a very specific idea that is decidedly bad. The idea that a small group of people should rule an entire nation.

Should I stop supporting peace and justice for all to avoid being an absolutist?

[Protagoras]

40. I think you're last sentence on #34

is a better read on what I've been saying here.

Hope I've clarified the concern better in some other posts. But I'm trying to distinguish between issues, and extremity of emotion that makes us feel infallible and absolute to the point where we become as unreasonable and meanspirited as those we oppose.

The last line in post #1 still stands regardless,

Have fun with it :D

Prot.

[HawkerHurricane]

10. The word you're looking for isn't fascism...

But rather totalitarianism, or perhaps authoritarianism.

Totalitarianism has many forms, of which fascism is one: using the power of government for the benefit of coporations. There are socialist totalitarianisms like Stalinism (government controls all, with one man in control of the government).

Remember, the NeoCons got thier start as Stalinists, they went from Totalitarinist left to totalitarinist right without blinking an eye; thier cause was not (and is not) Stalinism or fascism, but totalitarianism, with themselves in charge.

I suppose your message would be 'don't become like your enemy to defeat him', in which case, I aggree.

[evermind]

13. Stalinist neo-cons? Really? I think I'm missing some history here

can you expand on that? I'm genuinely curious.

[Frederik]

28. They were Trotsyists

they believed in world-wide revolution, which in a sick and twisted way is what they attempted to start in Iraq I guess. Irving Kristol started the "movement", and he was a central figure in American Trotskyism.

[HawkerHurricane]

31. You are right, I was wrong.

They were anti Stalinist communists, not Stalinists.
But Totalitarian Leftists who are now Totalitarian Righties.

"We are doing this for the good of the People, whether they like it or not, and no, they don't deserve/get a chance to decide for themselves because WE (neocons) know best, and we cannot permit them to make the decision for they are not smart/informed/clever enough to make the right one, so we will manipulate them for thier own good!"

(Dang, that's a complicated rant)

Anywho, it comes down to that the NeoCon movement are firm belivers in thier own superiority and the implied inferiority of the rest of the American people. If there is a philosopher that they really follow, it would be Plato... read Plato's Republic, where the founding of the Republic is based on 'a noble lie' that put people into thier places as laborors, craftsmen or leaders, with the founders deciding who goes where (oh, and the founders are ALL leaders of course).

[Protagoras]

32. Great points HawkerHurricane

Sums it up nicely if people just place X in your sentence "Anywho, it comes down to that the X movement are firm belivers in thier own superiority and the implied inferiority of the rest of the American people."

insofar as the threats of unbridled extremism in politics are concerned anyway.

BTW...Glad to find someone else out there who remembers that Plato's republic for what it was...I get blank stares most times I bring up the noble lie. Lottery anyone? :D

[HawkerHurricane]

44. I read it because...

someone claimed it described the perfect government. It doesn't. It provides a excuse for a elite to sieze and stay in power. And Fascists, Communists, and a couple of other 'ists' are all in favor of a excuse to sieze and maintain power.

[K-W]

38. That isnt really true.

They stopped being trotskyites a while ago and I have seen no indication that they still believe in any world wide revolution if they ever actually did.

They actually are Stalinists in the sense that they have taken the methods and rhetorical ploys developed to push for social justice and instead used them to control people.

I think it is a mistake to believe that neocons are telling you the truth about thier motives and that they have no actual interest in changing the world in any fundemental way. In fact I think thier main goal is to protect the current power structure.

[Frederik]

41. Well obviously

It's a central tenet of Straussian philosophy that the elite should rule and the masses be led, and that only the select few should know the truth. Thus their real motivations is usually the opposite of what they claim them to be.

But the neo-conservatives aren't status quo people. If you read what they write in their own fora they often complain about the status quo folks in the CIA and the State Dept, the "realists" who they see as over-cautious when it comes to changing the present geopolitical reality. The neo-cons believe in using violence to change the world - just not in the direction they claim they want to change it. They use the rhetoric of democracy and freedom, but they are fundamentally anti-democratic and "freedom" means freedom to be colonized by American corporations. They're into empire-building, basically, they see America as the new British empire.

[HawkerHurricane]

42. It's about control of the masses...

"For thier own good" of course.

I'm beginning to think that "For thier own good" is the philosophy of tyrants looking for a excuse to be in charge.

[Just Me]

11. Presently, the only "all or nothing" position I take is against the,...

,...BushCo/Neocon regime because they are an enemy to every progressive step the people had to fight for over an entire century. They are dictators prepared to basically repeal the entire 20th century. I loathe them.

[orwell]

12. Be the Universe

Thanks for your post. I understand what you are saying and agree. I have thought a lot about this recently.

It seems to me that I react most strongly to that which I fear/abhor in myself. If I followed this logic it is understandable that people who are passionate about totalitarians would tend to be either displaying or masking such strong characteristics in their own personalities.

It also seems to me that this great ship Titanic in which we now sail will only avoid the shoals if we stop thinking left/right, Dem/Repub, US/ROW, and begin to create the world in which we want to live - in ourselves first, in our families/friends second, in our communities next, and so on. A ripple effect if you will.

By accepting the us/them paradigm we feed the authoritarian state, which happily exists to "mediate, "protect", "govern" among the "aroused rabble".

Now this is very difficult to actualize within oneself, much less among others. But it is critical if we are to survive this century.

In other words, until we learn to find the things that unite us, however small, we will remain polarized, unconsciously handing our power to those who exist to control us with it.

Be the world you want to be. You might be surprised who follows.

[Just Me]

17. Interesting. I don't fear myself because I know myself.

I am whole. Wholeness does not require "perfection".

I am an advocate for human potential and there is a self-serving tyranny that doesn't give a damn about humanity imposing its will upon innocent people.

I FIGHT THAT TYRANNY!!

It's that simple for me. I get pulled into the divisive bullshit imposed by the tyranny from time to time. But, I'm pretty focused on those who are a threat to humanity.

[Taxloss]

14. This is precisly what I have been saying

with regards to one public figure. Maintain an open mind. But some refuse to do so.

[LightningFlash]

19. Too late. Fascism is here.

Either resist it or be swept up.

[the_spectator]

20. How about this one -

"Always remember, others may hate you - but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself."

(Of course, that one was from Richard Nixon in his final goodbye speech to the White House staff before he got on that helicopter and flew away - but then, all types of unlikely people get a flash of wisdom when everything is lost.)

[Sugarbleus]

22. Wow, interesting thread....

I think I "get" what you're saying when it relates to certain issues.

As old as I am, I've never seen the country so deeply divided and hateful. It's a worry.

From my view, I see a neat combination of Fascism and Totalitarianism in the current government. I do not like them nor the trend. I think it's dangerous and should be put down; as has been done in nations through out history. It's all about wealth gathering, status, and classism..not about humanity and Freedom.

On the other hand, I see a disturbing trend in our own party which I strongly believe has the possibility of becoming Totalitarian itself--some ideals are definately elitist. NOT GOOD. I don't want that either. I don't want to see any government (right or left) trying to legislate personal, private behavior. I HATE anything PC. It's gotten out of hand. All the "dos and don'ts" from both sides has turned my stomach. We can agree to disagree on what is appropriate without setting each other on fire.

Why isn't this country big enough for everyone to lead their lives the way they see fit and follow the drumbeat of their own hearts? We simply need a government that "keeps the balance" for the people..and one that listens to all of the people. One that makes and keeps a level playing field for all.

I am an independent thinker. I vote and discuss issues, not necessarily the party. When I disagree with issues from within my own party, I get flamed or ignored. So be it.


My opinion

[toddaa]

29. A Daoist principle

The softest thing in the universe
Overcomes the hardest thing in the universe.
That without substance can enter where there is no room.
Hence I know the value of non-action.

Teaching without words and work without doing
Are understood by very few.

Anger is like fire. It can quickly get out of control, and then it just destroys.

[quaker bill]

30. Have you grasped the paradox of "work without doing"?

How is it that "a truly great man does nothing yet leaves nothing undone"

[toddaa]

46. Yes and no

It's actually very simple to understand. Let nature follow its course. Unfortunately, when your will decides to do something different than follow nature's course, you get into trouble. The principle is called wu wei and it can roughly be translated as Doing Nothing. Note that it is not passive. That would be not doing. Instead, you do, but not according to your wants and desires, but instead according to nature. Very difficult to practice. That's why the greatest martial artists never fight. They yield and let their enemy fail.

Today's right wing conservatives are very much going against nature. They try to control people. Controlling people is like controlling water. You can expect to contain it for a little while, but water goes into the lowest of low places. It seeps into cracks and fissures that you cannot see. Eventually, it destroys the hard and unyielding.

I'd like very much for these people to be beaten quickly and decisively, but that may not be the best way. Doing so may only lead to a vicious cycle of tit for tat retaliation. That would be the worst possible outcome.

[K-W]

34. That doesnt sound remotely like facism.

Facism is a system of social organization where domestic consent is manufactured through propaganda for a repressive and tyranical government.

Sorry to nitpick, but being a idealogue is not being a facist, it is being an idealogue. I like your post although I dont think things are nearly as bad as you do here but certainly we can always use a reminder to avoid scapegoating, overgererlization, oversimplification, dualism, and dehumanization.

[ck4829]

43. On the other hand, there is a such thing as RW Communism

[radio4progressives]

45. Cautioniary Lecture absent Specific Context is Meaningless Rhetoric.

unless you start with a point of reference, give specific examples and evidence supporting your concerns.

[dogday]

47. I have seen many stages of the Democratic Party

But the one that keeps coming back is that we are always on the Defensive Side. Even when we had a Democratic President in the office, we still had to defend him.

We have had to defend our values of personal choice, because all people see is we love gay marriage and abortion. We back Kerry and were told to present ourselves in this moderate shell to act like right/lite and it did not work.

That is not who we are. We are the party of right, the party of fight, that is this party. It will take a fight and sometimes a fight is warranted, I mean our country was founded upon these principals. We founded this country by fighting the good fight and that is what we must do as a party. Fight the good fight and keep our anger in check because this is a mandate for all of us....