|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 15 2016 06:26 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2016 05:48 OtherWorld wrote:On January 15 2016 05:30 SoSexy wrote:On January 15 2016 05:17 OtherWorld wrote:On January 15 2016 04:54 SoSexy wrote:On January 15 2016 04:13 Nyxisto wrote:
No I think the historical materialist perspective is absolutely correct. No one would go around and consider the IRA insurgency to be rooted in Christian traditions or consider the Nazis to be pagan warriors. This weird spiritualism that always occurs when people analyze foreign conflicts is ridiculous.
Especially when the tactics of terrorists, suicide, attacking other Muslims, children, women and so on go completely against even the most archaic interpretation of scripture. There's nothing religious about terrorism. Islamo-fascism is a very silly word. Fascism is a post-religious ideology. No. I don't get your examples - they never, ever said that their objective was something religious. ISIS did and does. Your second point argues that since they attack other muslims they are not muslims? If you talk to someone from ISIS, they will probably tell you that they are following the right interpretation. There is no right way to discern it, because the islamic world lacks a central authority like the papal one. And, to quote Sam Harris in his last interview: We can also look outside the Muslim world to see that mere injustice and inequality rarely produce such destructive behavior. Many countries in Latin America have legitimate grievances against the U.S. Where are the Guatemalan suicide bombers? Where are the Cherokee suicide bombers, for that matter? If oppression were enough, the Tibetans should have been practicing suicidal terrorism against the Chinese for decades. Instead, they practice self-immolation, for reasons that are totally understandable within the context of their own religious beliefs. Again, specific beliefs matter, and we deny this at our peril. If the behavior of Muslim suicide bombers should tell us anything, it’s that certain people really do believe in martyrdom. Let me be very clear about this: I’m not talking about all (or even most) Muslims—I’m talking about jihadists. But all jihadists are Muslim. If even 1 percent of the world’s Muslims are potential jihadists, we have a terrible problem on our hands. I’m not sure how we deal with 16 million aspiring martyrs—but lying to ourselves about the nature of the problem doesn’t seem like the best strategy.EDIT: Fascism is not a post-religious ideology. In fact, fascism is referred to as 'imperfect dictature' because it didn't depose the King of Italy and Mussolini signed a specific pact with the Pope (Patti Lateranensi). One of the mottos of Fascism was 'Dio,Patria, Famiglia' (God, Homeland, Family) - fascism wanted religion to be part of it, or at least be solidary with it. It is in no way a post-religious movement. I think the important nuance here - and what he means by facism being a "post-religious" ideology - is that while facism may use religion as a tool to strengthen its hold on society, to discipline people into a rigid way of thinking, the core parameter used by facism to group people into categories is not religion, it's race. To an Italian facist of the 30s, a catholic Pole was inferior to a catholic Italian, because the former isn't Italian. Contrarily, in religion-based idologies like the one ISIS is displaying, what separates people is religion : to a jihadist, a fellow follower of the IS is an equal because they are Sunni Muslims, even if they have different passports or different skin colors. But that's not totally true - for example, there were Italians that gladly went to Spain to join Franco's fight. But I am confused because I think you switched my position and Nyxisto's? Fair enough, political views like facism were sometimes above racial considerations. As for your positions, I don't really know, what I can say though is that facism can be considered a "post-religious" ideology (if by post religious you mean "not centered on religion"). And I think we can all agree that "Islamo-fascism" is a word that makes no sense no matter which way you try to bend it. I don't know how it doesn't make sense. If you look at Nazism as a sub-species of Facism, and Facism as mostly having the following traits: * Authoritarian Regulation of Economics * Authoritarian Regulation of Social interactions * Militaristic Nationalism * Oppression of Minorities * Indoctrination (typically of the youth) and forming hyper-loyal groups to police the state * Rejection of Communism There is nothing in that is incompatible with the goals of ISIS, the Ayatollah, etc except that Communism isn't perceived as a severe threat to those countries at the moment, but certainly communists would be imprisoned if they became active.
ISIS' ideology is not facism because (1) it is based upon religion and not race and/or nation (I'd go even further : ISIS' ideology is anti-facist in the sense that for them, there's no "superior race", and there are no national frontiers other than the Caliphate's), (2) it is rooted in expansion (global jihad movement) rather than defense of the self, (3) fascism is a precise political ideology, rooted in a precise cultural and historical context, which is not the same as ISIS'. And yeah, nazism is definitely not a subspecies of facism.
What ISIS' ideology is, however, is a totalitarian ideology, much like nazism, bolshevism, and to a lesser degree facism, were.
edit : but yeah, I guess facism is a fancy word used to describe any kind of extreme ideology these days. What's next, the Crusaders of yore are facists too?
|
Facism and nazism are pretty close : the valorization of authority, incarnate in a man, against the decadence of the democracy ; a return to a mythified identity from the past, pure. In this regard, islamism as it express itself in France is a form of facism : it is clearly stated that it is a response to the decadence of the occident, a way to restore a form of purity.
Facism as it expressed itself in France, Italia in the early XXth century is actually way more relevant as a concept than this idea of totalitarism. Arendt created many concept that somehow leaked in the media and are now taken by everybody, but those concept are most of the time great simplification that limit our comprehension of reality more than they actually enlight anything. Arendt was a liberal, and as such any kind of political ideology that did not fight for freedom were instantly labelled as undemocratic, totalitarian in nature, like the french revolution. Empirically most of her concept were also proven wrong (like the idea of the banality of evil, which is now proven wrong by historian, but was somehow globally accepted and made us all responsible of what the nazi did - with the inheret idea that altho evil, it was a human trait, and thus that we all shared responsability).
|
On January 15 2016 08:08 WhiteDog wrote:
Facism and nazism are pretty close : the valorization of authority, incarnate in a man, against the decadence of the democracy ; a return to a mythified identity from the past, pure. In this regard, islamism as it express itself in France is a form of facism : it is clearly stated that it is a response to the decadence of the occident, a way to restore a form of purity.
Facism as it expressed itself in France, Italia in the early XXth century is actually way more relevant as a concept than this idea of totalitarism. Arendt created many concept that somehow leaked in the media and are now taken by everybody, but those concept are most of the time great simplification that limit our comprehension of reality more than they actually enlight anything. Arendt was a liberal, and as such any kind of political ideology that did not fight for freedom were instantly labelled as undemocratic, totalitarian in nature, like the french revolution. Empirically most of her concept were also proven wrong (like the idea of the banality of evil, which is now proven wrong by historian, but was somehow globally accepted and made us all responsible of what the nazi did - with the inheret idea that altho evil, it was a human trait, and thus that we all shared responsability).
Sorry whitedog, but this makes no sense. How can a philosophical concept be 'proven wrong by historians'? The banality of evil was a reading of a certain aspect of reality which could be true or false, depending on the issue - these terms were not born with the idea of being 'proven right by historians', nor they lose their value if they fall out of fashion. This is like saying 'historians proved Plato's realm of ideas wrong' - what does that mean??
Sorry but as a philosopher, I felt a pain in my chest at that sentence 8)
|
I am genuinely confused by the preceding two posts outright rejecting the Nazism as a subgenre, or offshoot of Fascism POV. Basically all the English language secondary sources I've read about the 20s, 30s, and 40s basically treat this as so obvious that it is basically an afterthought, the wiki is similar in nearly all respects. Where does this very contained definition (i.e. basically in 1 country for 2 decades) of fascism sprout from?
I get if you want to differentiate it from Islamism, but doing so based on saying "based on religion not race" is silly if someone is calling it Islamo-fascism which would imply its simply fascism's other elements with "Islam", replacing "Italian/Italy/etc". Also, how is it an ideology about defense when Italy was extremely expansionist (their relative incompetence does not make it less true)?
Also I would say a defining thing of fascism, for a lot of people, is its relative modernity. With the heavy emphasis on controlling the populace through regulation, with an ideologue as a dictator instead of a bloodline monarch, with the youth groups ("Brownshirts", "Blackshirts", etc) that carry out the whims of the regime. Which carries through to the modern ISIS, etc with their clever social media use, focus on radicalizing the youth, etc.
|
Fascism agitates and mobilizes the population. The state institutions in a fascist regime don't repress the population, they act like an amplifier. Religious regimes use institutions to repress the population. Religious governments are usually anti-egalitarian and fascism is pretty much a form of radical egalitarianism (not in the sense of modern equality, but in the sense of subjugating everybody equally to the state). I still don't see the connection, they're fundamentally different.
|
On January 15 2016 08:29 cLutZ wrote:I am genuinely confused by the preceding two posts outright rejecting the Nazism as a subgenre, or offshoot of Fascism POV. Basically all the English language secondary sources I've read about the 20s, 30s, and 40s basically treat this as so obvious that it is basically an afterthought, the wiki is similar in nearly all respects. Where does this very contained definition (i.e. basically in 1 country for 2 decades) of fascism sprout from? I get if you want to differentiate it from Islamism, but doing so based on saying "based on religion not race" is silly if someone is calling it Islamo-fascism which would imply its simply fascism's other elements with "Islam", replacing "Italian/Italy/etc". Also, how is it an ideology about defense when Italy was extremely expansionist (their relative incompetence does not make it less true)? Also I would say a defining thing of fascism, for a lot of people, is its relative modernity. With the heavy emphasis on controlling the populace through regulation, with an ideologue as a dictator instead of a bloodline monarch, with the youth groups ("Brownshirts", "Blackshirts", etc) that carry out the whims of the regime. Which carries through to the modern ISIS, etc with their clever social media use, focus on radicalizing the youth, etc.
I can try to answer to your first paragraph.
1) Fascism had a very strong philosophical background - Giovanni Gentile, the theorist behind the philosophical idea of fascism, was a new hegelian with very precise and deep ideas. On the other hand, the Mein Kampf was written directly by Hitler and (even if I only read some extracts) it lacks the theoretical depth of fascist ideology.
2) While in Germany Hitler took 100% control, note how in Italy you can hear historians refer to fascism as a 'imperfect dictatorship'. Why? First, the king was never deposed. Second, the Pope was not touched either and had his influence on the social sphere. Also consider that Mussolini was in fact a socialist before creating fascism - Hitler surely not.
This is what I mean when I say they are different - of course if you refer to things like military control etc. they are similar, but so was for example Cuba or China - and I do not like to say that, for example, Mao's China was a fascism POV.
|
On January 14 2016 19:12 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 17:53 RvB wrote:European Commission economists have been banned from researching the impact of Britain leaving the 28-nation bloc, or even talking about it, for fear of getting embroiled in the heated British debate ahead of a referendum, officials said.
"There is an internal order not to discuss or study the impact of Brexit," a senior Commission official told Reuters, adding that the instruction had come from the office of European Union chief executive Jean-Claude Juncker.
As a result, the Commission's economic forecasts for the euro zone and the wider EU will take account of political and financial risks in China, the Middle East and the United States but not the glaringly obvious risk that Britain, the EU's second biggest economy, may vote to leave.
Another senior EU official said the Commission had learned to its cost the consequences of such contingency planning last year. It insisted it had no "Plan B" to manage a possible Grexit -- the risk of Greece leaving the euro zone.
Then word of just such plans leaked out, causing further upset in Athens and the money markets.
"We learned from the Grexit thing," the second official said of the lack of contingency plans for Brexit. "If we do it, the press will find out about it. So this time we're not doing it."
Unlike the possibility of a Grexit, which could have happened suddenly after Athens defaulted on an IMF loan last June, Britain will face a lengthy period of negotiating the unwinding of its 43-year EU membership if voters decide to leave in a referendum promised by Prime Minister David Cameron.
Many assume it would take at least two years, giving the Commission time to work out economic consequences.
The costs and benefits of EU membership for the British economy will be a key issue in the referendum campaign.
Cameron is trying to negotiate changes to the bloc before a mid-February summit and says he will campaign for Britain to stay in if his demands are met.
Opinion polls on the referendum, which could be held as early as June, show voters almost evenly split. Juncker and national leaders across Europe say they will work hard to avoid losing Britain.
But with data being seized on by both camps to back their arguments and Britain's boisterous and often Eurosceptic press in full cry for the campaign, the EU executive has decided it has little to gain by working out what might happen if it does. uk.reuters.comNot sure if sticking your head in the sand is smart but whatever. My girlfriend just turned in her masters thesis on the ramification of a Brexit (though mostly focusing on the ramifications for UK), so there will be at least one report out there 
She'd better be very careful about what she's about to do, if she label Brexit as anything other than bad and dangerous, her career will be on very bad tracks. Doesn't matter what her research shows by the way.
This is how it works in the EU right now. Censorship is not directly done by the state, so in every free speech rating we have high grades. But say the wrong things and suddenly all doors will close on you, which is an even worse kind of censorship.
|
On January 15 2016 08:19 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2016 08:08 WhiteDog wrote:
Facism and nazism are pretty close : the valorization of authority, incarnate in a man, against the decadence of the democracy ; a return to a mythified identity from the past, pure. In this regard, islamism as it express itself in France is a form of facism : it is clearly stated that it is a response to the decadence of the occident, a way to restore a form of purity.
Facism as it expressed itself in France, Italia in the early XXth century is actually way more relevant as a concept than this idea of totalitarism. Arendt created many concept that somehow leaked in the media and are now taken by everybody, but those concept are most of the time great simplification that limit our comprehension of reality more than they actually enlight anything. Arendt was a liberal, and as such any kind of political ideology that did not fight for freedom were instantly labelled as undemocratic, totalitarian in nature, like the french revolution. Empirically most of her concept were also proven wrong (like the idea of the banality of evil, which is now proven wrong by historian, but was somehow globally accepted and made us all responsible of what the nazi did - with the inheret idea that altho evil, it was a human trait, and thus that we all shared responsability). Sorry whitedog, but this makes no sense. How can a philosophical concept be 'proven wrong by historians'? The banality of evil was a reading of a certain aspect of reality which could be true or false, depending on the issue - these terms were not born with the idea of being 'proven right by historians', nor they lose their value if they fall out of fashion. This is like saying 'historians proved Plato's realm of ideas wrong' - what does that mean?? Sorry but as a philosopher, I felt a pain in my chest at that sentence 8)
Arendt's banality of evil is not a simple philosophical concept, it is based on Arendt work as a journalist in eichman trial. The idea is that eichmann represent the banality of evil because he was basically following orders, accepting their legitimacy because they came from higher, and did what he did not for his adhesion to the nazi ideology : she built this idea from empirical knowledge not from logic.
For Arendt, Eichman is not even an antisemite.
What historian showed was eichman adhesion to the nazi ideology, for exemple the fact that he tried a coup d etat after the end of the regime, thus clearly questionning the value of the concept.
|
On January 15 2016 09:42 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2016 08:19 SoSexy wrote:On January 15 2016 08:08 WhiteDog wrote:
Facism and nazism are pretty close : the valorization of authority, incarnate in a man, against the decadence of the democracy ; a return to a mythified identity from the past, pure. In this regard, islamism as it express itself in France is a form of facism : it is clearly stated that it is a response to the decadence of the occident, a way to restore a form of purity.
Facism as it expressed itself in France, Italia in the early XXth century is actually way more relevant as a concept than this idea of totalitarism. Arendt created many concept that somehow leaked in the media and are now taken by everybody, but those concept are most of the time great simplification that limit our comprehension of reality more than they actually enlight anything. Arendt was a liberal, and as such any kind of political ideology that did not fight for freedom were instantly labelled as undemocratic, totalitarian in nature, like the french revolution. Empirically most of her concept were also proven wrong (like the idea of the banality of evil, which is now proven wrong by historian, but was somehow globally accepted and made us all responsible of what the nazi did - with the inheret idea that altho evil, it was a human trait, and thus that we all shared responsability). Sorry whitedog, but this makes no sense. How can a philosophical concept be 'proven wrong by historians'? The banality of evil was a reading of a certain aspect of reality which could be true or false, depending on the issue - these terms were not born with the idea of being 'proven right by historians', nor they lose their value if they fall out of fashion. This is like saying 'historians proved Plato's realm of ideas wrong' - what does that mean?? Sorry but as a philosopher, I felt a pain in my chest at that sentence 8) Arendt's banality of evil is not a simple philosophical concept, it is based on Arendt work as a journalist in eichman trial. The idea is that eichmann represent the banality of evil because he was basically following orders, accepting their legitimacy because they came from higher, and did what he did not for his adhesion to the nazi ideology : she built this idea from empirical knowledge not from logic. What historian showed was eichman adhesion, for exemple the fact that he tried a coup d etat after the end of the regime, thus clearly questionning the value of the concept.
Check this paragraph. I think it's better to consider it a philosophical concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#The_banality_of_evil
|
On January 15 2016 09:46 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2016 09:42 WhiteDog wrote:On January 15 2016 08:19 SoSexy wrote:On January 15 2016 08:08 WhiteDog wrote:
Facism and nazism are pretty close : the valorization of authority, incarnate in a man, against the decadence of the democracy ; a return to a mythified identity from the past, pure. In this regard, islamism as it express itself in France is a form of facism : it is clearly stated that it is a response to the decadence of the occident, a way to restore a form of purity.
Facism as it expressed itself in France, Italia in the early XXth century is actually way more relevant as a concept than this idea of totalitarism. Arendt created many concept that somehow leaked in the media and are now taken by everybody, but those concept are most of the time great simplification that limit our comprehension of reality more than they actually enlight anything. Arendt was a liberal, and as such any kind of political ideology that did not fight for freedom were instantly labelled as undemocratic, totalitarian in nature, like the french revolution. Empirically most of her concept were also proven wrong (like the idea of the banality of evil, which is now proven wrong by historian, but was somehow globally accepted and made us all responsible of what the nazi did - with the inheret idea that altho evil, it was a human trait, and thus that we all shared responsability). Sorry whitedog, but this makes no sense. How can a philosophical concept be 'proven wrong by historians'? The banality of evil was a reading of a certain aspect of reality which could be true or false, depending on the issue - these terms were not born with the idea of being 'proven right by historians', nor they lose their value if they fall out of fashion. This is like saying 'historians proved Plato's realm of ideas wrong' - what does that mean?? Sorry but as a philosopher, I felt a pain in my chest at that sentence 8) Arendt's banality of evil is not a simple philosophical concept, it is based on Arendt work as a journalist in eichman trial. The idea is that eichmann represent the banality of evil because he was basically following orders, accepting their legitimacy because they came from higher, and did what he did not for his adhesion to the nazi ideology : she built this idea from empirical knowledge not from logic. What historian showed was eichman adhesion, for exemple the fact that he tried a coup d etat after the end of the regime, thus clearly questionning the value of the concept. Check this paragraph. I think it's better to consider it a philosophical concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#The_banality_of_evil
The banality of evil is clearly built upon eichman as an ideal. : the book is based on her experience has a journalist. That afterwards it is presented as a concept doesn't change much : it does not really enlight but reduce our comprehension (they did it because they refused to think and accepted aurhority), like most of Arendt work (but it is easy to access it which explain the success).
|
On January 15 2016 08:47 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 19:12 Ghostcom wrote:On January 14 2016 17:53 RvB wrote:European Commission economists have been banned from researching the impact of Britain leaving the 28-nation bloc, or even talking about it, for fear of getting embroiled in the heated British debate ahead of a referendum, officials said.
"There is an internal order not to discuss or study the impact of Brexit," a senior Commission official told Reuters, adding that the instruction had come from the office of European Union chief executive Jean-Claude Juncker.
As a result, the Commission's economic forecasts for the euro zone and the wider EU will take account of political and financial risks in China, the Middle East and the United States but not the glaringly obvious risk that Britain, the EU's second biggest economy, may vote to leave.
Another senior EU official said the Commission had learned to its cost the consequences of such contingency planning last year. It insisted it had no "Plan B" to manage a possible Grexit -- the risk of Greece leaving the euro zone.
Then word of just such plans leaked out, causing further upset in Athens and the money markets.
"We learned from the Grexit thing," the second official said of the lack of contingency plans for Brexit. "If we do it, the press will find out about it. So this time we're not doing it."
Unlike the possibility of a Grexit, which could have happened suddenly after Athens defaulted on an IMF loan last June, Britain will face a lengthy period of negotiating the unwinding of its 43-year EU membership if voters decide to leave in a referendum promised by Prime Minister David Cameron.
Many assume it would take at least two years, giving the Commission time to work out economic consequences.
The costs and benefits of EU membership for the British economy will be a key issue in the referendum campaign.
Cameron is trying to negotiate changes to the bloc before a mid-February summit and says he will campaign for Britain to stay in if his demands are met.
Opinion polls on the referendum, which could be held as early as June, show voters almost evenly split. Juncker and national leaders across Europe say they will work hard to avoid losing Britain.
But with data being seized on by both camps to back their arguments and Britain's boisterous and often Eurosceptic press in full cry for the campaign, the EU executive has decided it has little to gain by working out what might happen if it does. uk.reuters.comNot sure if sticking your head in the sand is smart but whatever. My girlfriend just turned in her masters thesis on the ramification of a Brexit (though mostly focusing on the ramifications for UK), so there will be at least one report out there She'd better be very careful about what she's about to do, if she label Brexit as anything other than bad and dangerous, her career will be on very bad tracks. Doesn't matter what her research shows by the way. This is how it works in the EU right now. Censorship is not directly done by the state, so in every free speech rating we have high grades. But say the wrong things and suddenly all doors will close on you, which is an even worse kind of censorship.
Denmark is generally a lot more open to criticism of everything provided you have proper arguments. Admittedly I don't understand all of her thesis (it gets too technical for me) but I think the conclusion was that a Brexit financially makes almost zero sense.
|
On January 15 2016 10:07 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2016 08:47 MrCon wrote:On January 14 2016 19:12 Ghostcom wrote:On January 14 2016 17:53 RvB wrote:European Commission economists have been banned from researching the impact of Britain leaving the 28-nation bloc, or even talking about it, for fear of getting embroiled in the heated British debate ahead of a referendum, officials said.
"There is an internal order not to discuss or study the impact of Brexit," a senior Commission official told Reuters, adding that the instruction had come from the office of European Union chief executive Jean-Claude Juncker.
As a result, the Commission's economic forecasts for the euro zone and the wider EU will take account of political and financial risks in China, the Middle East and the United States but not the glaringly obvious risk that Britain, the EU's second biggest economy, may vote to leave.
Another senior EU official said the Commission had learned to its cost the consequences of such contingency planning last year. It insisted it had no "Plan B" to manage a possible Grexit -- the risk of Greece leaving the euro zone.
Then word of just such plans leaked out, causing further upset in Athens and the money markets.
"We learned from the Grexit thing," the second official said of the lack of contingency plans for Brexit. "If we do it, the press will find out about it. So this time we're not doing it."
Unlike the possibility of a Grexit, which could have happened suddenly after Athens defaulted on an IMF loan last June, Britain will face a lengthy period of negotiating the unwinding of its 43-year EU membership if voters decide to leave in a referendum promised by Prime Minister David Cameron.
Many assume it would take at least two years, giving the Commission time to work out economic consequences.
The costs and benefits of EU membership for the British economy will be a key issue in the referendum campaign.
Cameron is trying to negotiate changes to the bloc before a mid-February summit and says he will campaign for Britain to stay in if his demands are met.
Opinion polls on the referendum, which could be held as early as June, show voters almost evenly split. Juncker and national leaders across Europe say they will work hard to avoid losing Britain.
But with data being seized on by both camps to back their arguments and Britain's boisterous and often Eurosceptic press in full cry for the campaign, the EU executive has decided it has little to gain by working out what might happen if it does. uk.reuters.comNot sure if sticking your head in the sand is smart but whatever. My girlfriend just turned in her masters thesis on the ramification of a Brexit (though mostly focusing on the ramifications for UK), so there will be at least one report out there She'd better be very careful about what she's about to do, if she label Brexit as anything other than bad and dangerous, her career will be on very bad tracks. Doesn't matter what her research shows by the way. This is how it works in the EU right now. Censorship is not directly done by the state, so in every free speech rating we have high grades. But say the wrong things and suddenly all doors will close on you, which is an even worse kind of censorship. Denmark is generally a lot more open to criticism of everything provided you have proper arguments. Admittedly I don't understand all of her thesis (it gets too technical for me) but I think the conclusion was that a Brexit financially makes almost zero sense.
Good ! She'll go far, marry her =p
|
On January 15 2016 08:29 cLutZ wrote:I am genuinely confused by the preceding two posts outright rejecting the Nazism as a subgenre, or offshoot of Fascism POV. Basically all the English language secondary sources I've read about the 20s, 30s, and 40s basically treat this as so obvious that it is basically an afterthought, the wiki is similar in nearly all respects. Where does this very contained definition (i.e. basically in 1 country for 2 decades) of fascism sprout from? I get if you want to differentiate it from Islamism, but doing so based on saying "based on religion not race" is silly if someone is calling it Islamo-fascism which would imply its simply fascism's other elements with "Islam", replacing "Italian/Italy/etc". Also, how is it an ideology about defense when Italy was extremely expansionist (their relative incompetence does not make it less true)? Also I would say a defining thing of fascism, for a lot of people, is its relative modernity. With the heavy emphasis on controlling the populace through regulation, with an ideologue as a dictator instead of a bloodline monarch, with the youth groups ("Brownshirts", "Blackshirts", etc) that carry out the whims of the regime. Which carries through to the modern ISIS, etc with their clever social media use, focus on radicalizing the youth, etc.
Whitedog agreed with you actually. He said that Islamists in France are essentially fascist: a return to a pre-modern mythical society, a focus on purity, an impossible dream of capitalism without class struggle, and so an emphasis on a unified (in this case, islamic) public body, a rejection of the anomie of modernity leading to tension between modern capitalist production and work relations, hence a need for an external enemy.
|
On January 15 2016 12:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2016 08:29 cLutZ wrote:I am genuinely confused by the preceding two posts outright rejecting the Nazism as a subgenre, or offshoot of Fascism POV. Basically all the English language secondary sources I've read about the 20s, 30s, and 40s basically treat this as so obvious that it is basically an afterthought, the wiki is similar in nearly all respects. Where does this very contained definition (i.e. basically in 1 country for 2 decades) of fascism sprout from? I get if you want to differentiate it from Islamism, but doing so based on saying "based on religion not race" is silly if someone is calling it Islamo-fascism which would imply its simply fascism's other elements with "Islam", replacing "Italian/Italy/etc". Also, how is it an ideology about defense when Italy was extremely expansionist (their relative incompetence does not make it less true)? Also I would say a defining thing of fascism, for a lot of people, is its relative modernity. With the heavy emphasis on controlling the populace through regulation, with an ideologue as a dictator instead of a bloodline monarch, with the youth groups ("Brownshirts", "Blackshirts", etc) that carry out the whims of the regime. Which carries through to the modern ISIS, etc with their clever social media use, focus on radicalizing the youth, etc. Whitedog agreed with you actually. He said that Islamists in France are essentially fascist: a return to a pre-modern mythical society, a focus on purity, an impossible dream of capitalism without class struggle, and so an emphasis on a unified (in this case, islamic) public body, a rejection of the anomie of modernity leading to tension between modern capitalist production and work relations, hence a need for an external enemy.
I meant the other 2. I was midpost when WD posted, then had a meeting, then finished.
|
On January 15 2016 08:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Fascism agitates and mobilizes the population. The state institutions in a fascist regime don't repress the population, they act like an amplifier. Religious regimes use institutions to repress the population. Religious governments are usually anti-egalitarian and fascism is pretty much a form of radical egalitarianism (not in the sense of modern equality, but in the sense of subjugating everybody equally to the state). I still don't see the connection, they're fundamentally different.
Clerical fascism is a thing you know
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_fascism
*Clerical fascism is an ideology that combines the political and economic doctrines of fascism with clericalism, i.e. a specific religious tradition. The term has been used to describe organizations and movements that combine religious elements with fascism, support by religious organizations for fascism, or fascist regimes in which clergy play a leading role.*
|
On January 15 2016 08:37 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2016 08:29 cLutZ wrote:I am genuinely confused by the preceding two posts outright rejecting the Nazism as a subgenre, or offshoot of Fascism POV. Basically all the English language secondary sources I've read about the 20s, 30s, and 40s basically treat this as so obvious that it is basically an afterthought, the wiki is similar in nearly all respects. Where does this very contained definition (i.e. basically in 1 country for 2 decades) of fascism sprout from? I get if you want to differentiate it from Islamism, but doing so based on saying "based on religion not race" is silly if someone is calling it Islamo-fascism which would imply its simply fascism's other elements with "Islam", replacing "Italian/Italy/etc". Also, how is it an ideology about defense when Italy was extremely expansionist (their relative incompetence does not make it less true)? Also I would say a defining thing of fascism, for a lot of people, is its relative modernity. With the heavy emphasis on controlling the populace through regulation, with an ideologue as a dictator instead of a bloodline monarch, with the youth groups ("Brownshirts", "Blackshirts", etc) that carry out the whims of the regime. Which carries through to the modern ISIS, etc with their clever social media use, focus on radicalizing the youth, etc. I can try to answer to your first paragraph. 1) Fascism had a very strong philosophical background - Giovanni Gentile, the theorist behind the philosophical idea of fascism, was a new hegelian with very precise and deep ideas. On the other hand, the Mein Kampf was written directly by Hitler and (even if I only read some extracts) it lacks the theoretical depth of fascist ideology. 2) While in Germany Hitler took 100% control, note how in Italy you can hear historians refer to fascism as a 'imperfect dictatorship'. Why? First, the king was never deposed. Second, the Pope was not touched either and had his influence on the social sphere. Also consider that Mussolini was in fact a socialist before creating fascism - Hitler surely not. This is what I mean when I say they are different - of course if you refer to things like military control etc. they are similar, but so was for example Cuba or China - and I do not like to say that, for example, Mao's China was a fascism POV.
The fact that they're different doesn't mean nazism isn't a form of facism. If we take China (or any other communist country for that matter) and the Sovjet Union for example they were both communist but still pretty different in practise.
|
On January 14 2016 10:13 mahrgell wrote:
I prefer the interpretation of "live and let live".
"live and let live" is not really a muslim thing.
|
On January 15 2016 09:57 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2016 09:46 SoSexy wrote:On January 15 2016 09:42 WhiteDog wrote:On January 15 2016 08:19 SoSexy wrote:On January 15 2016 08:08 WhiteDog wrote:
Facism and nazism are pretty close : the valorization of authority, incarnate in a man, against the decadence of the democracy ; a return to a mythified identity from the past, pure. In this regard, islamism as it express itself in France is a form of facism : it is clearly stated that it is a response to the decadence of the occident, a way to restore a form of purity.
Facism as it expressed itself in France, Italia in the early XXth century is actually way more relevant as a concept than this idea of totalitarism. Arendt created many concept that somehow leaked in the media and are now taken by everybody, but those concept are most of the time great simplification that limit our comprehension of reality more than they actually enlight anything. Arendt was a liberal, and as such any kind of political ideology that did not fight for freedom were instantly labelled as undemocratic, totalitarian in nature, like the french revolution. Empirically most of her concept were also proven wrong (like the idea of the banality of evil, which is now proven wrong by historian, but was somehow globally accepted and made us all responsible of what the nazi did - with the inheret idea that altho evil, it was a human trait, and thus that we all shared responsability). Sorry whitedog, but this makes no sense. How can a philosophical concept be 'proven wrong by historians'? The banality of evil was a reading of a certain aspect of reality which could be true or false, depending on the issue - these terms were not born with the idea of being 'proven right by historians', nor they lose their value if they fall out of fashion. This is like saying 'historians proved Plato's realm of ideas wrong' - what does that mean?? Sorry but as a philosopher, I felt a pain in my chest at that sentence 8) Arendt's banality of evil is not a simple philosophical concept, it is based on Arendt work as a journalist in eichman trial. The idea is that eichmann represent the banality of evil because he was basically following orders, accepting their legitimacy because they came from higher, and did what he did not for his adhesion to the nazi ideology : she built this idea from empirical knowledge not from logic. What historian showed was eichman adhesion, for exemple the fact that he tried a coup d etat after the end of the regime, thus clearly questionning the value of the concept. Check this paragraph. I think it's better to consider it a philosophical concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#The_banality_of_evil The banality of evil is clearly built upon eichman as an ideal. : the book is based on her experience has a journalist. That afterwards it is presented as a concept doesn't change much : it does not really enlight but reduce our comprehension (they did it because they refused to think and accepted aurhority), like most of Arendt work (but it is easy to access it which explain the success).
As a disclaimer, I have not read Arendt and am not sure what the banality of evil entails for her exactly but have you read "Un si fragile vernis d’humanité : banalité du mal, banalité du bien" by Michel Terestchenko? I think he makes a pretty good case using multiple accounts and sources (not all of which are perfect to be honest, like the Milgram experiment but still). Also by contrasting evil to altruism, he creates a pretty interesting and in my opinion useful framework for understanding either actions through the individual self-concept.
|
On January 15 2016 18:49 TMG26 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 10:13 mahrgell wrote:
I prefer the interpretation of "live and let live". "live and let live" is not really a muslim thing.
To be fair, its also not really a Christian thing and thru the Ages one or the other Religion was more/less tolerant than the other.
ATM is just a really disgusting Islam shown by many Muslims.
|
On January 15 2016 19:28 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2016 18:49 TMG26 wrote:On January 14 2016 10:13 mahrgell wrote:
I prefer the interpretation of "live and let live". "live and let live" is not really a muslim thing. To be fair, its also not really a Christian thing and thru the Ages one or the other Religion was more/less tolerant than the other. ATM is just a really disgusting Islam shown by many Muslims.
The epitome of Christians is The Christ. The epitome of Muslims is Mohamed.
The Christ was a martyr, and preached "turning the other cheek"
Mohamed was a warlord, and had told many times to strike back.
The first Christians were persecuted.
The first Muslims were conquerors.
Sure, in the end religions are what people make of them, there were very dark times under Christian rulers, and some good times under some Muslim rulers, but that doesn't change the foundation of both religions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
