Random fashion thoughts - Part II (A New Hope)

[oulipien]

Nationalism isn't enough of a qualifier for fascism, any more than patriotism. Having racially biased politics also isn't a qualifier. Just think of what your definition leads to. Almost anyone, in that sense, can be called a fascist.

Since I haven't offered a definition (and neither, incidentally, have you, so it's not entirely clear what you're denying in denying that Manton is a crypto-fascist—it's not like there is a single standard uncontroverted definition of fascism on which all agree), I'm not sure what you think my definition, or my sense of the term, leads to? You believe that I use it to label anyone whose politics I find extreme and distasteful; as a counterexample, I offer the politics of the members of the black bloc, which I do not consider fascistic, though I do consider them radical, and extreme, and distasteful.

I think that "allegiance to a state" is not a very helpful criterion, in part because conceptions of what a state is and what a state is for are apt to vary a lot depending on your political convictions (and it is simply risible to allege that someone who believes in high levels of state support for citizens' welfare is to that extent more fascist than someone who thinks all of that should be in private hands). Allegiance to an authoritarian, nationalist *leader* seems much more to the point to me, if we're talking about allegiances.

As for state *control* specifically, this is a good piece: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-supermanagerial-reich/

 

[oulipien]

Let's not call people Nazis. Also, if you are going to call someone a fascist, please make sure you are using that term correctly. Thanks for the civility, guys.

I appreciate the call for terminological care but it seems as if much of the current dispute is precisely about what the correct use of the term is in the first place; it's just a dispute that's being carried out in the material rather than the formal mode. Even if the criteria for correct application of political terms were not themselves matters of political dispute, it would still not be clearly correct *or* incorrect to build X amount of specificity into the term. It's not like we're arguing about whether something is a rhombus or a parallelogram.

 

[dieworkwear]



I think that "allegiance to a state" is not a very helpful criterion, in part because conceptions of what a state is and what a state is for are apt to vary a lot depending on your political convictions (and it is simply risible to allege that someone who believes in high levels of state support for citizens' welfare is to that extent more fascist than someone who thinks all of that should be in private hands). Allegiance to an authoritarian, nationalist *leader* seems much more to the point to me, if we're talking about allegiances.

So now the entire GOP party is fascist? Because they've hitched their wagon to Trump?

Is that really something you believe? The entire Republican party is fascistic? Or can even can be compared to fascistic parties?

 

[YoungM]

I don't think the entire GOP is fascist, but I do think there is a fascistic wing of the party that is now in many positions of leadership (including the President, most likely). Significant portions of the rest of the party will blithely accept things the fascist wing suggests (even if the normal conservative doesn't particularly agree) because in return the fascist wing will give conservatives what they want in arenas like social and economic policy.

As I understand 20th century fascism, actual fascists didn't need true majorities to take control of a country. They usually managed with a coalition of "normal" Conservatives (like the Catholic Church in Spain) who saw an opportunity to settle grudges and get the things they wanted.

On a fairly different note, I think it's wrongheaded for the left to obsess over perfect argumentation and perfectly fair characterization. I don't know Manton - I stay out of CE to preserve SF as an area of general calm - but it seems he's hitched his wagon to a man who has repeatedly legitimized Alex Jones. The game has changed.

 

[nahneun]

what the world needs to fix america's problems.

best korea intervention :foo:

 

[dieworkwear]



I don't think the entire GOP is fascist, but I do think there is a fascistic wing of the party that is now in many positions of leadership (including the President, most likely). Significant portions of the rest of the party will blithely accept things the fascist wing suggests (even if the normal conservative doesn't particularly agree) because in return the fascist wing will give conservatives what they want in arenas like social and economic policy.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

As I understand 20th century fascism, actual fascists didn't need true majorities to take control of a country. They usually managed with a coalition of "normal" Conservatives (like the Catholic Church in Spain) who saw an opportunity to settle grudges and get the things they wanted.

On a fairly different note, I think it's wrongheaded for the left to obsess over perfect argumentation and perfectly fair characterization. I don't know Manton - I stay out of CE to preserve SF as an area of general calm - but it seems he's hitched his wagon to a man who has repeatedly legitimized Alex Jones. The game has changed

.

I think illiberal is a much better term for Trump. Fascist is a very specific thing. All fascists are illiberal, but not all illiberal people are fascists.

A lot of people have hitched their wagon to Trump, while ignoring his illiberal tendencies. That includes people in the business sector (who are neither fascists nor illiberals). I wish that wasn't the case, but it's also wrong to label those people things they're not. Or use terms like fascists so blithely.

In Manton's case, the crypto-fascist narrative is just a way to shut down the conversation, rather than have a real discussion about important policies.

That Intercept article cited how Manton believes higher levels of diversity -- absent a larger national or religious identity -- leads to less civic service (and, consequently, more government "intrusion."). Not sure that should even be controversial. It's absolutely true (see any piece of literature on social capital, or Robert Putnam's book Bowling Alone). Whether that means we should go for the kind of policies he's advocating is a separate issue, but his belief in that simple fact shouldn't lead us to believe that he's advocating for a white nationalist state anymore than we should believe Putnam is a white nationalist.

 

[oulipien]

So … what is it you think authoritarianism is?

Like, if I said "ok, forget about 'fascism', but allegiance to authoritarian, xenophobic nationalist leader—one who constantly disparages the press and puts himself forth as the arbiter of truth, is insistent on loyalty to his person rather than to his office (as in the recent firing of the Acting AG), who attempts to undermine the legitimacy of votes for his opponent, etc.—is still pretty bad!", would you say "yep, and that's the modern Republican party in a nutshell, but they aren't fascists"?

I'll totally take that!

(The fact that the said leader has straight up undeniable real actual fascists in his inner circle does seem salient, but you might deny that anyone in his circle is a fascist, so whatever!)

And if you really want to know, my low opinion of the Republican elite doesn't date to their craven embrace of Trump. It was already pretty bad in (to take a random example) 2009, when they pitched a hissy fit like you wouldn't believe over the release of a report noting that domestic terrorism from right-wing extremists was far more dangerous than foreign terrorism, effectively quashing it and any followup. It doesn't matter to me whether they pitched the fit out of uncaring cynicism in order to inflame their base (more likely, in my view) or for any other reason; that's playing with fire and they were more than happy to do so. The Rs have been a party of extremists for a long long time, only (a) it's not polite to point that out, and in American political discourse, politeness is about 90% of what matters, and (b) since they're one of two political parties with any power, whatever position they adopt, no matter how batshit crazy, is treated as presumptively legitimate. And as "conservative"!

 

[oulipien]

A lot of people have hitched their wagon to Trump, while ignoring his illiberal tendencies. That includes people in the business sector (who are neither fascists nor illiberals).

Ehhhh by their fruits shall you know them. You can have all the mental reservations about supporting Trump you like, but Trump's still the guy you supported, and someone who professes personally to be not illiberal but didn't mind supporting him because of some perceived other benefits counts as illiberal enough in my book.

Quote:
You still haven't said what you think a fascist is! You seem to have a very definite idea about its correct application and I would genuinely like to know what it is.

 

[LA Guy]

I appreciate the call for terminological care but it seems as if much of the current dispute is precisely about what the correct use of the term is in the first place; it's just a dispute that's being carried out in the material rather than the formal mode. Even if the criteria for correct application of political terms were not themselves matters of political dispute, it would still not be clearly correct *or* incorrect to build X amount of specificity into the term. It's not like we're arguing about whether something is a rhombus or a parallelogram.

Perhaps I was not being sufficiently clear.

I don't appreciate members throwing slurs at other members, and a reasonable reading your posts is that you mean the term "fascist" to be just that. So thje burden is on you to show to me that you are not in fact doing that.

Frankly, I'm not sure why all of you just don't take this immediately to CE, where it clearly belongs.

In actual random fashion thoughts - I got some waxed linen thread and leather scraps to reinforce a leather bag. Unfortunately, I'd misplaced my thimble, So either I have to wait for one, or my thumb is going to hurt like a mother pushing needles through leather.

 

[Coldsnap]

I just bought some LL Bean jeans and cords because everything contemporary has such a short front rise now. And everything that is long rise/reproduction cut has a giant leg opening.

 

[RegisDB9]

I liked the conversation where we talked about how we piss better

3/10 would not read again

 

[dieworkwear]

Well, looks like @gdl203 might be right. Good journalism does exist, at least in ways that are better than that Intercept smear piece.

Here, IMO, is a fairer treatment of Manton.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-...resting-man-in-the-white-house-211930901.html

Who knows, maybe more things will be written like that.

 

[gdl203]

And that's probably after spending a couple hours digging.

People go through dozens of thousands of pages of Wikileaks to find stories; they can surely go through a couple hundred pages of posts, to come up with a much more interesting story than the nuclear bunker.

 

[g transistor]

I'm finna turn this place up with discussions about Evangelion if we gon keep debating about the semantics of fascism

 

[dotcomzzz]

word, let's turn the page please