[ExI] [Bulk] Re: What is meant here by "fascism"?

[hkhenson]

At 08:39 PM 10/8/2007, Lee wrote:
>Keith writes

snip

> > Of course not.  But by the above definition it applies to groups that
> > are facing war or something similar.  About 20 years ago I noted:
> >
> >      "Some memes (for example Nazism) are observed to thrive
> >      during periods of economic chaos just as diseases flourish in
> >      an undernourished population.  Thus it is not much of a surprise
> >      that Nazi-related beliefs emerged in the Western farm states
> >      during the recent hard times."
>
>If we do use a "base line" of democracy and democratic
>institutions in the West---which is not unreasonable---
>then the Weimar Republic and potentially today the U.S.
>and other Western nations are logically potentially subject
>to the same mechanism.  In other words, yes, it could
>happen here too.

Exactly.  And the bleak future, xenophobic meme, war pattern would be 
the same.  The constant element is humans carrying stone age 
psychological baggage.

>But I'm a little perplexed about the part of "western farm
>states". Clearly a reference to the United States, it was
>apparent that Neo-Nazi activity was stronger in those
>states than in, say, New York?  I don't have any memory
>of such geographical relatedness.  Can you elaborate?
>(Perhaps I've misunderstood you.)

No, back in the late 1970 there was a pattern.  Perhaps because the 
economic ups and downs hit the farm states worse than the coast 
cities.  In any case, those areas were the strongholds of Neo-Nazi activity.

snip

> > Which is just what you would expect from a stone age tribe about to
> > go to war because times are looking bleak.
>
>Well, yes, but I would say not *exclusively* because times are looking
>bleak. An attitude marked by "obsessive preoccupation with
>community decline, humiliation or victimhood"  would apply to
>black militants and reactionary conservatives.

Sure, but "community decline, humiliation or victimhood" are 
typically what happens to a group that sees bleak future conditions 
or is under attack.

>But notice!  My conjecture is strengthened.  The black militants would
>never be called fascists---and it seems to me that the main reason is
>that they are not in collusion with traditional elites!

Considering fascism as a typical response to bleak times a-coming, I 
would say that "collusion with traditional elites" is probably 
optional in the run up to war or related.

>So the epithet "fascism" really revolves around an ancient left/right
>split ever since the French Revolution.  Any lamentable activity
>(again from the standard of Western democracy and Western
>principles) that is allied with older elites can be called "fascist".
>The name-calling (again, no current group embraces the label)
>has the practical effect of making lamentable activies by leftists
>less visible.

It really doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum wins 
out.  Come the war you are just as dead.

Keith