1984
discussion
Goldstein in the Two Minutes Hate.
date
newest »
newest »
Yes, exactly. The Party hated freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, human rights, peace with Eurasia, etc. Therefore content of the propaganda on the hate-screen was selected to disgust the viewer. So, Goldstein was presented as standing for disgraceful things like freedom, rights, everything Ingsoc stands against.
Edwin wrote: "Yes, exactly. The Party hated freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, human rights, peace with Eurasia, etc. Therefore content of the propaganda on the hat..."Thanks Edwin, it makes sense, but... I remember the Party was destructing words.
Like Syme said "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
So in my opinion, to make thoughtcrime impossible, the party should never mention freedom of speech, press, assembly and thought?
Yes, it seems ironic. Ultimately they would be eradicated, I agree. But it appears to me that Big Brother is preparing the ground. Rather than obliterate the concepts outright, perhaps Big Brother is doing it in stages by turning what we think of as 'purr words' (e.g. "freedom of speech") into 'snarl words', which cause a negative emotional reaction. Such as the term "do gooder" - which is now an insult. How did that happen? Lol! So if "freedom of speech" is transformed from a purr concept into a snarl concept, it won't take much mental work for the population to forget it exists when it is finally dropped by the Party. Maybe.
My guess would be because that's pretty close to what happened in real life when Trotsky published The Revolution Betrayed and was hunted down and murdered by Stalin. Remember that Trotsky was a founder of the revolution and Stalin was a secretary (literally) who took over the country in what amounted to a coup and then destroyed anyone who tried to suggest any of those things and Trotsky was the King of all dissent in the soviet union back when America and the UK were still singing Stalin's praises.
Daniel wrote: "My guess would be because that's pretty close to what happened in real life when Trotsky published The Revolution Betrayed and was hunted down and murdered by Stalin. Remember that Tr..."I'm not sure what you're saying happened with Trotsky, but, his destruction was a classic case of "revolutions eat their own children" (not sure who said that, but it's famous...). The same thing happened to Rohm in Nazi Germany...
Duane wrote: "Daniel wrote: "I'm not sure what you're saying happened with Trotsky, but, his destruction was a classic case of "revolutions eat their own children" (not sure who said that, but it's famous...). The same thing happened to Rohm in Nazi Germany... "It's pretty different, in my opinion, but I see what you're saying. It would be more like if Hitler or Goering had been run off across the world and murdered by some gardener who then declared himself in charge of the country. Rohm was killed by people who pretty much always outranked him in the movement. Trotsky (who was as much the father of the revolution as anyone) was ordered murdered by someone who was a nobody in the real revolution and then history was whitewashed (Winston's job in the book) to remove all mention of him except as a traitor and betrayer. For years, Stalin would link any idea he disliked (like Freedom of the Press, for example) with Trotsky as though that were proof of it's horrible nature.
Basically, he wanted to link concepts like "freedom of the press" with Trotsky so that it could all be dismissed together as a Russian version of "that's some Trotsky-type shit" which would always be enough to make no one suggest it since they knew how Trotsky was talked about by Stalin and his friends (the KGB, etc) and they knew the consequences of being linked. Everyone in the nation knew what would happen if the government came to think you were in league with Trotsky in any way (even in spirit). To agree with anything Trostky did or said or thought was to automatically be guilty. So, in linking the concepts, he made it impossible to publicly suggest those things (freedom of speech or the press, etc).
In fact, the troops the USSR sent to aid in the Spanish Civil War spent as much time trying to murder the Trotsky-ites (who also went to fight for the same side in the war against the fascists) as they did fighting the fascists, which is how Orwell found out about Stalin's real nature. Orwell enlisted by mistake in the Trostky-ite Brigade (as opposed to the International Brigade as foreigners were supposed to do) and so was hounded by Stalin's people.
It's why nearly everything Orwell wrote afterwards ends up being a commentary on that particular drama (Trostky and Stalin). Certainly Animal Farm and 1984 are almost exclusively about that particular piece of drama. Goldstein in 1984 and Snowball in Animal Farm representing Trotsky, obviously.
When he wrote Animal Farm, no English publisher would publish it since it was so obviously anti-Stalin and the whole west was pretty pro-Stalin in those days (once the Soviet Union beat the Nazis while the west mostly watched). It's easy to forget now that something like 7 out of 10 combat deaths for German soldiers in WW2 was on the Eastern Front (which means the USSR, not France, UK, and US). Of course, I assume every country does what the US does which is teach their children that their own country beat the Nazis. Presumably, the UK teaches their children that the UK beat the Nazis and so on.
Daniel wrote: "Duane wrote: "Daniel wrote: "I'm not sure what you're saying happened with Trotsky, but, his destruction was a classic case of "revolutions eat their own children" (not sure who said that, but it's..."Thanks all, learned many things from you guys! It seems reasonable to me now. :)
It was du Pan, the French Royalist, who declared "the Revolution devours its children."What du Pan was referring to was actually the Jacobin Club, which was in fact the counter-revolution. To be accurate: counter-revolution is cannibalistic. The Jacobins are analogous to the Bolshevik siloviki. They are absolutely not an analog of any of the institutions of National Socialism.
This self-consumption was evidenced by the prosecutors of the terror ultimately ascending the steps to the guillotine themselves, and by the Stalinist elites descending the steps to the basement of the Lubyanka for a date with Vasily Blokhin's .33 pistol.
Terror is deployed as policy, and inevitably expands by the political nature of "force drift", and soon suspicion expands to devour the instigators.
The same phenomenon was repeated in the Great Terror of the Jacobins, in the Great Terror of the USSR of 1937-38, ths Derg in Ethiopia, the CCP purges in China's Cultural Revolution, and the Khmer Rouge in-crowd cannibalism at s-21, Tuol Sleng.
But nothing of this internal devouring occurred in the Third Reich. The Rohm purge is entirely different. That was a classic power-play between paramilitary factions.
@Daniel - I see why you compare "Goldstein" to Trotsky, as a symbol. But I just had the Goldstein figured as as the inevitable "foil", or "enemy of the State" that totalitarian regimes seem to require (or at least prefer), to deflect blame from themselves - or maybe it's just on the theory that everybody needs somebody to hate... .Stalin, though, generally would just "disappear" people, sometimes after a show trial. He didn't have any problem just executing Kamenev, Medvedev, Bukharin... He even got Yezhov retroactively rewritten out of the media (sound familiar?). Trotsky, he couldn't just "disappear", though - Trotsky was just too well known and had a lot of "followers". So he had to openly discredit him. I.e., was he vilifying Trotsky in order to discredit whatever ideas or behavior, or just for utilitarian reasons in consolidating his own power?
Edwin wrote: "The Rohm purge is entirely different. That was a classic power-play between paramilitary factions."
Is it really any different fundamentally, though?
In all those cases, a group of idealists (Mistake #1), starts out to Save The World (Mistake #2), and once they've seized power somewhere, the internal power struggles commence and they start killing off their own, and the survivors end up just like their hated predecessors. *That* is something Orwell makes *abundantly* clear in Animal Farm. Does it really matter if it's an individual paranoid megalomaniac who emerges as a dictator who slaughters his opposition (much less how far his arm reaches - even all the way to Mexico) or a "cadre" of insiders who start "disappearing" anyone who isn't ideologically pure enough, or whatever else? The SA leaders, including Rohm, claimed that they didn't *want* a dictatorship when they started the revolution in Germany... and when Hitler saw how disgruntled they were becoming, he decapitated them (yes, with Himmler only too ready to eliminate Rohm as a rival, but does that really matter either?).
FTM, the same thing happened under Lenin... Look what he did to Savinkov - he was so terrified of him that he lured him back to Russia from France and executed him.
Yes, it's different. National Socialism was not a revolution. Stalinism and Jacobinism were both ongoing repressions directed at individuals, which gradually shrank the in-crowd. The chief motivation of Jacobin and Bolshevik was fear.That didn't happen within the Third Reich. The regime wasn't revolutionary or counter-revolutionary in the classic sense of revolution and counter-revolution. It didn't predate upon itself as an ongoing trend.
Whereas Stalinism and Jacobinism were both characterised by constant terror and the continual fear of the knock on the door, and ultimately of Blokhin or Sanson; Third Reich elites felt relatively safe.
The Rohm purge was a single strike. Not the prolonged and ongoing counter-revolutionary cannibalism described by du Pan
Hitler didn't tend to murder his staff, allies and friends in succession over a long period of time. Stalin did. Robespierre did. On the other hand, Hitler's telephonist Rochus Misch spoke as if he was delighted to have such a considerate boss. Many of the staff at Wolf's Lair said the same thing. Traudl Junge had nothing but praise for the boss.
But to know Stalin or Robespierre was to be a target, in a campaign of fear that continued until the death of the dictator. That's what du Pan was talking about.
Duane wrote: "was he vilifying Trotsky in order to discredit whatever ideas or behavior, or just for utilitarian reasons in consolidating his own power?"He did both since they were both about consolidating his own power (eliminating specific rivals and trying to prevent dissent from brewing by discrediting ideas like press freedom and such). That was sort of the point. Lump all your troubles together. Use one to prove the other is bad and then use the second as proof against the first. A shell game all aimed at getting power for himself. Even the purges were still an offshoot of that same issue since Trotsky created the Red Army. Stalin couldn't very well allow the military to stay loyal to his worst enemy.
Gathering power unto itself, of course, was the explicit purpose of Big Brother, which is also not a coincidence.
Hi Duane:"Is it really any different fundamentally, though?"
Completely. I've revised my above posts to make this absolutely clear. Thanks for the discussion, bro. :)
From the bit where I said "It was du Pan, the French Royalist, who declared "the Revolution devours its children...." That's all been revised because I am an OCD git who has to make sue everything's right.
Naomi Klein is an intellectual crush of mine, and when a 911Nobber asked her if she thought Bush did it, she declared an iron rule Ithat had preserved in carbonite:
"If you can't prove it, don't write it."
In a popular genocide when the out-group have been clearly defined, especially in appearance. 'force drift' becomes a problem. Extra attributes are ascribed,. Denouncements are made,. The evolution of racism along with slavery continues to accelerate along real and imagined differences.The Nambinians, mesoamericans and sub-Saharan Africans were relatively easy to identify as the out-groups during the codification and identification stage.
The typical pattern after the murder of "obvious" out-groupers is to expand the definition of the out-group.; and the revolution continues to eat the faithful,
Which isn't very nice
Eat the rich. Starve a fever. I'm sure some of them are good people.Make America grate for hugeness.
Edwin wrote: "Yes, it's different. National Socialism was not a revolution. Stalinism and Jacobinism were both ongoing repressions directed at individuals, which gradually shrank the in-crowd. The chief motivati..."I don't think a "revolution" requires the violent overthrow of a Government. The distinguishing characteristic of it is an abrupt, drastic shift in Governmental "philosophy". The fact that the Nazis established a totalitarian dictatorship doesn't disqualify their legal takeover of the German government from being a revolution... . A number of Nazis referred to the "Nazi revolution" - Rohm being one of them - and several historians have blamed the failure of anyone to "Stop Hitler" as being due to the "democracies" "failure to recognize the revolutionary nature of Naziism".
In fact, one of the imprisoned SA leaders - I believe it was Rohm himself - quoted that famous statement about "revolutions devouring their children", immediately before his summary execution by the SS. Rohm had been calling for "a second revolution", shortly before he got eliminated.
I think there is something more fundamental driving the displacement of initial "revolutionary ideals", than supposed ideological purity, though... Unstable forms of government invite all manner of opportunism, whether or not it's couched in ideological terms. For all of his pontificating about Communist ideals, Stalin was a scheming megalomaniac who from the very beginning collected intelligence information on his rivals in the Bolshevik revolution.
Also, as Hannah Arendt pointed out, "The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution." Now, to their astonishment, *they* are "The Establishment", and suddenly are de facto on the defensive, where previously they were outside, trying to tear down the existing edifices...
Yes, Hitler's rhetoric and that of Rosenberg included the term 'revolution' in many instances. Hitler even proclaimed the revolution had begun on 30th January 1933.This is to misunderstand the nature of revolution. It cannot be imposed from above. But Hitler imposed National Socialism upon the Reich. In the sense Hitler used it, "revolution" meant sweeping changes, Nazification. Nothing more than that.
The rhetorical use of 'revolution' is frequently used by fascists. If we examine the transposition of National Socialism to Syria and Iraq during the 1950s, both the Syrian and Ba'athism totalitarian regimes proclaimed the revolution, when in fact, a military dictatorship was being imposed from above.
Gadddafi's fascism was a "revolution" proclaimed on 7th April 1973 in Zuwarah. Prior to that date, nobody knew they were going to be having a revolution. This is why we know it's a dictatorial imposition. Same as Jan 30th 1933.
Therefore, it's not always a good idea to take politicians at face value. Hitler was no revolutionary in spite of proclaiming one. The Nazis also said they were nationalists, but Hitler was not a nationalist, and they said they were socialists, which they were most certainly not.
The Third Reich was not revolutionary in the political sense of the word used in the quote by du Pan. That is the context we're discussing. So we should remember: du Pan was talking about the Jacobins. In no way do the Jacobins resemble the Nazis. They are a direct analogy of the Bolsheviks.
Du Pan's quote doesn't apply to the Nazis because they did not cannibalise their own. The Rohm purge was not cannibalism, but consolidation. No further internal pogroms were held. On the other hand, the USSR and the Jacobins did cannibalise their own for the entire duration of their existence.
It seems to me that if we're going to claim that Hitler was somehow mistaken in defining National Socialism as a "revolution", what we're really doing is deciding whose definition of "revolution" is the right one?It's funny, I just got into this same dicsucsion with someone else, over what "fascism" means. The mere title of Goldberg's book, "Liberal Fascism", causes "progressives" to go screaming berserk, as though their toys were being taken away - I mean, "fascism" is "Right Wing" by definition, right? Well, it depends on whose definition you use... Mussolini (who by rights ought to be accorded the final say, wouldn't you say?) had his own very specific definition of it. But over here across the pond, it's applied to anyone who doesn't support Bernie the Bolshevik (there... *that* ought to do it...).
I tend to subscribe to the general definition, as derived from the original Latin "fasces" - it applies to any group of people all thinking in lockstep and demanding orthodoxy of everyone else. From that standpoint, Communism, Naziism, and Islam are all "fascistic". And I would make the same sort of argument w/r/t any definition of "revolution"...
I don't see how Hitler and the Nazis can be accused of imposing their revolution from above, though... It took 13 years for the Nazis to gain power, during which they made no secret of their objectives - Hitler's henchmen were fond of pointing to "Mein Kampf" and saying "You should take the Fuehrer seriously!", and campaigned furiously to get themselves legitimately elected after the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch (which, I think, any barricaded rock-throwing Frenchman would have been proud to have called a "revolutionary" act...).
I'm mystified at the claim that Hitler was not a nationalist - unless you disclaim his treasured "Deutschvolk" as a nation. But then what were they - a "tribe"? I suppose we can try to define "nation" as well...
And I suppose the Nazis might have confused Socialism with outright totalitarianism, but that seems to be a characteristic of leftists generally...
There is no fascism without corporatism. Corporatism and socialism cannot co-exist, therefore, socialism cannot be fascist.As the Nazi perverted capitalism, the Communist perverted socialism. Imperialistic, totalitarian, nationalistic, and pseudo-religious both....., only one could be labeled fascist.
Hitler was akin to a CEO..., Stalin was an Autocrat.
Both had funny mustaches.
"It seems to me that if we're going to claim that Hitler was somehow mistaken in defining National Socialism as a "revolution", what we're really doing is deciding whose definition of "revolution" is the right one?"No, Hitler was not mistaken. He knew what socialism is. He cynically exploited the word to attract the left. Weimar was majority left: SPD, Communists, etc., who failed to form a coalition to stop Hitler. Understanding this, Hitler exploited the language of the left: "socialism" - while smashing unions and destroying anything remotely socialist about Germany.
I am not interested in this discussion. The 'revolutionary' nature of National Socialism has already been fully exposed in Kershaw, Evans, Cesarani, Burleigh, Longerich, Overy, Gilbert and Rees. All of your questions are answered in the books, so I suggest you read them so I don't have to rehearse them here!!!
The fact that Hitler was NOT a nationalist is obvious when we take on board Mien Kampf, Book 2, Hitler's Table Talks, and his attitude at the end of the war in the Fuhrerbunker. He was disdainful and condescending of the German people, to a near-suicidal degree. Hitler was the ultimate Custerist, and a Custerist doesn't love his men - only himself.
The best book for the exegesis of Hitler's peculiar beliefs is Black Earth by Prof. Timothy Snyder, but you need to read Bloodlands by Snyder first. Snyder is at the cutting edge of Holocaust research today, so you need to know it if you want to discuss Hitler's beliefs, National Socialism and the Holocaust seriously.
E.D. wrote: "There is no fascism without corporatism. Corporatism and socialism cannot co-exist, therefore, socialism cannot be fascist. "Well, if you define fascism as requiring corporatism, then of course it requires corporatism.
But why does the definition require anything more than a bunch of people marching in lockstep and demanding some sort of "groupthink"? What have corporations got to do with it?
This is actually the same debate, in an abstract sense, as the argument over what "revolution" means... Everybody wants to co-opt the definitions of terms like this, in order to make sure their cherished beliefs aren't threatened.
(Tsk, tsk, tsk... Your blatant cultural bias is showing again, E.D.... Hitler's type of mustache was quite in vogue in Bavaria at the time of his ascent to power, and Stalin's mustache similarly could be seen anywhere in the Georgia of his day... We CAN have you sent up for "Sensitivity Training", you know... "Funny" is bordering on Hate Speech )
Duane wrote: "E.D. wrote: "There is no fascism without corporatism. Corporatism and socialism cannot co-exist, therefore, socialism cannot be fascist. "Well, if you define fascism as requiring corporatism, the..."
Because fascism is not a catch-all term for all forms of totalitarianism, but the name of a specific political ideology.
Duane wrote: "Everybody wants to co-opt the definitions of terms like this, in order to make sure their cherished beliefs aren't threatened."I can't tell if you realize that you are the one doing that in this thread. Is it intentional or are you not aware of it?
I agree that vitually everyone does this to some degree so I'm not blaming you. It's just that we're very good at noticing when other people do it and pretty terrible at noticing when we are doing it ourselves. Or rather, when we do it ourselves, we usually think we have a reason that makes it okay while when others do it, they are just being rude or bad thinkers or ideologically incorrect, etc.
Duane wrote: "But why does the definition require anything more than a bunch of people marching in lockstep and demanding some sort of "groupthink"?"
Because that's not what the word means and that's not how political ideas work. They aren't all the same just because anyone can point out two things on which they agree. Every ideology agrees with virtually every other ideology on many things, just not on everything. Those differences matter.
For instance, one could, under your approach say that Democracy and Communism are identical because they both talk a lot about "The People" having power and are (supposedly) against hereditary power and authority. One could quite reasonably make the case that no two characteristics are more central to Communism than those two since all other aspects of the ideology descend from those (questions of class, means of production vs. workers, egalitarianism, and so on).
Really, why does the definition of "Communism" require anything more than a bunch of people who think "The People" should have power and don't think people should be granted authority over others based purely on birth? Doesn't that mean that Democracy is Communism?
Come to that, American Libertarians make more or less the same two points. Does that mean that American Libertarianism is actually a form of Communism, too?
Yefim wrote: "Because fascism is not a catch-all term for all forms of totalitarianism, but the name of a specific political ideology."
This is correct. Fascism always includes totalitarianism, but totalitarianism does not always include fascism.
Those mustaches (and the psyche required to say "yeah, that looks good") led --indirectly, or not-- to the "fashionably popular in their day" deaths of millions. In concert, I might add, with the Big Band music inciting mental "heebeedie geebeddies" globally.Genocidal war was inevitable. Cab Calloway (with that pencil-thin lip mustache)....war criminal.
Groucho Marx, now.....not so much.
Still,.....funny mustache. :}
OOH... LOOKIT WHAT **I** FOUND!!!http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles...
The Man Himself, on the subject at hand - Who says,
"...there is almost no set of people - certainly no political party or organized body of any kind - which has not been denounced as Fascist during the past ten years."
.And.,
It will be seen that, as used, the word "Fascism" is almost entirely meaningless.
Now of curse, nothing that Orwell may have written (I note it's from a Russian website, which means that something in a tweed sweater-vest can immediately scream "FAKE NEWS"), could *Possibly* match the brilliance and expertise of an Internet blogger with a Ph.D. in Comaparative Postmodern Deconstructionism", Or Something. So if there's one of those hereabouts, Orwell must forthwith abandon the field to its superior intellect. But the guy really nailed it, in my view - the term had already become meaningless *IN 19 FREAKING 44* !!
Now, more locally,
Daniel wrote: "Duane wrote: "Everybody wants to co-opt the definitions of terms like this, in order to make sure their cherished beliefs aren't threatened."
I can't tell if you realize that you are the one doing that in this thread. Is it intentional or are you not aware of it? "
I .Was. trying to arrive at some sort of .fundamental. definition based on the derivation of the term from the Roman "fasces", which is a bundle of sticks all wearing identical pink hats and marching in lockstep toward a common oblivion. But I think, upon reflection, that I agree more with Orwell than with myself - while I was looking for a way to label as "Fascist" *ANY* gang marching in lockstep wearing *ANY* color of hat, Orwell insists that the term has simply become meaningless, which really goes more accurately to the heart of the matter...
N.B.:
E.D., "Hitler's Moustache" would be a GREAT title for a book of the sort that YOU would undoubtedly write... .
And, while I've never heard of Big Band music being accused of *causing* a Holocaust, before - usually, some geezer is blaming such on the *absence* of Big Band music. But I see that Big Bands are not among those whom Orwell lists as having been accused of Fascism - a deplorable omission which should be corrected forthwith... . I will leave it to your undisputed mastery of contorted logic to justify the accusation.
Meanwhile, actually, while as Orwell posits, the term may be devoid of *meaning*, that doesn't have to imply that it doesn't have a *use* - to wit, that of being shrieked at cops by legions of critters in identical pink hats with identical buttons and signs and identical thoughts (if any), marching in lockstep toward... Toward... umm... yeah right.
"As Used". After about twenty-or-so minutes of Big Band Music, I find myself arguing logistics with myself regarding taking some living space from the guy across the street...and, drawing up prototype designs of devices to kill the guy next door's dog while making it appear like suicide.
Imagine this madness spread globally. THIS HAPPENED!!!!
History speaks for itself.
Yes, "As Used" (and *you would* notice that), But, I saw Wm. F. Buckley argue with himself (and lose), over the transmuting "Definitions" of some Ancient and Forgotten Word, and end up concluding that "in the end, usage is the only definition". Which is at the same time both terrifying and, if you think about it, undeniable... I mean, after a point, there's no one left inside the castle to raise the drawbridge, type thing... .So, taking the convolution product of Buckley with Orwell, and *only* truncating the resulting Bessell function after expanding to a *large* number of terms, we reach the inescapable conclusion that turning a Word (To wit, "Fascist") loose in public, can result in its being beaten completely senseless. In the limiting case, then, widespread enough use of a word could, paradoxically, result in its being completely removed from the dictionary, due to its having become completely devoid of meaning as a result of "Overuse"!!
Turning to the Big Band issue... Hmm... I am reminded of the now-emerging sordid tale of Glenn Miller's demise. It's now apparent that he was murdered by the Gestapo, and. he was in fact broadcasting his music into Nazi Germany... If one considers that "backward masking" is capable of turning innocent teenagers into drooling Satanists, it's certainly not unreasonable to at least speculate that if in the case of Big Band music "the medium is the message", widespread dissemination of it could produce wholesale slaughter and mayhem...
(Hope this helps)
Just because the vast majority has no idea what a word means does not mean a word does not mean what it means.This does not make the word meaningless. Only the use of it.
In Norman's link the author's definition proceeds to call corporatism socialism, capitalism socialism, and fascism socialism. I smell a Libertarian in there somewhere, but it could be academic diarrhea. Hard to differentiate.
Still, a meaningless use of words unless you want them to mean something they don't. One could call them "alternate-meanings", if one was so predisposed.
Add in some Big Band Heebeedee-geebeedies and you've got a recipe for A Hot Time In The Old Town Tonight.
Well, but, Buckley was claiming that a word can only mean what the vast majority (Whatever *That* is...) thinks it means!So what does *That* mean, if The Vast Majority (long may it wave...) has so drugged and tortured the unsuspecting innocent Word, that its "Meaning" no longer exists??
For insatance, at this point, if I were to put on a pink hat and yell **FASCIST**, I might as well be yelling **GREEB!** or something. (At least, that's Orwell's theory, or a corollary thereof, IF I undersatand correctly. Which is always debatable.
Meanwhile, back at the semantics seminar... yeah, "socialism" has become a pejorative on the order of "fascism"... If it doesn't look out, it too will be beaten into an unrecognizable pulp and be fed into the definition shredder like its unfortunate twin brother "Fascism". But perhaps not - it seems to have attained some boundaries in the expansion of its definitions, even if only because it isn't getting screamed by bundles of sticks with pink hats. There appears to be *no* end to the definitions of "Fascism"... Even Orwell didn't quite express the desperation of its plight. To wit, I once started this *very* dicsucsion with a pedantic pink-hat purveyor, which deposited The Following in my "inbox":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...
and
http://www.anesi.com/Fascism-TheUltim...
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definit...
and
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fascism
and
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/def...
and
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod...
and
http://www.businessdictionary.com/def...
(Following which it kickstarted its broomstick and rocketed off into the Aether, leaving a blue streak of Cherenkov radiation in its path, never to be seen again... And now Norman points us at the predictable Trumpward projection of its use as a pejorative (As if we couldn't have predicted *That*...) (And just as an aside, the Wankipedia article exhibits nearly the diversity, if not the desperation, of Orwell's dissertation on the matter... .))
At any rate, I've *Got* to shut up and end this *somewhere*, so, I will comment, threefold, that (1) I'm still dubious, and particularly considering the mutating definition thereof, whether *any* consideration of economics or corporatism need attend a definition of "fascism" (and particularly "As Screamed" by pink-hat-wearers), (2) I'm more and more convinced that one needs to read Hoffer's "The True Believer" (Which I am still attempting) to get some perspective on mass movements generally before attempting to corral "Fascism", and (3) while the Big Bands may have been responsible for all manner of mayhem, I really think their day is past - at least in a relative sense, Gwar remains a much more diabolical and contemporary Growing Threat to the... to the, er... well, I'm not sure, but I submit *This* as proof positive (Or at least a "Red Light of Warning", as Toynbee put it...) Chaos is certain, if not wholesale extermination...
My Dear Norman,Actually, it was "capitalism socialism". I think it fair to extrapolate on this "veneer" concept. If I was to say "capitalism with a socialist veneer" any self-inflated graduate of The Chicago School would declare I was describing Socialism and denigrating Capitalism. True Capitalism.
Ask any Libertarian to place The New Deal in a single box and it would be labeled "Socialism". Not in a nice way, either. Same thing regarding defining the Constitutional use of "Promoting The General Welfare". (Which is mentioned twice in the actual document..., Capitalism not once.)
I apologize if you were offended by my take on your cited source. Offense was not my intent. I do, however, stand by my observation. Ideological purity distorts.
I would defend to my death Duane's right to be Duane. YMMV. :}
Oh, NOW, E.D., we can conclude that your second book (After "Hitler's Moustache") will be "Stalking the Wild Asterisk". (They're good fried in a little butter... .)And here we go again, headed off into another Definition Squabble. There is hope, though... Nobody is wearing a pink hat and screaming "SOCIALIST!" at cops, and "Capitalist Pig" is usually confined to the pages of some dreary manifesto from whence it can't escape into the street to get abused into irrelevance. So there's some hope that they won't get their definitions whacked off by a deranged screamer (though one is never sure... in all probability NO word is safe nowadays...).
One notes that Capitalism is merely an economic system, whereas there isn't *Anything* that a socialist doesn't want to control. Socialists want Federal regulation of bedtime, whereas Capitalists just want to control Money, or at least as much of it as they can disappear into an overseas bank
And, of course, Norman, it's not "Faux" academic diarrhoea, it's "ALT" academic diarrhoea. Or maybe it's "Ctrl-Alt-SHIFT" Academic Diarrhoea. It depends what the "Fn-Shift-Harvard" (Or whoever) crowd has been feeding me most recently. At least get with the trend... (And I *just* now noticed that E.D. deftly fingered Kelly Anne as the "Red Queen"- That could *stick* if she doesn't watch out).
Butter. I say the word with reverence.I think Orwell's gift to humanity is pushing the idea that language is a tool that can be used for good or ill, and each of us needs to recognize the difference without the distortions of ideology.
Red Queen. Heh-heh.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Revolution Betrayed (other topics)
1984 (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Revolution Betrayed (other topics)The Revolution Betrayed (other topics)
1984 (other topics)
he (Goldstein) was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, he was crying hysterically that the revolution had been betrayed.
Why did the Party arrange Goldstein to mention "freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought"?
Weren't they exactly what the Party hated?