Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.
Reading and Navigating Blogs
Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.
Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.
For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.
All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.
Creating Blog Posts
If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.
You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.
Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.
The term "fascism," like terms of political discourse generally, is used in a great variety of ways and has no clear and explicit meaning.
Mussolini's Fascism, the first explicit one, was a kind of state-corporatism, which crushed labor and destroyed the parliamentary system, but was very supportive of business, one of the reasons it was so admired in the West. As late as 1939, Roosevelt was still praising Fascism as a worthwhile experiment, though corrupted by association with Hitler. It also had deeply reactionary cultural and jingoist elements, a commitment to violence and terror as a proper way of life, etc.
Hitler's variant was similar in some respects in the 1930s, and was also greatly admired by the West, though in this case coupled with fear of Germany's power. US investment in Italy shot up when Mussolini took over, and in Germany when Hitler took power, in both cases creating a favorable climate for business. Bolshevism was quite different in these respects: it was regarded from the start rather in the way third world independent nationalism has been since: a "virus"
that might "infect" others, as it takes a traditional semi-colonial economy towards a path of independent development, that certainly was not favorable to Western investment, unlike Hitler and Mussolini. And there were many other differences. And similarities. The term "fascism" was in fact used quite broadly in the 1930s, sometimes including the New Deal, for example. One of the best studies is by the outstanding Veblenite economist Robert Brady, Business as a System of Power (along with others). By the second World War, the term just came to be a term of abuse for ugly regimes that we don't like -- as distinct from ugly regimes, maybe worse ones, that happen to be clients, and are sometimes called "emerging democracies" or some other favorable term.
Fascism orginated from Hegel's philosophical system.
Hegel's understand of "Freedom" if far different from the common view that freedom is freedom from something. Hegel, rather, felt that you could only be free once you assimilated: first to the family, then in marriage, then civil society, the State, etc.. You need "the other" for mutual self-recognition; the more mutual self-recognition you have, the more complete individual you will become, thus.
So, Hegel's redefinition of "freedom" led straight to Fascism because of his conceptualization of the "State."
As a matter of fact, you could make the case that Stalingrad was a battle of Right versus Left wing Hegelianism. Hitler, fascism, and Stalin, communism.
Karl Popper makes this criticism of Hegel the best.
As some people have pointed out, fascism is a loaded term. It can be used pejoratively, or it can be used technically. Mussolini defined it as corporatism, i.e a conspiracy between big business and government to exploit government as much as possible, for the benefit of big business. The addition of militarization and nationalist jingoism and patriotism, is sometimes ascribed as being fascistic, although technically that is a road that corporatism can take, but it is not in and of itself fascism. Saddam was more of a Monarchist, feudalism rather then Stalinism. He was the Monarch, his sons were Princes, his family was nobility. The Nation was essentially modern feudalism. The economy was feudalist and not centralized, it was based on family and class i.e patronage, unlike Stalin Sovietism which was statist rather then Feudal.
Chomsky should have gone a little further and elaborated on whether charges that the Saddam Hussain's regime was fascist is correct. Christopher Hitchens regularly ascribes this term to the former Iraqi regime perhaps not unjustifiably. Kanan Makiya, the author of "Republic of Fear", however makes a considered argument that the Baathist regime of Iraq was Stalinist in character.
What is the difference between stalinism and fascism and which one would better describe the nature of the former regime in Iraq?
There is a dearth of debate in the Left on these questions. Chomsky gets close but then steers clear. Could it be because of the inconsiderate moral support given to the former Iraqi regime prior to the US invasion that these questions are not discussed?
I think that any person needs to be really careful pretty much any time you use a word that is "indexically hazy". I'm sure there is a technical semiotic term for it, but when you say "Communism", do you mean Stalins, or Castro's, or Bush's? (which is based on other previous president's conceptions)
Professor Chomsky has noted that some of the beliefs people suggest openly in our country (IE "Rally behind the winner") are essentially Stalinist. If you hope to communicate the 'valuable' meaning of that word, are you intending to paint a communist tint to the picture? That's not really a thought that is explicitly in the word "Stalinist".
I suppose I might just say that the United States is every bit as Facist as you define it to be. (Or anything else for that matter.)
I think we can focus also on 2 aspects.
First, the fact that fascism, even in his worst shape, is always been seen better than communism. For example, it's funny that in the last days of Mussolini's regime, many were afraid about "DUCE" behaviour not in his being too much fascist, but to assume a communist connotation (the one, remember, very near to Mussolini's first ideas in 1910s). So Fascism is a word that has always had a better connotation, even in the darkest days.
Second, I totally agree with Brecht vision of capitalism. Capitalism is just a soft form of fascism: is a fascism, without the blood. But not because it's vanished: blood remains, it has just shifted position. Erich Fromm remembers that what in the past was represented by the bludgeon, is now represented by propaganda. Same thing. With the difference that while bludgeon is easy to recognize, propaganda is something elusive.
The term "Fascist" has really lost its meaning. It's become quite chic among the American and Israeli far right. The term "Islamo-Fascism" is often used by such people to describe any political philosophy which concedes that the Muslim world has any legitimate grievances against the west. And I'm not talking about Hamas or Islamic Jihad - extreme rightists accuse proffesor Chomsky of being a fascist (which is a ludicrous idea to anyone who has actually read his writings) because of his opposition to Israeli and US policy.
I find this to be pretty Ironic...
Mussolini's fascism was the opposite of Sorels. For Sorel it meant idealistic revolutionary communism, more of a pragmatic idealistic communism, rather then the Soviet centralized totalitarian socialism. For Mussolini it meant modern day Fuedalism, Plutocracy for an industrial society. The idea behind both, was the coming together of interested parties in an effort to force submission to their political agenda. Otherwise they were opposite in intent. Mussolini's idea was reactionary to Sorel, and the Anarchists of the time. Feudalism is Monarchism, more or less, it's always the favorite economic/political system of the ruling class. Of course it always ends in disaster. In the modern age, advanced weaponry has made it especially problematic. Your castle redoubt, with or without moat, can no longer protect you from angry serfs. Yet, like passngers dancing on the Titanic, they refuse to face reality.
It is worth keeping in mind that many historians consider the Frenchman Georges Sorel to be the first fascist. He was also a devout anti-capitalist who advocated violent strikes and the general repression of the liberal bourgeoise. His vision didn't come into play exactly as he wanted it, but the German National Socialist Party certaintly was inspired by him. The fascist element, that is: not the socialist.
In the 1970s the term "Fascist" became, for some, an all-purpose epithet for anyone in authority who you didn't happen to agree with. Because the term was used indiscriminately, it's evocative power was undercut. However, the survivors of the Spanish civil war, and many who lived under the Franco regime, have a pretty good understanding of its meaning.
Professor Chomsky,2 questions:
You posit that the meaning of the term "fascism" had made this shift by (or around) the beginning of WWII. Did the meaning of "propaganda" shift at the same time?
We cannot use the word "propaganda" to describe U.S. manipulation of public opinion, so we've developed the terms "advertising", "marketing", and "public relations." Was "facism" ever used to describe elements of US society (as "propaganda" was)? If so, is there a comparable linguistic replacement for the term "facism?"
Background:
The term "propaganda" made a similar shift (comparable to that of "facism"). It once described acceptable U.S. practices, but is now reserved for adversaries. By the time I entered middle and high school (late 80s/early 90s), this term was associated solely with the concepts of "fascism" (Nazi Germany) and "communism" (Soviet Union).
Our historical conflicts with these two totalitarian powers is presented as fundamental evidence that (from WWII until present) we've been "defending the world's freedom." The US still uses WWII-era terminology to refer to itself ("the Allied forces"), as well as its enemies ("axis of evil").
ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
Re: Fascism
By Historybuff, Anarchist at Oct 12, 2004 21:52 PM
Reply this comment
Re: Fascism
By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Oct 10, 2004 23:48 PM
Reply this comment
Re: Fascism
By Shexmus, Shexmus at Oct 09, 2004 21:00 PM
Reply this comment
By Etherdais, Etherdais at Oct 08, 2004 05:55 AM
Reply this comment
Re: Fascism
By Yesmen3000, Alessandro at Sep 28, 2004 20:52 PM
Reply this comment
Re: Fascism
By Clever, Insert at Sep 23, 2004 03:14 AM
Reply this comment
Re: Fascism
By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Sep 22, 2004 22:06 PM
Reply this comment
Re: Fascism
By Nciaccio, Nciaccio at Sep 22, 2004 09:14 AM
Reply this comment
Re: Fascism
By Johnson, Walter at Sep 22, 2004 03:23 AM
Reply this comment
Re: Fascism
By Postlethwaite, Brad at Sep 21, 2004 20:43 PM
Reply this comment