I've used the word to describe (mainly) the Bush administration, and personally when I use it I'm not trying to evoke Hitler, Mussolini, or any other particular person or set of events. If I use the word 'fascist', I'm usually talking about the style of government, and that's all I intend. I agree that it has more connotations that that, and I also agree that it's too often used in inappropriate ways, or specifically in the way described above. It's a problematic word, but it is sometimes the right one
( ... )
The dictionary definition of the word is not the only thing that matters. Words carry connotations, and their value in communication cannot be divorced from these. What you intend to communicate is irrelevant in the end... what matters is what you actually communicate. You can't have it both ways and pretend the connotation isn't there... if moving towards fascism is disturbing, then why is it disturbing? Most people would agree that it's disturbing and could answer this question, but their answer would reveal that they don't understand the word the way you say you intend it.
The point is, most people who throw around this word (consciously or subconsciously) know that: they know how people will interpret it, and that it's going to make a larger impression on people for that reason, but then they can point to the dictionary definition and claim innocence. It's a classic tool of advertising and political demagoguery, but it's not honest conversation. It's manipulative and disingenuous.
You're absolutely right, but I'm not aware of any other word that works equally well in the context. There are plenty of words equally mired in their connotations, but that doesn't mean that they should never be used for fear of conveying the wrong information. It certainly makes them suspect, both as the one trying to communicate and the one trying to understand someone else's communication, but saying that a word should never be used because it's often used in an exploitative way is overly draconian
( ... )
I salute you and the people you speak with, digitalpoetry. I have *never* heard the word "Fascism" used with anything approaching its mid-20th century definition, except in a history class covering the mid 20th century. I am glad to learn that there exists a context and an audience that understands the word in its pre-'68 meaning.
I would argue that the word no longer means what it once meant. It's like "liberal". Who has any idea what the word means anymore? Each speaker means something different.
Control over the vocabulary allows control over the argument. "That's not liberal. THIS is liberal!" robs one of the arguers of tools to support their viewpoint in a way that I believe is dishonest. The "liberalism" portrayed in the mass media isn't anything like what's now known as classical liberalism - embracing a viewpoint which is often considered "conservative" but which shares little with the mass media portrayal of "conservative." Bleah. That's all unnecessarily confusing; and arguably done so as to not offend a loudmouthed market segment.
I think that the continual tension between authoritarianism and classical liberalism may be where the real ideological battleground is opening up. Fascism as it has existed is merely one incarnation of authoritarianism.
Alas, I agree that vocabulary loses its meaning, both as an attempt to prevent communication (remember the "L word" of Poppy Bush?) and as a natural consequence of sloppy overuse.
I think "fascism" is a much better example of this than "liberalism" is, because "liberal" has been a problematic word for its entire existence... probably because everyone wants to drape the mantle of freedom around themselves (consider liberalism in the context of theology, for instance... totally different meaning than liberalism in an economic context).
I would never wish to forbid the use of any word... I'm just pleading for a little more intellectual honesty with this one. Your previous response illustrates part of the problem, though in a subtle enough way that it took me several hours and a crossing over the Atlantic Ocean to figure out exactly why. You said:
Just because Obama isn't likely to commit genocide doesn't meant that using public money to take over companies while leaving them nominally privately-owned is anything but another step towards fascism in this country, and one that should alarm people.
Now, it is no surprise to anyone that you and I have some differing opinions on whether it can ever be a good thing for government to exert control over business. And that's certainly an argument worth having, but when you say "another step towards fascism in this country, and one that should alarm people", well... why should it alarm people?
More to the point: should it alarm people because government control of business is alarming, or because fascism is alarming? If
( ... )
I'm trying not to veer too far into another discussion altogether, but I need to expound on this at least a little:
More to the point: should it alarm people because government control of business is alarming, or because fascism is alarming?I would say both: I do believe that government control of business is alarming in and of itself, but I also believe that it's alarming as an indication that we're taking one more step on a path towards a form of government and a level of government control that is the antithesis of what America was founded to create, and that Americans have lived under for a bit over two centuries. Moreover, the end of that road is a form of government that promotes war and strife, and that destroys the rights, the choice, and the prosperity of all its citizens
( ... )
Actually, any system can be perverted to be an authoritarian system. Democracy is often called "the tyranny of the masses".
While we do have democracy and good democratic process working at local levels in the United States; the federal government has never been a democracy. The representative republic worked very well as a form of government until industry realized that they could pervert/subvert government with money and use their shills to raid the treasury and rob the citizenry. That's been going on for quite some time. The leveraged debt/debt speculation fiasco last fall is an excellent example of a corporate treasury raid. Our government "bailed out" banks when they should have been piercing the corporate veil to indict many of the bankers they "saved" for various forms of securities fraud.
And when I said "I'm inviting trouble", I meant, "I'm inviting saintbogz." :) Welcome to the fray!
Now, to the extent that the federal government has never technically been a democracy, that's true and I don't care. As a practical matter, I find representative democracy good enough (which is not to say that there isn't a lot of room for improvement). Switzerland has something more like direct democracy. One famous result of this was that extending voting rights to women had to be approved by national referendum, and thus didn't actually happen until 1971! (1990 in Canton Appenzell.) I guess that's the tyranny of the masses for you.
I agree with much of the rest of what you said, though.
Reply
The point is, most people who throw around this word (consciously or subconsciously) know that: they know how people will interpret it, and that it's going to make a larger impression on people for that reason, but then they can point to the dictionary definition and claim innocence. It's a classic tool of advertising and political demagoguery, but it's not honest conversation. It's manipulative and disingenuous.
Reply
Reply
I would argue that the word no longer means what it once meant. It's like "liberal". Who has any idea what the word means anymore? Each speaker means something different.
Reply
Control over the vocabulary allows control over the argument. "That's not liberal. THIS is liberal!" robs one of the arguers of tools to support their viewpoint in a way that I believe is dishonest. The "liberalism" portrayed in the mass media isn't anything like what's now known as classical liberalism - embracing a viewpoint which is often considered "conservative" but which shares little with the mass media portrayal of "conservative." Bleah. That's all unnecessarily confusing; and arguably done so as to not offend a loudmouthed market segment.
I think that the continual tension between authoritarianism and classical liberalism may be where the real ideological battleground is opening up. Fascism as it has existed is merely one incarnation of authoritarianism.
Reply
I think "fascism" is a much better example of this than "liberalism" is, because "liberal" has been a problematic word for its entire existence... probably because everyone wants to drape the mantle of freedom around themselves (consider liberalism in the context of theology, for instance... totally different meaning than liberalism in an economic context).
Reply
Just because Obama isn't likely to commit genocide doesn't meant that using public money to take over companies while leaving them nominally privately-owned is anything but another step towards fascism in this country, and one that should alarm people.
Now, it is no surprise to anyone that you and I have some differing opinions on whether it can ever be a good thing for government to exert control over business. And that's certainly an argument worth having, but when you say "another step towards fascism in this country, and one that should alarm people", well... why should it alarm people?
More to the point: should it alarm people because government control of business is alarming, or because fascism is alarming? If ( ... )
Reply
More to the point: should it alarm people because government control of business is alarming, or because fascism is alarming?I would say both: I do believe that government control of business is alarming in and of itself, but I also believe that it's alarming as an indication that we're taking one more step on a path towards a form of government and a level of government control that is the antithesis of what America was founded to create, and that Americans have lived under for a bit over two centuries. Moreover, the end of that road is a form of government that promotes war and strife, and that destroys the rights, the choice, and the prosperity of all its citizens ( ... )
Reply
While we do have democracy and good democratic process working at local levels in the United States; the federal government has never been a democracy. The representative republic worked very well as a form of government until industry realized that they could pervert/subvert government with money and use their shills to raid the treasury and rob the citizenry. That's been going on for quite some time. The leveraged debt/debt speculation fiasco last fall is an excellent example of a corporate treasury raid. Our government "bailed out" banks when they should have been piercing the corporate veil to indict many of the bankers they "saved" for various forms of securities fraud.
Reply
Now, to the extent that the federal government has never technically been a democracy, that's true and I don't care. As a practical matter, I find representative democracy good enough (which is not to say that there isn't a lot of room for improvement). Switzerland has something more like direct democracy. One famous result of this was that extending voting rights to women had to be approved by national referendum, and thus didn't actually happen until 1971! (1990 in Canton Appenzell.)
I guess that's the tyranny of the masses for you.
I agree with much of the rest of what you said, though.
Reply
Leave a comment