Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[rms]

I have no doubt that is true for most politicians, but the South seems to have that hypocrisy more in the open and not really confronted until relatively recently.

Trying to figure out what it is in the north, segregation I guess?

 

[Dak]

Possibly partially because of a more limited number of tribal affiliations?

On a different topic: I've argued before about the completely ludicrous (although explainable) left- intellectual ignoring or whitewashing of communism, while Fascism is the Supreme Evil.

It is completely uncritical to be "anti-oppression" or start talking about how lives matter, or whatever else in that vein, and to be a communist apologist.

This came up recently due to my expressing some disdain about some prominent "social activist" speakers with ties to the US Communist party. Then this article came across my feed.

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-house-is-on-fire--8466

The pure numbers are bad enough, and unless one were a Jew, the culture of fear and oppression isn't close either.

 

[Einherjar86]

The Soviet atrocities are unforgivable, and Stalinist apologetics are questionable at best.

But communist apologetics are very different from fascist apologetics, because fascism is founded upon values of ethnocentrism, nationalism, and xenophobia. Communism isn't, despite the manifestation of these values in historical episodes like the Soviet experiment. One can be a "communist apologist" without being an apologist for Stalinist cruelties.

 

[CiG]

Fascism and communism often overlap in history though, North Korea being an obvious example.

Why are fascism and communism "very different" to you though? You don't seem to be merely pointing out that fascism has different founding values here, but rather implying something else.

 

[Dak]

The Soviet atrocities are unforgivable, and Stalinist apologetics are questionable at best.

But communist apologetics are very different from fascist apologetics, because fascism is founded upon values of ethnocentrism, nationalism, and xenophobia. Communism isn't, despite the manifestation of these values in historical episodes like the Soviet experiment. One can be a "communist apologist" without being an apologist for Stalinist cruelties.

I rarely see the C-c distinction though functionally. In terms of organized politics, communists are Communists. Even worse, those that broke with the Communist Party post Soviet collapse like to sell it as seeing the light a little bit when really the funding just ended.

German Naziism is not the only form of fascism, so it doesn't require xenophobia. But fascism is extreme nationalism, which like CIG noted shares substantial overlap with Communism.

 

[Einherjar86]

Fascism and communism often overlap in history though, North Korea being an obvious example.

Why are fascism and communism "very different" to you though? You don't seem to be merely pointing out that fascism has different founding values here, but rather implying something else.

Communism began as a critical philosophy - "critique of the political economy." Fascism began as a political movement.

I rarely see the C-c distinction though functionally. In terms of organized politics, communists are Communists. Even worse, those that broke with the Communist Party post Soviet collapse like to sell it as seeing the light a little bit when really the funding just ended.

Well, then there needs to be more specifics in the conversation.

I take issue with the suggestion that it is "uncritical" to be a communist apologist and be anti-oppression (or anti-fascist). I consider myself a communist apologist, but not an apologist for Soviet communism (or N. Korean communism, or what have you). A rejoinder might be that it's practically pointless to distinguish between these two, but I don't think so. Communism has value as a critical methodology. Fascism has minimal critical perspective; it's a rhetorically and emotionally driven brand of nationalism.

Communism can certainly become nationalistic and rhetorically driven when implemented in a politically programmatic fashion, but I don't think these things constitute it.

German Naziism is not the only form of fascism, so it doesn't require xenophobia. But fascism is extreme nationalism, which like CIG noted shares substantial overlap with Communism.

In its philosophical sense, communism is emphatically anti-nationalistic. Marx was highly critical of German nationalism.

Also, most brands of fascism beyond Naziism are xenophobic. Fascism really began in Italy, and it was very xenophobic.

 

[Dak]

Communism began as a critical philosophy - "critique of the political economy." Fascism began as a political movement.

Communism can certainly become nationalistic and rhetorically driven when implemented in a politically programmatic fashion, but I don't think these things constitute it.

If one wanted to be very brusque one might suggest that fascists dispensed with the facade of intellectualism as it relates to politics. Politicians/leaders are typically not intellectual in a philosophical sense. Intellectualism becomes a handicap at some point to grabbing the levers of power.

In its philosophical sense, communism is emphatically anti-nationalistic. Marx was highly critical of German nationalism.

Also, most brands of fascism beyond Naziism are xenophobic. Fascism really began in Italy, and it was very xenophobic.

I see a big difference between declaring one's group superior and wanting another group wiped out. Italian and German fascism look kind of similar until you get to part about needing to eradicate a particular ethnic group. I don't see open demands of assimilation as "xenophobic". It's a political practicality liberals don't understand - or even worse, maybe they do.

 

[Einherjar86]

Intellectualism might make power-grabbing difficult... but then, maybe it should.

And xenophobia need not only apply to the annihilation of particular ethnic groups. Xenophobia simply refers to a centralized, programmatic distrust toward and paranoia of certain groups based on race or ethnicity. In this sense, Italy was definitely xenophobic. Mussolini was terrified of the prospect of "white extinction," and promoted various ethnic cleansing operations, although nothing that matched the extent of the Holocaust.

 

[arg]

European whites are the most beautiful race to Aug and the races that are outbreeding them are much less attractive and sometimes downright ugly, therefore I am 100% behind any measures to prevent this such as eugenics, sterilization, etc

 

[Dak]

And xenophobia need not only apply to the annihilation of particular ethnic groups. Xenophobia simply refers to a centralized, programmatic distrust toward and paranoia of certain groups based on race or ethnicity. In this sense, Italy was definitely xenophobic. Mussolini was terrified of the prospect of "white extinction," and promoted various ethnic cleansing operations, although nothing that matched the extent of the Holocaust.

If it's watered down that much, why not just say racist?

 

[Einherjar86]

I would say racist. But I was trying to avoid that discussion and stick on the "communism vs. fascism" topic.

 

[Dak]

I would say racist. But I was trying to avoid that discussion and stick on the "communism vs. fascism" topic.

I would say fascism/nationalism isn't going to work as well without some racism, since nations are ethnic historically. I see xenophobia working quite differently. Feeling superior doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a fear to the point of hunting and killing the supposedly "inferior" group. It can, for example, manifest as "White Man's Burden".

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that xenophobia is an aspect of the racist ethnic cleansings we've been discussing. You can't be racist in a nationalist/centralized sense and not be xenophobic. But xenophobia can exist in lesser degrees that don't involve state sponsored exterminations.

The white man's burden did involve state sponsored exterminations, though.

 

[Dak]

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that xenophobia is an aspect of the racist ethnic cleansings we've been discussing. You can't be racist in a nationalist/centralized sense and not be xenophobic. But xenophobia can exist in lesser degrees that don't involve state sponsored exterminations.

The white man's burden did involve state sponsored exterminations, though.

Fair point on the WMB. I think it's come up before, but I extremely dislike putting "phobos" on the end of words when it's really not a phobia by clinical definitions. That sort of language is Trumpian in terms of persuasion but it really has no business being used in an intellectual discourse. But of course it's all over the place. Obviously we could potentially find some clinical cases of such a phobia (or at least I imagine we could), but it's far too watered down and it becomes too problematic.

But back to politics: I'm a confused at calling communism the critique of political economy. I understand it as a particular offered alternative model of sociopolitical organization.

 

[Einherjar86]

Did I call it "the" critique; as in, the only critique? If I did, then I misspoke. I only meant that communism began as a philosophical model: "critique of political economy," referring to the subtitle of Capital. Fascism has very different origins.

As far as xenophobia goes, yes: it deviates from what we consider official phobias. I don't think that renders it useless - it's simply a socially developed word rather than a, say, clinically developed one.

 

[Dak]

Did I call it "the" critique; as in, the only critique? If I did, then I misspoke. I only meant that communism began as a philosophical model: "critique of political economy," referring to the subtitle of Capital. Fascism has very different origins.

As far as xenophobia goes, yes: it deviates from what we consider official phobias. I don't think that renders it useless - it's simply a socially developed word rather than a, say, clinically developed one.

I didn't mean the critique as in the only. I see communism as a model of sociopolitical organization (specifically laid out in the Manifesto). It is separate from the critique in Capital.

Attaching phobia to terminology to suggest that a dislike of something is an "irrational fear" - a mental disorder no less - is persuasion gold. It's really just name-calling, which is why I referred to it as Trumpian. Of course, other politicians do it as well, but Trump is generally better at it. I've really enjoyed this election cycle compared to the last few. It has been a learning experience.

 

[Einherjar86]

I didn't mean the critique as in the only. I see communism as a model of sociopolitical organization (specifically laid out in the Manifesto). It is separate from the critique in Capital.

Hmm. Well, I think this is debatable, but I'm not sure it would be productive.

What I will say though is that communism, even as Marx describes it in the Manifesto, isn't constitutively nationalistic. It may become nationalistic once adopted as a political system; but I would attribute this less to communism tout court, and more (as you suggest) to preexisting nationhood. Fascism, on the other hand, foregrounds its nationalistic quality.

 

[Dak]

Hmm. Well, I think this is debatable, but I'm not sure it would be productive.

What I will say though is that communism, even as Marx describes it in the Manifesto, isn't constitutively nationalistic. It may become nationalistic once adopted as a political system; but I would attribute this less to communism tout court, and more (as you suggest) to preexisting nationhood. Fascism, on the other hand, foregrounds its nationalistic quality.

Sure, communists would posit themselves as "universalists". I think this is incredibly more threatening than nationalism. Unless you happen to be in the "wrong nation" of course.

 

[CiG]

I think this is somewhat of a false dichotomy.

It's not so much to me about communism v fascism, but rather that fascism is very often a product of communism in practice (setting aside the apologist positions of true/false application).

The fact is, what fascism means fundamentally in terms of it's core values is often found in communist systems, from North Korean racial purity to Soviet expansionism. They seem to be stuck together, yet separate.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's interesting.

I think I would say that fascism isn't a product of communism per se, but rather of extreme, fanatical nationalism. Calling it a product of communism suggests that communism results in fascistic tendencies, or gives rise to them - that something within communism produces fascism. I don't think that's a necessary correlation. I would say that fascism is more like a quality of radical nationalism (which can, of course, assume a communistic form).