Clarity vs. Civility

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

A discussion from a few weeks ago has gotten me thinking...

Many people lament the lack of civility in politics but is civility actually desirable if it comes at the expense of clarity?

Take the kerfuffle over words like "Fascist", "Socialist", and "Communist". Progressives hate being compared to Communists and Conservatives hate being called Fascists, and get predictably upset when refered to as such. However, these words do have meaning and the question of "is the comparison accurate?" seems to have been lost in the noise.

For instance "Fascism", as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is

...a political system or attitude (typically extreme right-wing) that is in favor of a strong central government that does not allow any opposition.

Other definitions focus on the subordination of individual or private will/responcibility to that of the state or other social/racial group but the underlying premises (specifically the centralization of power and the squashing of opposition) remain the same. By this definition there are elements of both the main-stream Republican and Democratic parties that could be accuratly described as fascist in nature.

...so why don't we?

Why is "Fascist" viewed as an insult and not a description of fact?

Why would someone who owns a Che Guevara t-shirt and claims Marx as an influence view the title of "Communist" as anything other than an honorific?

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm probably going to regret trying to bring in historical accuracy and honest historical records into a discussion that's nothing but a flamebait/circlejerk, but I'll just note here that the OED definition of fascism is inaccurate as that would make all totalitarianism and all absolutism fascism. Louis XIV was not a fascist. Nor was Peter the Great. Nor were Stalin and company. *All* dictatorships favor strong central governments that do not allow opposition. The difference between fascism and the others is that fascism favors a totalitarian ethos geared to perpetual aggressive war, and it's this precise combination that ensured it would be born and die in a short span of time, and where it survived it did so by adopting an inward repression of perpetual violence, ala the Hispanic fascists.

The Communists, by comparison, espoused that 1) Marxism is always and forever the only history. There are no others, and 2) a sufficient amount of clapping your hands if you believe will produce utopia on a Marxist line. In the process, if that means annihilating entire categories of class enemies, ethnically cleansing entire peoples to rot in starvation and death, and creating personality cults, a few eggs have to shatter to make an omelet. And if you question this, *you* are either a Class enemy or deviationist, so to the Lubyanka, Comrade.

This is not civility or clarity, this is both blatant lies and the Big Lie, the politicization of movements that produced real horrors for cheap political points. Fascism and Communism produced horrors to real for anyone with the moral backbone God gave a jellyfish, let alone a human being, to not treat them as movements deserving serious study and reflection as examples of the most sordid sides of human nature. But I predict that this is sowing pearls before swine who will promptly proceed to whine and cry about how Barack Obama is Stalin reincarnated, Hitler reincarnated, and secretly Nyarlathotep as though this has anything to do with the real Fascists and Communists.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I agree that comparing Bush or Obama to Hitler or Stalin is a cheap-shot that does credit to no one. It does however raise the question of "to what degree is gult by association appropriate?".

I'll just note here that the OED definition of fascism is inaccurate as that would make all totalitarianism and all absolutism fascism. Louis XIV was not a fascist. Nor was Peter the Great.

I'm not following your argument here. In what way do you think the OED definition is mistaken? What core functional or ideological trait distinguishes Mussolini from other dictators?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The images from earlier, links only:

The reality of fascism in all its gruesome vulgarity:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_daUb0TxWVeU/STrW9gYz6bI/AAAAAAAAABs/JbLZOBhEDDU/s400/A+group+of+naked+Jewish+women+and+girls+walk+to+the+execution+site+on+the+beach+near+Liepaja.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_daUb0TxWVeU/ShtMwcit-MI/AAAAAAAAAbI/vWu_LIcIOng/s400/German+police+and+Ukrainian+collaborators+in+civilian+clothes+look+on+as+Jewish+women+are+forced+to+undress+before+their+execution..jpg

http://www.worldwarsunveiled.com/res/19.jpg

http://shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/EG1.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkve2of2xF1qj2lu8o1_500.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ta/c/ce/Nazi_german_atrocities.jpg

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/publications/legdach/legreviews/Haaretz01v.jpg

http://dagmar.lunarpages.com/~parasc2/gallery/galleryitems/holocaust/holocaust04.jpg

http://www.culture24.org.uk/asset_arena/2/88/25882/v0_master.jpg

And Communism in all its vile monstrosity:

http://econstudentlog.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/gulag.jpg

http://gulaghistory.org/nps/onlineexhibit/stalin/women-src/images/womenbarracks_detail.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/31/article-1371768-0065F19800000258-922_634x459.jpg

http://www.anti-communist.net/katyn/katyn_wood_massacre.jpg

http://ww2db.com/images/battle_katyn2.jpg

http://katyn.org.au/katyn7.jpg

You who trivialize these ideologies by using the words as smears and defining them in a trivializing fashion, you're trivializing this shit. Gaze upon it, and look at the reality of these words. Never forget it, this is humankind at its worst.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

We've had this discussion before, but to refresh your memory: While I think your are correct about the fascist emphasis on totalitarianism, you ignore the fascist emphasis on private enterprise working with the political system to establish the functional society.

Early Nazi propaganda movies emphasized pre-pusch Germany as infected by communists who dismissed private shop owners and often burned their shops. These same shop keeps were fair game for Hitler after his rise (if they were Jewish), but they were tolerated and even encouraged if they helped the Party.

Likewise the big industry. As long as VW or Siemens or Krup worked with the Party to build war materiel, no problem. The Communists, by contrast, would socialize the industry ('cause, you know, private capital ownership be bad and stuff, ala Marx).

Early Fascists rose up as a reaction against not just the Treaty of Versailles repayments, but as an alternative to the communist anti-business ideology. That needs to be understood if one is every going to answer Sandwich's question, since perfectly cromulent arguments can be made about similarities between the philosophy of conservative politicians and historical fascists like Hilter and Mussolini.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

+1 for Lovecraft reference

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Most people couldn't accurate describe the traits of a fascist government. Thus, using the term doesn't conjure specific policies or principles, but jack-booted thugs, brownshirts, and oppression. In that sense, to the vast majority of people, the terms are inherently misleading and unclear, if your intent is to discuss the actual policies and principles at issue. Further, they're not helpful to the discussion. If you think their policies are good or bad, say so. Applying these highly inflammatory labels does nothing but derail the conversation. There's a corollary to Godwin's Law that states the first person to invoke a Hitler comparison loses the argument. That's not something that should be limited to discussions of Nazis.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Applying these highly inflammatory labels does nothing but derail the conversation.

Ok so what do we call them? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet would it not?

Should ideologies be rebranded on a regular basis to avoid guilt by association? Is the need to rebrand one's idology a condemnation of the ideology?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Quite a few actually.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

Why would someone who owns a Che Guevara t-shirt and claims Marx as an influence view the title of "Communist" as anything other than an honorific?

Probably not sufficiently 'nuanced'.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Actually that is pretty much dead on. You can be influenced by Marx's views on class, or economics or whatever without wholeheartedly embracing either communism or socialism.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Are you suggesting that labeling certain Democrats "communist" and certain Republicans "fascist" would INCREASE clarity?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Assuming that the policies/positions espoused match the factual definition of said terms, Yes.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> Why is "Fascist" viewed as an insult and not a description of fact?

Because of history.

> Why would someone who owns a Che Guevara t-shirt and claims Marx as an influence view the title of "Communist" as anything other than an honorific?

Note sure how to guess the mind set of a hypothetical, but it might be because the wearer of the shirt knows that the assignation comes with a host of presumptively associated ideologies and opinions that they might not share. This is true of any label, but it is especially true of insults like "communist". If I believe in private property, I'm not a communist, but I might still be influenced by Marx and think Che Guevara was a cool dude.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Because of history.

Wich leads to the question I asked UnderL "to what degree is gult by association appropriate?".

[paft.livejournal.com]

s: Why would someone who owns a Che Guevara t-shirt and claims Marx as an influence view the title of "Communist" as anything other than an honorific?

Maybe because wearing a Guevara t-shirt and considering Marx right about some things does not mean you are in favor of the abolition of private property and the turning over of all means of production to the people.

Anything unclear about this?

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Apparently some folks don't do 'nuance' or something.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

gore vidal, channeling mark twain no doubt, said "a narcissist is someone who is better looking than you are"

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

impossible! no such people exist! =)

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

People are dishonest and hate labeling themselves with the same label of defunct ideologies even though they preach the same thing. Notice how lefties will deny left-wing associations in a heartbeat. You can have a signed picture with a quote and it's still, "we don't support that".

Just look at how persona non grata guys like Ayers, Farrakhan, and the whole crew of thugs are when you bring up support by prominent Dems but the second someone attacks them or they need help, there's the left embracing them.

My argument is not that the right wing is honest. My argument is the left wing is some how congenial liars about their beliefs. It's why there's so many labels lefties in the West use while the rightwing uses just conservative.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> It's why there's so many labels lefties in the West use while the rightwing uses just conservative.

Cultural/Social Conservative. Fiscal Conservative. Neo-Conservative. Paleo-Conservative. Religious Conservative. Libertarian.

These are labels different conservatives use to differentiate themselves from fellow conservatives who believe somewhat differently. The use of these labels is often embraced by those whom they apply to. Are conservatives less liers, because they like to use a descriptive prefix rather than a different word? Or is their adherence to the word come from the same liberal aversion to 'liberal'... i.e. efficient conservative branding.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Actually when I see someone with a che shirt I figure either a) they believe in violent revolution or b) they are trendy, under educated nitwits, who don't have a clue.

(the latter seem to be usually liberal arts college students, but that's my bias ;) )

[usekh.livejournal.com]

As an American you don't believe in violent revolution?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Refer to my post (http://libertarianism.livejournal.com/2845275.html) on the subject, and the comments.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Fascism is a very specific term of which the dictionary quotation you provided only gives a limited view. It is not just a strong government that disallows opposition but it is a totalitarian viewpoint by which everything is part of that unity.

How do I know this? Because it's how Mussolini himself described it.

"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people." ("La dottrina del fascismo", 1932)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, Mussolini's Italy is the one case where a link between Fascism and Communism holds the most true, because Mussolini was a major leader of Italian Communism before he defected to the other side over butthurt when he advocated entry into WWI and they did not. Mussolini was in fact paid while still a Red to advocate entry into WWI by people including his future WWII enemies. This reality, however, would require reading actual books to understand and most of the chuckleheads who use this rhetoric can't fathom a Dr. Seuss book.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

The comparison is not accurate. Seems to invalidate the whole argument.

A ball can be a circular thing to play with, so can a beachball. Doesn't mean all balls are beachballs.

Similarly, all people who focus on the subordination of individual or private will to the state are a) taking it to an extreme level b) fascists. I'm sure we are complex enough to realize this, right?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Dude, I've been thinking this stuff for some time now, mostly in agreement.

If a historical precedent X has been set by Mr. X, and someone emulates that precedent, the label X should be applied. For everyone to get all butthurt over the application because Mr. X also did Y and Z (with a touch of M and B along the way) should be dismissed.

That said, people don't think rationally. As Harlan Ellison said, we use our rational brains to justify the twinges coming from our emotional amydgala, and that sucker is no bigger on humans than it is on gorillas.

Here's an example: Hitler was a vegetarian. Are all vegetarians therefore Nazis? It's silly, because most Nazis ate like most Germans of their time ate, heavy on the brats. One can, however, craft a nice bumper sticker with this sentiment and reveal the silliness of fascist-avoidance and where it can lead:

Hitler Had The Right Idea!

Go vegan.

If we can't talk honestly about specific policies of past leaders for fear of ignoring atrocities, we might as well talk only about puppies and how darned cute they are.

[paft.livejournal.com]

So let's talk honestly about the terms fascism, nazism and communism.

The problem with your bit about the bumpersticker is that it wasn't Hitler's vegetarianism that made his name a curse. It was the political philosophy he invented, a form of fascism that incorporated racist pseudo-science, eugenics, and a violent hatred of Marxism.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

There is one bleeding obvious answer to this. Communist and Fascist are regarded as insults as because almost invariably that is how they are used.

Pretty simple really. I worked that out at about 12, soon after I got told what a fascist was(or maybe I watched an episode of the Young Ones, was a while ago)

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I don't see why one cannot have clarity on an issue while simultaneously preserving civility. I mean when you yell at someone and stick arbnitrary labels on them just to annoy them, and they reciprocate with the same, doesn't all that noise kind of kill the purpose of the interaction? It leads nowhere.

The term 'fascist' is loaded with a lot of historical baggage, that's why it tends to provoke all sorts of negative responses when it's thrown around indiscriminately. On the other hand, there's this too: when a term gets used too often, it tends to lose of its original value and power, and becomes a mere soundbite, as people's tolerance to it increases (like 'socialism' these days; and many other ~isms). Most of the time that's a natural process, but sometimes it gets artificially amplified in politicis and the media for one reason or another.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

because these words have gained pejorative meanings over time

next question plz

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

So what is the solution.

Do we invent new terms with similar meanings that do not have the perjorative associations?

Or do we just tell every one to put thier big-girl panties on and call a spade a spade

[russj.livejournal.com]

These days, 'fascism' is mainly used as a label of insult and dismissal. Most people could not give a cogent definition of its meaning.
I once listened to an expert explain the characteristics of historical fascism, and it took him over twenty minutes--I was tired by the time he finished!

The term is emotionally loaded, because of its association with the historical regimes of Hitler and Mussolini.
Because these regimes were opposed to Communist Russia, the term fascist has been applied to any group which is anti-Communist. That is the main reason why the 'fascist' label is so often applied to conservatives and right-wingers.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Hitler was opposed to it in the sense that he wanted to destroy all of Slavic civilization. His addiction to major wars is what destroyed the Nazi regime, and that addiction was inherent to the actual ideology. Likewise the real Communists exist today only in North Korea. But I've long since ceased to believe conservatives give a damn about the people the Commies killed, as otherwise they'd make careful study of just what they're using that term to refer to. And if they learned about a number of things the real USSR did, quite a few of them would want to move to a society that banned abortion, made homosexuality a capital crime, and had a military that operated virtually free of civilian restraint.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The word "Communist" is usually associated with a very specific political experience rather than an ideology. Someone who values the works of Marx might feel more comfortable with the labels "socialist" or "Marxist" than be associated with the Soviet or Maoist regimes. Americans who favor a regimented form of nationalism would not consider themselves to be fascists. They would prefer the label "patriot." What bothers the hell out of such people is the fact that European fascists considered the US to be exemplary in a number of ways.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Meanwhile the Soviets deliberately helped Hitler along and spent the first stage of WWII as an Axis Power but got away with it and with the wholesale absorption of three countries by brute force. It seems moral culpability doesn't apply if one adds enough rhetoric about the Working Class. Writing a book is equal to wholesale deportation and creation of mass graves.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Because words have histories. Opening a dictionary isn't the be-all and end-all of how words are interpreted.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I'd like to note how delightfully absolutist your whole post sounds.