Fascism!

EDIT: there was some name calling here.. sorry about that. was stupid.

your conception of Good/Evil is a very basic humanistic moral one.. it has NOTHING to do with badiou. ill try again.. "The real question underlying the question of Evil is the following: What is the Good? All my philosophy strives to answer this question. For complex reasons, I give the Good the name ―Truths‖ (in the plural). A Truth is a concrete process that starts by an upheaval (an encounter, a general revolt, a surprising new invention), and develops as fidelity to the novelty thus experimented. A Truth is the subjective development of that which is at once both new and universal. New: that which is unforeseen by the order of creation. Universal: that which can interest, rightly, every human individual, according to his pure humanity (which I call his generic humanity). To become a subject (and not remain a simple human animal), is to participate in the coming into being of a universal novelty. That requires effort, endurance, sometimes self-denial. I often say it’s necessary to be the ―activist‖ of a Truth. There is Evil each time egoism leads to the renunciation of a Truth. Then, one is de-subjectivized. Egoistic self-interest carries one away, risking the interruption of the whole progress of a truth (and thus of the Good). One can, then, define Evil in one phrase: Evil is the interruption of a truth by the pressure of particular or individual interests."

was there not any "Truth" to Lenin? not a WHOLE truth (what is a whole truth?), but a Truth in badious conception. this is the basic libidinal goo for badiou, the Truth-process.. there are 4 conditions for this process: love, science, art, politics. we're only talking about one example within politics.. i think we can find many Truths throughout history.

do i really have to apply this concept again? how many examples do i need to give just so you can begin to think about this clearly. im not trying to maintain distance from engaging in a debate, but this is pointless so far..

i keep thinking of that scene in 'white man cant jump': your listening to jimi, but youre not hearing jimi.

i even agree with your little shit-fits against the State, maaaaaaaan. but this argument is invalid here.

all i can say is, READ BADIOU.. its obvious you havent..

nomadthesecond said:

I have a hard time making much of a distinction between communism as it's been enacted/practiced/enforced/lived in the past (in historical communist regimes) and fascism. Communists seem to be in favor of all kinds of totalities, most obviously, the Party.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm reminded of vimothy's description of the two ideologies: "The same stupid 20th-century impulse, with different haircuts".

Edit: "libidinal goo for badiou" is one of the greatest phrases I've ever read on Dissensus.

Mr. Tea said:

Exactly. I'm reminded of vimothy's description of the two ideologies: "The same stupid 20th-century impulse, with different haircuts".

Click to expand...

wow. thats crazy!!! where do you get this stuff?

an impulse sure, but an equal impulse? maybe im completely nuts, but you guys are terrifying. no wonder i never come here.

nikbee said:

wow. thats crazy!!! were do you get this stuff?

an impulse sure, but an equal impulse? maybe im completely nuts, but you guys are terrifying. no wonder i never come here.

Click to expand...

This just in: USSR 'was not actually a proletarian paradise of liberty, prosperity and emancipation', says controversial historian...

Edit: bear in mind that nomad specifically said "communism as it's been enacted/practiced/enforced/lived in the past (in historical communist regimes)" - she's not talking about the theoretical communism of Marx and Engels, but the politics of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il.

Discussing the difference between Nazism and Communism, Raymond Aron once wrote,


But as Aron scholar Daniel J. Mahoney notes,

Mr. Tea said:

This just in: USSR 'was not actually a proletarian paradise of liberty, prosperity and emancipation', says controversial historian...

Edit: bear in mind that nomad specifically said "communism as it's been enacted/practiced/enforced/lived in the past (in historical communist regimes)" - she's not talking about the theoretical communism of Marx and Engels, but the politics of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il.

Click to expand...

i grew up in Yugoslavia. i was young when we left (1991, my father is a serb, we were living in what is now croatia, you can put it together i think). ask my father, or, for fucks sake, as anyone in my family how fucking HORRIBLE it was living there. people lived quite happily, in peace... free education, free healthcare, you couldnt lose your job if you fucking tried.. everyone was housed. not only paid vacations (6 weeks) but you received extra money to go on vacation.. people hardly worked! sat around in cafes half the day (not that this is some wonderful ideal mind you, this was certainly a problem, but...). no one had a cadillac though. i can go on and on.. this is complex of course..

there were problems! yes. many problems.. the depoliticized subject of Yugoslavia.. we can even blame the State!

i feel dirty even talking about this.. totally beside the point.

Yugz lived together, in peace, even married between the religions! my father is serbian, mother croatian.. my father still cant go back to where we grew up cause of the crazy fascist cocksuckers running that country (Ustase).

is it really equal? do i even have to ask this? yall is nuts.. proper nuts.

is there nothing to revive from this tradition? "There is only one World."

we can talk about the Communist (socialist) experience more if youd like.. if itll help get accross this impasse.. my wife grew up in Soviet Georgia.. we'll get her involved too if necessary.

EDIT: i am NOT asking for a return to Yugi socialism, or Soviet, or any kind.. but to claim that fascism is equal to communism is completely fucked..

I'm not sure quite what your point is -- it seems to me that the main operational distinction between the two movements is "fascism" (meaning nationalistic totalitarianism of whatever type) is nationalistic, whereas communism purports to be universal...?

Because (with respect) you seem to be suggesting that there is some kind of quality of life distinction that can be drawn here, but I dunno if that's really relevant, or indeed, valid or significant. They are both of them illiberal, undemocratic, command-economic, militaristic, and totalitarian (according to Mussolini’s construction of the term).

Do you believe in basic libidinal goo for badiou?

I believe that Dissensus needs a catechism!

you know, maybe im simply in the wrong place? does dissensus have some kind of basic or general political orientation? not being patronizing here.. simply dont know. dont come here often enough really.

it all depends on your definition of all those words: illiberal, undemocratic, command-economic, militaristic, and totalitarian.

Who knows? But I think that definitions are important, and a good way to proceed. First of all, we need to define fascism and communism, and then analyse them for similarities and differences.

it all depends on your definition of all those words: illiberal, undemocratic, command-economic, militaristic, and totalitarian.

Click to expand...

Does it really? I don't see how you could possible claim that communism is democratic, liberal, not command-economic, not militaristic and not totalitarian, though perhaps the meaning of words is not my strongt point. Perhaps I'm just an ignorant fuck. Why don't you sketch out some thoughts for us -- start with liberalism, say -- in what sense is communism liberal, and how is this different from "fascism"?

‘“[J]ustice” cannot be […] a State programme. “Justice” is the qualification of an egalitarian moment of politics in actu. The trouble with most doctrines of justice is their will to define what it is, followed by attempts to realise it. But justice, which is the philosophical name for the egalitarian political maxim, cannot be defined. For equality is not an objective of action, it is its axiom. There is no politics bound to truth without the affirmation – an affirmation which can neither be proved nor guaranteed – of a universal capacity for political truth. Where truth is concerned, thought cannot adhere to the scholastic path of definitions.’ Badiou

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm (the Two)

josef k. said:

I support this.

Click to expand...

vimothy said:

Do you believe in basic libidinal goo for badiou?

I believe that Dissensus needs a catechism!

Click to expand...

I'd like to point out that I spotted this first.

The appeal of Badiou totally escapes me, TBH.

And if you believe that, doesn't it render your argument here a little pointless?

nikbee said:

you know, maybe im simply in the wrong place? does dissensus have some kind of basic or general political orientation?

Click to expand...

No it doesn't, and if it did I would be surprised if Vimothy and Mr Tea were its idealogues...

vimothy said:

The appeal of Badiou totally escapes me, TBH.

And if you believe that, doesn't it render your argument here a little pointless?

Click to expand...

fair enough

which argument?

my empirical construction (a weak one, clearly, but this would take a serious amount of time to adequately do) of communism v fascism is not valid under the badiouian construction.. here you are right.. i think i said this.

but i DO believe that even in terms of 'quality of life' the distinction is important.

john eden said:

No it doesn't, and if it did I would be surprised if Vimothy and Mr Tea were its idealogues...

Click to expand...

i understand. i didnt think so..

vimothy, you are fundamentally for liberalism, democracy (electoral), free markets??

this is my impression. if not, i apologize..

i understand this is a tricky question.

nikbee said:

i grew up in Yugoslavia. i was young when we left (1991, my father is a serb, we were living in what is now croatia, you can put it together i think). ask my father, or, for fucks sake, as anyone in my family how fucking HORRIBLE it was living there. people lived quite happily, in peace... free education, free healthcare, you couldnt lose your job if you fucking tried.. everyone was housed. not only paid vacations (6 weeks) but you received extra money to go on vacation.. people hardly worked! sat around in cafes half the day (not that this is some wonderful ideal mind you, this was certainly a problem, but...). no one had a cadillac though. i can go on and on.. this is complex of course..

there were problems! yes. many problems.. the depoliticized subject of Yugoslavia.. we can even blame the State!

i feel dirty even talking about this.. totally beside the point.

Yugz lived together, in peace, even married between the religions! my father is serbian, mother croatian.. my father still cant go back to where we grew up cause of the crazy fascist cocksuckers running that country (Ustase).

is it really equal? do i even have to ask this? yall is nuts.. proper nuts.

is there nothing to revive from this tradition? "There is only one World."

we can talk about the Communist (socialist) experience more if youd like.. if itll help get accross this impasse.. my wife grew up in Soviet Georgia.. we'll get her involved too if necessary.

EDIT: i am NOT asking for a return to Yugi socialism, or Soviet, or any kind.. but to claim that fascism is equal to communism is completely fucked..

Click to expand...

On the other hand: show trials, gulag, KGB, Stasi, The great famine in China, famine in Ukraine, starvation and oppression in North Korea, holocaust in Cambodia...

I'm not denying your experience in Yugoslavia, but it doesn't cancel out or make up for the those things, does it? I daresay plenty of Germans found life tolerable under the Nazi regime - pulled the country out of the Great Depression, for one thing - but that's not a moral endorsement of Nazism.

Well, the argument that fascism and communism are distinct, given that you are unable to provide definitions of either term, or definitions of their constituent characteristics, would seem to be impossible to make in theoretical terms.

As for a quality of life comparison, as far as I'm concerned, you would need to actually make a comparison, which you have not yet done, but you would also need to do it in a rigorous way. Moreover, I'm not convinced of the validity of this possible difference.

i understand. i didnt think so..

Click to expand...

I'm fundamentally for liberalism, democracy, "free" markets (I prefer "competitive markets"), yes. At least, I think I am. When people ask me, this is what I say, but I'm not always sure what it actually means to be for something.