Fascism: A Quick Note

 

According to George Orwell, whom I am inclined to regard as close enough:

Learned controversies, reverberating for years on end in American magazines, have not even been able to determine whether or not Fascism is a form of capitalism. But still, when we apply the term ‘Fascism’ to Germany or Japan or Mussolini’s Italy, we know broadly what we mean.

My own working definition of Fascism, based upon reading significant early chapters of Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, is a government which, failing to fall neatly into another category, seeks a relationship with children at the expense of those children’s relationship with their parents.  Well, it’s been a decade, so we’ll see. Unimaginable, right?

Rather than being a “form of capitalism” (whatever ‘capitalism’ is), I figure that fascism can only arise in a market economy, but does not exist while a free market still exists.  The term “Capitalist” is as justified as the term “Anasazi,” and just as welcome by those so called.

To me, it seems that Communism and Fascism are two heresies of Socialism, complete with big government power over everything it wants, including religion, industry, policy, markets, family, education, and so forth.  Communism has no religion or markets, whereas Fascism does; Fascism on the other hand, has no alternative religion — rather it identifies itself with an existing religious force.  Whatever, it’s all just so much jockeying for power. So adhering to the view that F and C are malignancies of S, and that all of these are leftist problems (“National Socialist,” after all), I think I may have struck upon the difference between Commie Socialists and Fascist Socialists — sharpness.

Communism is a bulldozer, whereas Fascism is a jackhammer.  Communism attempts to sweep all into its maw with wrenching philosophic changes — to each according to his need, from each according to his ability, and so forth. Fascism instead co-opts existing structures (built by others) to exert pressure on particular pain points within the body society.

Fascism is acute Communism. Communism is chronic Fascism.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 61 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    Socialism feeds off a natural impulse to care for your fellow man with the excess by means of the state confiscating the excess and distributing it to those in need.

    Mises proved that…

    “[A]ny attempt to alter the distribution of consumption goods must in the last resort depend on the power to dispose of the means of production.”*

    The means of production are labor, natural resources, and production products. So socialism’s attempt to alter the distribution of the means of production implies that it owns the fruits of labor, which means that it effectively owns the laborer himself or herself.

    Anyone who is interested in the proof need only read a couple of paragraphs where the quote appears in the book. The book is downloadable for free from Mises.org.

    *Excerpt From: von Mises, Ludwig. “Socialism.” Apple Books.

    That’s not a proof.  It seems to be sophistry, to me.

    You can disapprove of government redistribution if you wish.  It is not the same thing as government ownership of business enterprises.

    • #31
  2. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Defining fascism isn’t rocket science. First, read Mussolini’s The Doctrine of Fascism (available for free here). Second, read Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco (available for free here).

    It boils down to supremacy of the executive branch of government, combined with a repudiation of just war theory.

    i.e. The key characteristics of a fascist are:

    1. Frustration with the power of legislatures and judges to obstruct executive action.
    2. Frustration with the idea the force should only be used in defense. They have zero scruples using force to impose their will on their citizens or on other countries.

    In other words, they want a Caesar. This is why they appropriated the symbol of Imperial Rome’s authority, the fasces (depicted up there on the right), as their own.

    The minutia of the particular economic preferences of the Caesar in question are largely irrelevant. After all, being supreme, the Caesar can change his mind whenever he feels like it.

    Furthermore, “Caesar” need not be a single person. What matters is the supremacy of the executive branch as an institution. That’s why the term “liberal fascism” isn’t an oxymoron, since it refers largely to the unelected authorities (both inside and outside of the official government) who claim de facto (if not de jure) supremacy over constitutions, judges, and/or elected legislatures in the name of “liberalism” (i.e. their preferred definition of liberalism).

     

    I appreciate the effort at a reasonable definition.  “Fascism” usually seems to be used to vilify anything that the speaker doesn’t like.

    Substantively, as to point 2, I disagree with the claim that force should only be used in defense.  So I don’t think that I’m “frustrated” with the idea, I just think that it’s wrong.  An international relations example would be the use of force in response to a treaty violation, which seems sensible to me, even if it’s not “defense.”

    As to point 1, about executive power, this equates fascism with dictatorship.  I do realize that you offer a 3-point definition: (1) dictatorship, (2) using force other than in defense, and (3) rejecting “just war theory” (if this is different than item (2)).

    The strange thing about modern American uses of the term fascism, by both the Left and the Right, is that they are not limited to dictators, nor even to the executive branch.  Legislators and judges are sometimes called “fascist.”

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the accusation that someone is “fascist” should usually be treated like the accusation that someone is a racist or a sexist or a whatever-o-phobe.  These seem to be modern equivalents of “witch.”

    Though in my case, I do think that witches exist, and they’re a bad influence.

    • #32
  3. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):You can’t at one time think centralization is bad AND support a global policing.

    I do think exactly that. Two different things.

    Marci, you may be right.

    But it would be challenging to separate them in practice. I think you would find that the cops need to have one ultimate leader to be effective, just like other forces of men under arms meant for a single purpose.

    I do not see any difference between an ideal nonfascist state operation and what we have now in terms of law enforcement, courts, and international relations. One does not necessitate the other, although governments have been extorting their citizens to the contrary ever since towns first formed.

    A good friend of mine is a stockbroker who loves to make people laugh when he says, “Governments were invented during the Middle Ages. A band of thugs would come into town and steal all of the farmers’ crops. But the next year when the same thugs returned, the crops had already been stolen by an opposing band of thugs. So the first thugs offered to protect the town from the second band of thugs in exchange for nearly all their crops. Hence, government.” :-)

    In a nonfascist state, local police would handle local threats; state police would handle state threats; interstate threats would be handled nationally; and defense against other nations or terrorists would be handled nationally or internationally. Just as these matters are handled now.

    I do not think we have to be communists or socialists or fascists to defend ourselves.

    The problem with centralization is, and always has been, someone far removed from the individual dictating what is right and what is wrong.

    While theoretically, we could come to the conclusion that if we limit the central force to just a handful of absolutely necessary “self-evident” truths, that never seems to be the way of it. The EU is pushing green energy on its member states contrary to its founding purpose. The US can’t figure out how to reconcile anti-discrimination laws with free association. Whose rights take priority? We fight over whose side is right and trying to control the federal government has introduced Balkanization that will be far more difficult to address peacefully than if it had been confined to the individual states.

    A top down system is never the right way to approach morals, values, and culture. And that is exactly what happens with centralized governments, evidenced even in the Hellenistic Empire, famously founded on letting conquered territories control themselves. Hint: it didn’t stay that way.

    • #33
  4. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):
    Defining fascism isn’t rocket science.

    True. Get 10 random people in a room, and 11 of them are able to do it.

    If the ten people have read Mussolini’s Doctrine (actually probably written by Giovanni Gentile) they should come to something resembling a reasonable consensus.  The problem is that precious few people have read the actual text. Pretty much everybody conjures up their definition from the zeitgeist rather than from the original source.

    On Amazon, The Doctrine of Fascism currently ranks at #178,471 while The Communist Manifesto ranks at #1,773.  It is frequently reported that The Communist Manifesto is the most assigned book in North American universities.  The Doctrine of Fascism not so much.

    • #34
  5. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Though in my case, I do think that witches exist, and they’re a bad influence.

    Actual witchcraft witches, or confused people who think they are witches — which sense?

    • #35
  6. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

     

    But it would be challenging to separate them in practice. I think you would find that the cops need to have one ultimate leader to be effective, just like other forces of men under arms meant for a single purpose.

    Cops don’t a single leader. They are fine working under their local governments.

     

    I don’t want to make a big deal over this.  I think you both have good points.

    But I just want to clarify what I meant by ‘a force of men and women under arms meant for a single purpose’.  Even if what I meant is dumb, which it may well be.

    I meant that to include examples like

    • a municipal police force with a single chief of police
      Single primary purpose: enforce the law in a single municipality

      on up to

    • the invasion of Europe under a single Supreme Allied Commander
      Single primary purpose: defeat Nazi Germany.

    Even when two organizations each with its own leader team up temporarily, say a special multi-force police unit to capture the leader of an interstate gang, they usually have a temporary single leader til the unit is disbanded once the single purpose has been achieved or given up.

    • #36
  7. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):
    Technically, communism aspires to the elimination of the state entirely.  Fascism does not.

    Hm.  That’s very true, and it’s a significant difference between the two.

    • #37
  8. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    BDB (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Though in my case, I do think that witches exist, and they’re a bad influence.

    Actual witchcraft witches, or confused people who think they are witches — which sense?

    Some of us believe in the existence of demons, so real witchcraft is a thing.

    • #38
  9. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    As to point 1, about executive power, this equates fascism with dictatorship.  I do realize that you offer a 3-point definition: (1) dictatorship, (2) using force other than in defense, and (3) rejecting “just war theory” (if this is different than item (2)).

    Sorta kinda, but not necessarily. It’s about supremacy. i.e. Where the buck stops. According to the fascist ethos the legislatures and the courts still have an important job to do: lessening the workload for the executive.  But the fascist impulse is to grant the executive power to overrule legislatures and courts when it’s “the right thing to do”.  The Roman Empire still had a Senate and a court system, but in theory one could always appeal to Caesar (if one had the means to do so, and one was willing to take the risk).

    The fascist impulse doesn’t require that the executive branch make every single decision for the society. It merely demands that the executive branch have the ultimate veto for every decision made in the society, to be exercised only as a last resort of course nudge nudge wink wink.

    And if member(s) of the executive, up to and including the chief executive, make too many errors, they can always be replaced. By force if necessary.

    (Also, I edited out the bit about “just war theory” precisely because I realized it was redundant.)

    The strange thing about modern American uses of the term fascism, by both the Left and the Right, is that they are not limited to dictators, nor even to the executive branch.  Legislators and judges are sometimes called “fascist.”

    This is not necessarily contradictory.  If legislators and judges work towards shifting authority to the executive branch, particularly if they do it in a way that contradicts the spirit (if not the letter) of the Constitution, that could indeed be a fascistic impulse at the very least.

    For example, when legislators delegate regulatory powers to government agencies (particularly when those powers should reside with the states or the people as per the 10th amendment), or when a court rules that a government’s action violates citizens’ constitutional rights but is nonetheless legitimate because reasons, or when legislators and judges treat the opinions of unelected government officials as infallible, etc.

    Technically, Caesar’s authority was delegated to him by the Senate and upheld by the courts. No dictator was he!

    • #39
  10. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Buckpasser (View Comment):

    Communism=Facsism=the Democratic Party.

    Technically, communism aspires to the elimination of the state entirely. Fascism does not.

    However, since the elimination of the state is impossible, communist states are unavoidably also fascist.

    This is why commies can sorta kinda get away with saying that Stalinism and Maoism weren’t “real communism”, but rather were just different varieties of fascism. The commies are sorta kinda right, but only because “real communism” isn’t possible.

    • #40
  11. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    If the ten people have read Mussolini’s Doctrine (actually probably written by Giovanni Gentile) they should come to something resembling a reasonable consensus.

    Audience: Philosophers.  Others will get nothing out of reading the following. 

    i.e., Too Long; Don’t Read.

     

    Exactly right.

    They should definitely agree on the answer to this question:

    • Which idea it is that Mussolini uses the verbal sign “fascism” to point to?

    Likewise, suppose ten people attend a lecture by an economist, “The Problems with Fascism”.

    They should definitely agree on the answer to this question:

    • Which idea it is that Prof. XXX uses the verbal sign “fascism” to point to?

    And on and on.  For each one-many relationship

    One careful speaker “A” ==> communicates his definition of “X” to ==> One set of careful listeners “B”

    the  set  “B”  should definitely agree on the answer to this question:

    • Which idea it is that “A” uses the verbal sign “X” to point to?

    Now that we have a clear understanding of what can be accomplished by any careful speaker with an audience of careful listeners, we can address the first  practical problem:

    How can we turn each new generation of young people, who are all sloppy speakers/writers and sloppy listeners/readers, into educated citizens in a self-governing nation.  People who read, think, and write carefully.

    (And not write Too Long.)

    • #41
  12. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    How can we turn each new generation of young people, who are all sloppy speakers/writers and sloppy listeners/readers, into educated citizens in a self-governing nation.  People who read, think, and write carefully.

    • #42
  13. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    I think the perfected communism is far more likely to be achieved than socialism or fascism. Socialism and Fascism seem to have ideals contrary to the system they use to enact it, so it eventually devolves into state communism. Probably why they are harder to define than communism.

    Communism is far more clear in its goals and has existed, but received pushback from those who still have identities, including national identities. Communism has not reached it’s stateless, international apex, but i don’t think that’s a point in favor of it not having been tried. More that it hasn’t been successful.

    • #43
  14. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    Stina (View Comment):

    I think the perfected communism is far more likely to be achieved than socialism or fascism. Socialism and Fascism seem to have ideals contrary to the system they use to enact it, so it eventually devolves into state communism. Probably why they are harder to define than communism.

    Communism is far more clear in its goals and has existed, but received pushback from those who still have identities, including national identities. Communism has not reached it’s stateless, international apex, but i don’t think that’s a point in favor of it not having been tried. More that it hasn’t been successful.

    It is fundamentally in conflict with human nature and can never succeed.

    • #44
  15. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Clavius (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I think the perfected communism is far more likely to be achieved than socialism or fascism. Socialism and Fascism seem to have ideals contrary to the system they use to enact it, so it eventually devolves into state communism. Probably why they are harder to define than communism.

    Communism is far more clear in its goals and has existed, but received pushback from those who still have identities, including national identities. Communism has not reached it’s stateless, international apex, but i don’t think that’s a point in favor of it not having been tried. More that it hasn’t been successful.

    It is fundamentally in conflict with human nature and can never succeed.

    As E.O Wilson said, “Great idea.  Wrong species.”

    • #45
  16. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Clavius (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I think the perfected communism is far more likely to be achieved than socialism or fascism. Socialism and Fascism seem to have ideals contrary to the system they use to enact it, so it eventually devolves into state communism. Probably why they are harder to define than communism.

    Communism is far more clear in its goals and has existed, but received pushback from those who still have identities, including national identities. Communism has not reached it’s stateless, international apex, but i don’t think that’s a point in favor of it not having been tried. More that it hasn’t been successful.

    It is fundamentally in conflict with human nature and can never succeed.

    I hope that is true, but I no longer take that fact for granted. People are far more open to others ruling them and taking responsibility for them than i am comfortable with and that is a part of human nature. It seems to just be a small subset invested in self governance.

    • #46
  17. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    Clavius (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I think the perfected communism is far more likely to be achieved than socialism or fascism. Socialism and Fascism seem to have ideals contrary to the system they use to enact it, so it eventually devolves into state communism. Probably why they are harder to define than communism.

    Communism is far more clear in its goals and has existed, but received pushback from those who still have identities, including national identities. Communism has not reached it’s stateless, international apex, but i don’t think that’s a point in favor of it not having been tried. More that it hasn’t been successful.

    It is fundamentally in conflict with human nature and can never succeed.

    It is fundamentally in conflict with the laws of physics and can never succeed.

    • #47
  18. aardo vozz Member
    aardo vozz
    @aardovozz

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I’m toying with the idea that socialism and communism are diametrically opposed to one another.

    Socialism feeds off a natural impulse to care for your fellow man with the excess by means of the state confiscating the excess and distributing it to those in need.

    Communism seems far more invested in breaking down people’s connections to family, community, and nation and depriving them of all property, where the state owns everything and only gives out to all what is necessary.

    I prefer this description I remember reading years ago: Socialism always ends with the government taking everything you own at the point of a gun, while communism always starts with the government taking everything you own at the point of a gun.

    Insufficiently cynical, but I like it.😎

    • #48
  19. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    Stina (View Comment):

    Clavius (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I think the perfected communism is far more likely to be achieved than socialism or fascism. Socialism and Fascism seem to have ideals contrary to the system they use to enact it, so it eventually devolves into state communism. Probably why they are harder to define than communism.

    Communism is far more clear in its goals and has existed, but received pushback from those who still have identities, including national identities. Communism has not reached it’s stateless, international apex, but i don’t think that’s a point in favor of it not having been tried. More that it hasn’t been successful.

    It is fundamentally in conflict with human nature and can never succeed.

    I hope that is true, but I no longer take that fact for granted. People are far more open to others ruling them and taking responsibility for them than i am comfortable with and that is a part of human nature. It seems to just be a small subset invested in self governance.

    The thing that destroys communism isn’t just the masses, it’s the leadership who, due to human nature, won’t give up power and privilege.  The problem with the masses is that “from each according to his ability, to each according to their need” creates an irresistible incentive to freeload.

    • #49
  20. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Stina (View Comment):

    I’m toying with the idea that socialism and communism are diametrically opposed to one another.

    Socialism feeds off a natural impulse to care for your fellow man with the excess by means of the state confiscating the excess and distributing it to those in need.

    Communism seems far more invested in breaking down people’s connections to family, community, and nation and depriving them of all property, where the state owns everything and only gives out to all what is necessary.

    Fascism, who knows. I kid. I’m pretty confident that this involves some kind of cooperation between government and corporations to drive social behaviors among the people that the state desires.

    In Communist Russia, idea toy with you. 

    • #50
  21. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    TBA (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I’m toying with the idea that socialism and communism are diametrically opposed to one another.

    Socialism feeds off a natural impulse to care for your fellow man with the excess by means of the state confiscating the excess and distributing it to those in need.

    Communism seems far more invested in breaking down people’s connections to family, community, and nation and depriving them of all property, where the state owns everything and only gives out to all what is necessary.

    Fascism, who knows. I kid. I’m pretty confident that this involves some kind of cooperation between government and corporations to drive social behaviors among the people that the state desires.

    In Communist Russia, idea toy with you.

    Hey. I’m not becoming commie or socialist. I just want to understand some history better.

    • #51
  22. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    Another useful original source that I forgot to mention: Fascism: 100 Questions Asked And Answered by Oswald Mosley. 

    Available for free here: https://ia801707.us.archive.org/27/items/fascism-100-questions-asked-and-answered-oswald-mosley_202010/Fascism_-_100_Questions_Asked_and_Answered_-_Oswald_Mosley.pdf

    • #52
  23. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Stina (View Comment):

    I think the perfected communism is far more likely to be achieved than socialism or fascism. Socialism and Fascism seem to have ideals contrary to the system they use to enact it, so it eventually devolves into state communism. Probably why they are harder to define than communism.

    Communism is far more clear in its goals and has existed, but received pushback from those who still have identities, including national identities. Communism has not reached it’s stateless, international apex, but i don’t think that’s a point in favor of it not having been tried. More that it hasn’t been successful.

    I think communism has been tried and failed.  With motivated Christians, even they could not work for the common good, but only chose to work when they would starve to death if they didn’t.

    • #53
  24. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I think the perfected communism is far more likely to be achieved than socialism or fascism. Socialism and Fascism seem to have ideals contrary to the system they use to enact it, so it eventually devolves into state communism. Probably why they are harder to define than communism.

    Communism is far more clear in its goals and has existed, but received pushback from those who still have identities, including national id entities. Communism has not reached it’s stateless, international apex, but i don’t think that’s a point in favor of it not having been tried. More that it hasn’t been successful.

    I think communism has been tried and failed. With motivated Christians, even they could not work for the common good, but only chose to work when they would starve to death if they didn’t.

    Great point.  Communism has ALWAYS been tried.  It is unstable and decays into better things rapidly.

    The Pilgrims’ Governor, William Bradford, described the folly of embracing the theory of collectivism:

    “The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.

    “For this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors everything else, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.”

    The Pilgrims, a pious and decent people, discovered that even the best of men cannot thrive under socialism’s incentive-crushing system.

    https://townhall.com/columnists/meredithturney/2009/06/09/americas-first-experiment-with-socialism-n1244377

    • #54
  25. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    BDB (View Comment):
    … tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity … that the taking away of property and bringing in community … would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.

    And this was with “godly and sober men” who fled England for a harsh and foreign land for their consciences’ sakes.

    • #55
  26. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Mackinder (View Comment):

    Not sure that this is correct, but I’ve been toying with it: Communism is an ideology. Fascism is a system. So they’re not opposites; rather they’re sort of a Venn diagram.

    Not really… they are both methods of implementing socialism.  Even then there are flavors.  Hilter’s version of fascism is different than Mussolini’s version of fascism vs Stalin version of fascism vs Lenin’s version of fascism…..

    • #56
  27. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    John H. (View Comment):

    About political terminology, I am of two minds. Much of it is imprecise and that is bad. Yet who cares?

    Yesterday I was listening to Mexican radio, and the earnest souls behind the mike at UNAM were interviewing first someone in Brazil, then someone in Italy. Both places have or will have “ultrarightist” leaders. Apparently it is impossible to speak of “rightism” – nobody on that side is ever less than ultra. Also, Trump; and fascism. These words are mere interjections now. They do appear in sentences, but these are scarcely assembled into logical assertions which in turn could amount to what less excitable people would call arguments.

    Another such term is populist.  I have come to the conclusion that it has become just a word of invective, such as “damned,” and that people don’t think about what it means. Even people who I have come to respect have come to use “populist” as a synonym for “bad” in respect to things that have no apparent connection with populism. 

    • #57
  28. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    John H. (View Comment):

    About political terminology, I am of two minds. Much of it is imprecise and that is bad. Yet who cares?

    Yesterday I was listening to Mexican radio, and the earnest souls behind the mike at UNAM were interviewing first someone in Brazil, then someone in Italy. Both places have or will have “ultrarightist” leaders. Apparently it is impossible to speak of “rightism” – nobody on that side is ever less than ultra. Also, Trump; and fascism. These words are mere interjections now. They do appear in sentences, but these are scarcely assembled into logical assertions which in turn could amount to what less excitable people would call arguments.

    Another such term is populist. I have come to the conclusion that it has become just a word of invective, such as “damned,” and that people don’t think about what it means. Even people who I have come to respect have come to use “populist” as a synonym for “bad” in respect to things that have no apparent connection with populism.

    Indeed.  The term “Populism” is used to describe every system of government, so long as the speaker disapproves.

    “But what about a cruel tyrannic despotism, huh?”  Easy — add propaganda, and now it’s populism.

    “What about a pure democracy, huh?”  Wouldn’t that be the definition of populism?

    • #58
  29. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    BDB (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    John H. (View Comment):

    About political terminology, I am of two minds. Much of it is imprecise and that is bad. Yet who cares?

    Yesterday I was listening to Mexican radio, and the earnest souls behind the mike at UNAM were interviewing first someone in Brazil, then someone in Italy. Both places have or will have “ultrarightist” leaders. Apparently it is impossible to speak of “rightism” – nobody on that side is ever less than ultra. Also, Trump; and fascism. These words are mere interjections now. They do appear in sentences, but these are scarcely assembled into logical assertions which in turn could amount to what less excitable people would call arguments.

    Another such term is populist. I have come to the conclusion that it has become just a word of invective, such as “damned,” and that people don’t think about what it means. Even people who I have come to respect have come to use “populist” as a synonym for “bad” in respect to things that have no apparent connection with populism.

    Indeed. The term “Populism” is used to describe every system of government, so long as the speaker disapproves.

    “But what about a cruel tyrannic despotism, huh?” Easy — add propaganda, and now it’s populism.

    “What about a pure democracy, huh?” Wouldn’t that be the definition of populism?

    I’m offended here by the word “pure”.

    • #59
  30. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Flicker (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    John H. (View Comment):

    About political terminology, I am of two minds. Much of it is imprecise and that is bad. Yet who cares?

    Yesterday I was listening to Mexican radio, and the earnest souls behind the mike at UNAM were interviewing first someone in Brazil, then someone in Italy. Both places have or will have “ultrarightist” leaders. Apparently it is impossible to speak of “rightism” – nobody on that side is ever less than ultra. Also, Trump; and fascism. These words are mere interjections now. They do appear in sentences, but these are scarcely assembled into logical assertions which in turn could amount to what less excitable people would call arguments.

    Another such term is populist. I have come to the conclusion that it has become just a word of invective, such as “damned,” and that people don’t think about what it means. Even people who I have come to respect have come to use “populist” as a synonym for “bad” in respect to things that have no apparent connection with populism.

    Indeed. The term “Populism” is used to describe every system of government, so long as the speaker disapproves.

    “But what about a cruel tyrannic despotism, huh?” Easy — add propaganda, and now it’s populism.

    “What about a pure democracy, huh?” Wouldn’t that be the definition of populism?

    I’m offended here by the word “pure”.

    As in “pure Hell,” to be sure.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.