Gertrude Stein

[tbieter]

“Why were so many prominent modernist writers and philosophers attracted to fascist or authoritarian regimes in the first half of the twentieth century? A list of those who were not—Samuel Beckett, James Joyce, Thomas Mann, and Robert Musil—pales in comparison to a list of those who were—Ezra Pound, William Butler Yeats, T. S. Eliot, Wyndham Lewis, Knut Hamsun, Paul de Man, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Filippo Marinetti, Martin Heidegger, Robert Brasillach, and a host of others. Add to the latter the name of Gertrude Stein, one of the most avant-garde of modernist writers in the English language, who was also—it turns out—a committed supporter of Philippe Pétain, head of state of the pro-Nazi collaborationist Vichy regime in France during the Second World War.” (Emphasis added)
http://www.neh.gov/humanities/2012/marc ... rude-stein

My answer is that liberalism (or leftism) contains an authoritarian tendency, a tendency toward intolerance, an inherent tendency to want to silence or destroy the opponent.

[John]

Liberalism is what free markets and modern western democracies are based on. Leftism is a 1995 album by Leftfield, and a very good album it is too.

I wish people would use terms correctly.

[bus2bondi]

old words, new world

[The Voice of Time]

old words, new world

I go with this one. Anyways, it's meaningless to say that a name leads to a reality. You can speak of a group of people who uses that name as a symbol of their cause, but the name itself will only lead nowhere.

There are communists who are anarchists, liberals who are facists and conservatives who are fundamentalists... it got nothing to do with the name, you must speak about people not names.

You can say that an x-group of specific people has a tendency to turn towards something, to say that an idea has this tendency is like saying that tomatoes has the tendency of landing on the same table as onions. It doesn't make any sense unless for your time and for your people it is normal to make a dish containing both tomatoes and onions.

[tbieter]

Why not address the question after reading the article:

“Why were so many prominent modernist writers and philosophers attracted to fascist or authoritarian regimes in the first half of the twentieth century?"

[Arising_uk]

Why not address the question after reading the article:

“Why were so many prominent modernist writers and philosophers attracted to fascist or authoritarian regimes in the first half of the twentieth century?"

They had better fashion sense, i.e. the uniforms were spiffier.

[Arising_uk]

old words, new world

Old words, same world.

[Arising_uk]

I go with this one. Anyways, it's meaningless to say that a name leads to a reality. You can speak of a group of people who uses that name as a symbol of their cause, but the name itself will only lead nowhere. ...

I understand what you say but a group that takes a name will lead it to somewhere.

There are communists who are anarchists, liberals who are facists and conservatives who are fundamentalists... it got nothing to do with the name, you must speak about people not names. ...

I can understand anarcho-communists - just, but liberal-fascists I doubt and fundamentalist can apply to most of the terms, what do you mean by it?

[John]

Why not address the question after reading the article:

“Why were so many prominent modernist writers and philosophers attracted to fascist or authoritarian regimes in the first half of the twentieth century?"

They had better fashion sense, i.e. the uniforms were spiffier.

Own up, you're really Bryan Ferry aren't you?

[John]

I can understand anarcho-communists - just, but liberal-fascists I doubt ...

Not making a specific claim regarding fascism but I've just recently (in the last week or so) been examining a case study on the breakup of Yugoslavia and what's interesting is that post-breakup Milošević's Serbia actually implemented the most liberal democratic constitution, based on the French republican model, of all the former states and yet it still lead to a bloodbath in Kosovo. If we look at the all of the conflicts in the region post-breakup there's a pretty toxic mixture of liberal democracy and nationalism that was used to justify ethnic cleansing.

I'd agree that "liberal-fascists" seems like a contradiction in terms but we shouldn't discount the possibility that under specific circumstances liberalism, particularly when it's mixed with nationalism, can lead to the sort of behaviour some might associate with fascism.

[The Voice of Time]

I go with this one. Anyways, it's meaningless to say that a name leads to a reality. You can speak of a group of people who uses that name as a symbol of their cause, but the name itself will only lead nowhere. ...

I understand what you say but a group that takes a name will lead it to somewhere.

There are communists who are anarchists, liberals who are facists and conservatives who are fundamentalists... it got nothing to do with the name, you must speak about people not names. ...

I can understand anarcho-communists - just, but liberal-fascists I doubt and fundamentalist can apply to most of the terms, what do you mean by it?

A group that takes a name will indeed take it somewhere, but the illusion that they represent the idea must not be allowed, and so the must not be allowed to take it somewhere else than its actual self. The soviet union was a "democracy". China is the "people's republic". However, these words are to us senseless, we who actually have a good chance of making a difference in our own country and world (at least I have since Norway is a small country and relatively easy to get elected). We who are (or can be and in my country we are the top of the world in this) organized among ourselves, we can make a difference. These people, with their democracy and people's rule, are using symbols because they can and not because they have genuine right in it. So to say that they take it somewhere is like saying a thug gets his way, because yes, when he carries a gun he usually does, but it's not right, and so it becomes a twist of what should've taken place and what under the rule righteousness takes place.

As for liberal-facists people think that liberalism just means all forms of *freedom* and that facism necessarily means strictness and stiffness. That's not true. Facism is the centralization of power and thought around a character, a person, and a mass-mobilization of the people for the causes of the personhood, and of course the authority is necessary. In a sense, you could say that Hitler was the facism of his country. I read the wiki-article but it's too historical, so no, eugenics and constant discipline is not mandatory. You could have a facist rule of hippies if you wanted to, the important part would be that the hippies all mobilized to fend off whatever the leader felt the need to dispose of, and that they believed in him as a personhood, a character, as a leader of them, and guarded his words like the words of an All-Mighty. I know it sounds weird, because such a thing has never existed as far as I know, but it very well can exist. Don't think Nazis never took a joint and relaxed or went fornicating at random, taking their own liberties. A country can be a big motherfucking lazy ass of a people who almost always do exactly what they want to and then in just a moment of a radio-speech they can all bring out their guns and rally to the cause and even butcher each and every one who disobeyed the words of the leader. Call it weak facism but it is what it is. About fundamentalist conservatives I was thinking more that, at least in Norway, conservatives are very liberal, and they usually want to go back to less rules and more power to the individual in terms of economy. And also they tend to have less stronger opinions about what should be and more relaxed about, yes, rules and stuff. That things should be more up to the individual. So fundamentalist conservatives in that sense would be less intuitive than perhaps fundamentalist communists or liberals.

Hope this answers what I meant

[Arising_uk]

Not making a specific claim regarding fascism but I've just recently (in the last week or so) been examining a case study on the breakup of Yugoslavia and what's interesting is that post-breakup Milošević's Serbia actually implemented the most liberal democratic constitution, based on the French republican model, of all the former states and yet it still lead to a bloodbath in Kosovo. If we look at the all of the conflicts in the region post-breakup there's a pretty toxic mixture of liberal democracy and nationalism that was used to justify ethnic cleansing.

I'd agree that "liberal-fascists" seems like a contradiction in terms but we shouldn't discount the possibility that under specific circumstances liberalism, particularly when it's mixed with nationalism, can lead to the sort of behaviour some might associate with fascism.

Point taken.

[Arising_uk]

A group that takes a name will indeed take it somewhere, but the illusion that they represent the idea must not be allowed, and so the must not be allowed to take it somewhere else than its actual self. ...

Its a fair point and I accept it. Although I have a slight issue with the idea that an idea can take itself anywhere by itself, as such it can only be those who do the implementing who represent the idea in the first place?

The soviet union was a "democracy". China is the "people's republic". ...

I thought the USSR a republic not a democracy? The same with China.

However, these words are to us senseless, we who actually have a good chance of making a difference in our own country and world (at least I have since Norway is a small country and relatively easy to get elected). We who are (or can be and in my country we are the top of the world in this) organized among ourselves, we can make a difference. These people, with their democracy and people's rule, are using symbols because they can and not because they have genuine right in it. So to say that they take it somewhere is like saying a thug gets his way, because yes, when he carries a gun he usually does, but it's not right, and so it becomes a twist of what should've taken place and what under the rule righteousness takes place. ...

Again a fair point. What will happen in Norway if the right-wing get organised and elected?

As for liberal-facists people think that liberalism just means all forms of *freedom* and that facism necessarily means strictness and stiffness. That's not true. Facism is the centralization of power and thought around a character, a person, and a mass-mobilization of the people for the causes of the personhood, and of course the authority is necessary. In a sense, you could say that Hitler was the facism of his country. I read the wiki-article but it's too historical, so no, eugenics and constant discipline is not mandatory. You could have a facist rule of hippies if you wanted to, the important part would be that the hippies all mobilized to fend off whatever the leader felt the need to dispose of, and that they believed in him as a personhood, a character, as a leader of them, and guarded his words like the words of an All-Mighty. I know it sounds weird, because such a thing has never existed as far as I know, but it very well can exist. Don't think Nazis never took a joint and relaxed or went fornicating at random, taking their own liberties. A country can be a big motherfucking lazy ass of a people who almost always do exactly what they want to and then in just a moment of a radio-speech they can all bring out their guns and rally to the cause and even butcher each and every one who disobeyed the words of the leader. Call it weak facism but it is what it is. ...

Another fair point but I never thought Liberalism was about licence, its more about tolerance and limiting govt interference as much as possible.

About fundamentalist conservatives I was thinking more that, at least in Norway, conservatives are very liberal, and they usually want to go back to less rules and more power to the individual in terms of economy. And also they tend to have less stronger opinions about what should be and more relaxed about, yes, rules and stuff. That things should be more up to the individual. So fundamentalist conservatives in that sense would be less intuitive than perhaps fundamentalist communists or liberals.

Then I'd just call them Liberal Conservatives with the idea being that they wish to conserve what works and liberalise what doesn't.

Norway sounds a great place. How are they coping with the shock of Brevik?

Hope this answers what I meant

Yes, thank you.