I think we've discussed this before, but perhaps only off list.In fact we have!
I choose sabres, ceasing at first blood, It will be gentlemanly if you would leave my remaining good eye intact... I was trained in the foil, but it does not leave as dramatic of a mark for later tales.Now's my chance to throw down the gauntlet publicly. ;-)
I don't think you're using the word "fascist" properly at all, here.
[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
All that too, but the element that I key on for referring to something as Fascistic is when the *controlling element* operates from a sense of tautological entitlement to exist, to control, and often to grow in extent and control. I am in charge *because* I am right, I am right because I am in charge. Next! (scenes from Gilliam's Brazil?)I admit that _an_ essence of fascism is control. And perhaps that's all you mean... a kind of limited degrees of freedom due to an ensnaring web of byzantine rules. Toss in a good amount of shaming, political correctness, hate speech constraints, etc. and I can see how the environment you describe could be called tightly controlled.
Said the PoMo Deconstructionist.But I don't think that's what most people mean by the word "fascist". Although I can also admit that most of the people who _currently_ shout "fascism" at the drop of a hat may well mean that. So, perhaps the word is newly defined (evolved) and you're using the new definition?
There is a uniform (volvo, grateful dead, birkenstock, etc.), there is a *small but not singular* group who act autocratically through the mechanism of a faux-democracy and as we know, there is *always* an armed police force nearby, backed up by paramilitary SWAT... is regular "booting" of vehicles vs ticketing "physical force"?Traditionally (from the dictionary and other sources) I think fascism requires: o a fetish for the military, including paramilitary, and war/battle/fighting, o some sort of dictator/autocrat, and o reliance on physical force, not merely verbal or psychological coercion.
My point, apparently, is that even the most "well intentioned" can end up using the tactics that they resented in their beginnings. Or the lessons of negative attachment where you become your enemy or that which you abhor. The uniforms and fetishes have changed, the appeal to the "common man" has changed (from near homeless/students to now upper-middle class yuppie), the style of physical force has changed, but ...I don't know Berkeley at all. I do vaguely remember some news coverage during the Occupy noise about a mayor of Berkeley tending towards more use of police (dressed in very military looking gear). So, it would be easy for you to convince me that Berkeley has _become_ more fascist over the years. But it wouldn't be in correlation with uber-liberalism. It would (I think) correlate more with traditionally fascist aspects.
I have no idea what you are talking about <grin>.I can tell that I've miscommunicated significantly in this (and this thread only?) thread...Bah! Cheers to miscommunication! One of my favorite aphorisms is "The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists."
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |