|
In each contextual epistemology exists the possibility for people to create binary-oppositional constructs. In other words, "rich" and "not rich," "poor" and "not poor." The most relevant of the binaries, however is "good," and "not good," -- the primary value assignment, which can be used to assign value (or lack thereof) to each half of all the other binaries.
When someone thinks in terms of binaries, and comes to equate one half of a binary with "good," in every case, this is called totalitarian thinking. A person who does this often, and with many binaries is said to have a "totalitarian mindset." An ideology exists when a group of binaries are cobbled together into a set.
The problem is, in each and pretty much every case, each half of a binary is subject to being labeled "good" or "not good." Perception and authority are responsible for institutionalizing binaries, making them "constructs," or something that a large population believes to be true, even though, fundamentally, the designation is arbitrary. Perception determines the individual's value assignments, which can be assigned through independent research, persuasion, indoctrination -- whatever is possible, and whatever one wants to call it. Authorities are those who have been given the power, whether through trust or force, to institutionalize constructs, or make them the "perceived norm."
When a person or group has an "ideology," they attempt to disseminate this ideology, or group of constructs to as many people as will suit their needs. In the case of consolidating power and money, there seems to be no upper limit on how many people are necessary.
Psychologists tell us that the human psyche is INCREDIBLY susceptible to binary thinking, or black-and-white thinking, or totalitarian thinking. There is a psychological condition, within the individual called "splitting and projecting." Meaning that when a person divides things into binaries, he or she will assign them a value binary. Depending on the cultural context, the person may try to do everything that he or she can to associate their personal identity with the halves of the binaries designated as "good." Often times, this is not possible, due to the nature of the individual -- some might say humanity of the individual -- or perhaps a biological proclivity or physical or psychological condition that makes it unlikely that that person might acheive, at all times, the "good" half of the binary. In many cases, the subject will "split and project," meaning that once the binaries are designated, the subject will recognize his or her own failings, and the feelings of greif, anger, powerlessness, biterness will be projected onto the "not good" half of the binary. When the subject encounters another person or perceived group of people (where it is most likley, because of dehumanization), the subject will scapegoat the individual or group, assigning not the condition, but the actual person or group, with a value.
This explains, for instance homophobia. In many cases, if someone has had same-sex desires that make them uncomfortable, or if they are latently homosexual, while, at the same time, assigning a "good" value judgment to heterosexuality, they may be more likely to be violent, discriminatory or hateful toward homosexuals.
Now, the authority, whether parental, religious or institutional/governmental that indoctrinated the individual with that particular set of binaries has had the power to shape the mindset of that individual. The ability to shape the mindset of large groups of people is KEY to consolidating power and resources and money, and motivating people to do whatever one wants.
If people are thought of in terms of aggregate, instead of in terms of individual, it is most necessary to work on the aggregate level. There are five primary institutions in the western world that have authority on the aggregate level: corporation, church, government, school (or intellectual, or educational institution) and media.
A person who wanted the power to disseminate constructs would seek to overtake each one of these institutions to get them all "in line," with the designated program.
Fascism is a totalitarian ideology that has traditionally been flagged with the following things: cultural or racial supremacism, sweeping narrative or magical thinking, obedience to authority, paternalism, order and hierarchy, conflated and colluding busines and governmental spheres, military force and dispensationalism.
The presence of the rich does not fascism make. Neither do epidemics of racism, hate crimes, homophobia, etc. As many posters have stated, in this thread, fascism changes faces. But the most defining characteristic of fascism is that a set of constructs are used to propagandize subjects, and then force is used to clean up either a) the people who cannot fit into the program or b) refuse to fit into the program. The goal, in the case of the Nazis, was to kill the offending groups. In the US, currently, it seems that the goal is to incarcerate the offending groups (which is how the Nazis started out) by broadening police and surveillance powers (hello, Patriot Act), and criminalizing more and more things. The things that are largely criminalized, if you will notice, are not just "crimes against others," but crimes that disrupt the cultural supremacism of the dominant group, which I would argue is the individual family home, at the peak of its possible consumption, adhering to Judeo-Christian constructs and being willing to completely support the cause.
The things that are criminalized are not just attempts to infringe on others' bodily and property rights, but things that may cause the individual not to complete the full indoctrination: pornography, drug use, euthanasia, homosexual relations or marriage -- and now even forming a group to discuss or protest is under assault. If you look really closely, you can see the effect of Republicans and their ideology. Consumerism is almost never criminalized, unless it conflicts with another interest, such as religious interest OR, in the case of the feds busting up storefronts in Florida, that helped seniors buy prescriptions, business interests. Work is almost never criminalized -- despite outcries from both the left and the right, illegal workers continue to flourish, in the US.
Labor force and consumers are the two key ingredients for concentrating wealth.
Anyway, this is all an aside -- what I mean to say, to answer your question -- is that fascism keeps coming back, because binary making, and value assignment is a cornerstone of the human psychological condition. Since I'm not an absolutist, I will not say that it is natural, or that there cannot be any other way -- there simply isn't, for the time being. Mass media makes it harder for critical thinking to flourish, encourages homogenization, and is an excellent tool for forwarding ideology.
In my opinion, one answer is to always be suspicious of authority, no matter how convincing, potentially useful, or altruistic that authority may seem. Any time a large number of people vest power in an institution, there is the possibility that that institution can be corrupted by those with a different ideology. Money makes it easier. But none of it will go away until both the left and the right abandon the idea of authority.
Remember the Suskind quote? There are THOUSANDS of hits, when you google "we're an empire now." People know that the phrase uttered by the Bush advisor is the most bare, candid look into the belly of the beast. It is MORE than fascinating that the GOP, which relies on absolutism in religion, culture and order to selling its program, know, as well, that there is no center. The neocons -- the smarties that they are (and they are smart) -- are truly postmodern rulers, for a truly postmodern age:
"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend – but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
