John K. Taber wrote:
> I guess I'm influenced by Popper. I see fascism as the
> imposition of tribalism on a modern society. It doesn't
> fit, and the tribalism is mythic.
>
> The word is too vague, too many contradictory definitions,
> too much a curse word to be useful. Maybe we could be
> careful and avoid the word except as a curse word?
Fascism is precisely what we need to be talking about, and not necessarily because it is 'out there' but because democracy has historically defined itself in opposition to fascism. Fascism is, in effect, defined against democratic principles for structuring relations betwen owners and producers, between cultural groups and between the sexes. As far as I understand the idea, it is first and foremost an industrial economic mode of production (with a potential to be transformed into other media). But fascism is not only implicated in economic differences, but legal, ethical and psychic differences as well. If we begin with a dictum of democracy, 'the right to pursue happiness' (or was that private property) then it also includes the freedom to starve.The paradox is resolved in the fantasy life of citizens: consumption, amusement, wholeness (what was it Tyler Durden said to Jack: I say, never be complete. I say, stop being perfect. It is time to move on... let's evolve. Let the chips fall where they may). If, then, democracy depends on renunciation, the sacrifices made for living together (Marcuse used the term surplus repression), then it is worth thinking about the appeal of fascism within a democratic fantasy (I'm worried about the idea of an authoritarian personality... since the 'personality' is precisely what is liquidated via the 'end of internalization'). So, what does fascism promise that makes it appealing? I think Fight Club illustrates this pretty well: because fascism has something to do with the way the subject relates to fantasy by short-circuiting it. Fascism remains within the field of the very threat it promises to disable: castration. In other words, enjoyment is note something that one sacrifices through substitution, but something one participates in immediately. Psychically, fascism is 'enjoyment found.' In terms of economics, fascism mines and mimes patriarchal and feudal forms: an incorporation of all members of a productive unit into one structure. Produced goods are owned by patrons, loving shopkeepers (insert nostalgia, mythology here) who care for their workers: hence, an absolute resistance to any kind of unionization. There is more to be said about this. I simply think it is worth talking about because if democracy defines itself as 'not-fascist' then democracy comes to be dependent upon fascism for its own political trajectory - and anything that does not resemble 'us' democrats will inevitably be defined as fascist. Simultaneously, I'm in agreement with Zizek, who argues that we need to think a bit more about Stalinism, since 'democracy' today seems to be more Stalinistic than fascist (even though everybody else is a fascist).
Dialektik der Aufklarung, ken