Meta-Thread On Fascism, The Essence Of Injustice Options

[Jonny Cache]

Resource Thread

I will use this thread to collect previous posts and relevant resources on Fascism and its kindred species of Polis State Kraft.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Jonny Cache]

Resource Page

Internal Resources

Selected Threads

• The Role of Group Identity Myths
• Wikipedia = Vandalism
• Mark Bernstein on Wikipedia Biographies
• Does The Wiki Medium Cause People To Be Fascists?
• Archy Comix : Hiero, Mono, Oligo, Pluto
• Lords & Flies : Totalitarian Futilism
• Here's Where It All Went Wrong
• Yes, Virginia, There Really Are Nazis

• • •

Selected Posts

• Fasces 1
• Fasces 2
• Merriam-Webster Definition
• Paxton, Anatomy of Fascism
• Somey, Summa Contra Fasciles
• Jonny Cache, Arms And The Bot

• • •

External Resources

Articles

• Barney, Rachel, "Callicles and Thrasymachus", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
• Holmes, Stephen, "Introduction" to Thomas Hobbes, Behemoth, or The Long Parliament, Ferdinand Tönnies (ed.), Stephen Holmes (intro.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1990.
• Lendering, Jona, "Fasces", Livius : Articles On Ancient History.

• • •

Books

• Arendt, Hannah (1951/2004), The Origins of Totalitarianism, Original edition, Harcourt, Orlando, FL, 1951. New Prefaces, 1967. New Introduction by Samantha Power, Schocken Books, New York, NY, 2004.
• Argyris, Chris (1992), On Organizational Learning, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.
• Freire, Paulo (1969/1973), Education for Critical Consciousness, Continuum, New York, NY, 1973. Original edition, Educacão como prática da Liberdade, Editoria Paz e Terra, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1969.
• Fromm, Eric (1941), Escape from Freedom, ISBN 0805031499.
• Hobbes, Thomas, Behemoth, or The Long Parliament, Ferdinand Tönnies (ed.), Stephen Holmes (intro.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1990.
• Sorrentino, Richard M., and Roney, Christopher J.R. (2000), The Uncertain Mind : Individual Differences in Facing the Unknown, Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA.

• • •

Web Works

• FascesBook

• • •

Sorting Shelf

* Weber, Max (1925/1993), ''Basic Concepts in Sociology'', H.P. Secher (trans.), Citadel Press, New York, NY, 1993. First published as Chapter 1 of ''Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft'' (''Economics and Society''), J.C.B. Mohr Verlag, Tübingen, Germany, 1925.

* Weber, Max (1930/1992), ''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'', Talcott Parsons (trans.), Anthony Giddens (intro.), Harper Collins, 1930. Reprinted, Routledge, London, UK, 1992. First published in the ''Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik'', 1904–1905. Translated from the revised version in Weber's ''Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie'' (''Collected Essays on the Sociology of Religion''), 1920–1921.

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Saltimbanco]

Jonny, how about a bare-bones definition of "fascism?"

Merriam Webster online gives "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

I don't really like this definition, mostly because it points toward dictatorship. Ancient Sparta is the model for all fascism (and Plato's "Republic"), and its leaders were relatively weak. Sparta had a dual king-ship and a senate, and its highest authority was in fact the laws of Lycurgus.

The essential aspect of fascism, I think, is that it holds the rights of the state to be primary and superior to the rights of individuals. In this sense, it would be reasonable for a project like Wikipedia to be fascistic: it should judge actions based on whether or not they serve the purpose of the project, rather than whether or not they are fair to the individuals involved. If Wikipedia has a problem with fascistic tendencies, it can only be because the legitimate concerns of the project are not accurately reflected in the enforcement of order, and never because the enforcement of order is excessive.

[Jonny Cache]

Jonny, how about a bare-bones definition of "fascism?"

Merriam Webster online gives "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

I don't really like this definition, mostly because it points toward dictatorship. Ancient Sparta is the model for all fascism (and Plato's "Republic"), and its leaders were relatively weak. Sparta had a dual king-ship and a senate, and its highest authority was in fact the laws of Lycurgus.

The essential aspect of fascism, I think, is that it holds the rights of the state to be primary and superior to the rights of individuals. In this sense, it would be reasonable for a project like Wikipedia to be fascistic: it should judge actions based on whether or not they serve the purpose of the project, rather than whether or not they are fair to the individuals involved. If Wikipedia has a problem with fascistic tendencies, it can only be because the legitimate concerns of the project are not accurately reflected in the enforcement of order, and never because the enforcement of order is excessive.

Thanks for enriching the context of understanding.

For my part — as I tend to value archetypes, etymologies, kennings, and sigilla as much as I do definitions — the symbol of the fasces says it all.

Some of the links above lead us to reminders that the Founders of the US Republic adopted the fasces as an emblematic analogue of the motto E Pluribus Unum. The symbol itself is neutral — only its interpretation in action can turn out bad or good.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[AB]

The essential aspect of fascism, I think, is that it holds the rights of the state to be primary and superior to the rights of individuals. In this sense, it would be reasonable for a project like Wikipedia to be fascistic: it should judge actions based on whether or not they serve the purpose of the project, rather than whether or not they are fair to the individuals involved. If Wikipedia has a problem with fascistic tendencies, it can only be because the legitimate concerns of the project are not accurately reflected in the enforcement of order, and never because the enforcement of order is excessive.

So if WP defames someone for the good of the project,
that's okay? If a WP member threatens a WR member
with physical violence for the good of the project, that's
okay?

Charities should be about helping people. Putting some
random website claiming to be a charity ahead of ethics
displays a complete and utter lack of morality. Attitudes
like that seriously make me feel nauseas, and sometimes
throw up.

This post has been edited by AB:

[Amarkov]

The essential aspect of fascism, I think, is that it holds the rights of the state to be primary and superior to the rights of individuals. In this sense, it would be reasonable for a project like Wikipedia to be fascistic: it should judge actions based on whether or not they serve the purpose of the project, rather than whether or not they are fair to the individuals involved. If Wikipedia has a problem with fascistic tendencies, it can only be because the legitimate concerns of the project are not accurately reflected in the enforcement of order, and never because the enforcement of order is excessive.

By what reasonable theory does Wikipedia have a right to subjugate the well-being of individuals to the good of the Project?

[Jonny Cache]

By what reasonable theory does Wikipedia have a right to subjugate the well-being of individuals to the good of the Project?

I think that your diagnosis of the disease is a bit off — it may be that you are trying to examine the virus from the wrong end of the microscope.

Try turning it around and looking at it this way:

By what reasonable theory does a Small Number Of Individuals have a right to subjugate the well-being of Wikipedia to their own peculiar notion of the Good Of The Project?

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[AB]

By what reasonable theory does a Small Number Of Individuals have a right to subjugate the well-being of Wikipedia to their own peculiar notion of the Good Of The Project?

Jon Awbrey

The well-being of WP?

If I even dignified the argument that threatening violence
for the Good Of The Project with the counterargument
that it wasn't good for WP, I'd already be implying that
what made threatening violence wrong is that it hurt WP,
which is all wrong.

I don't give a damn whether it hurts or helps WP.
Threatening violence against someone for no better cause
than that said person has been annoying to some people
is evil.

[Amarkov]

Wikipedia is not a human being. I have no moral issue with powerful people on Wikipedia destroying the project, because I care about the well-being of Wikipedia as much as I care about the well-being of a rock. All that I care about is that the group in power on Wikipedia (I choose to use the convention for countries and call them simply "Wikipedia"; you may do whatever you like) is causing harm to other human beings.

[Nathan]

So if WP defames someone for the good of the project,
that's okay? If a WP member threatens a WR member
with physical violence for the good of the project, that's
okay?

There is never any justification to threaten someone with violence (except in the case of self-defense, I wouldn't threaten, I'd just do it) but I see where you're going with this and I agree with you.

[Jonny Cache]

By what reasonable theory does a Small Number Of Individuals have a right to subjugate the well-being of Wikipedia to their own peculiar notion of the Good Of The Project?

Jon Awbrey

The well-being of WP?

Y'know, it took me 5 or 6 rewrites to arrive at that 1-liner, 'cause I saw the potential for diss-interpretation, but I finally decided to go with the Brevity Is The Soul Of Wit (BITSOW) theory and maintain the parallel phrase structure with the sentence being transformed.

So much for BITSOW — I won't let it happen again.

In this case, "Wikipedia" means the espoused goal of writing a high quality encyclopedia, not the enacted goal of maintaining an Ediot Immune System.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[AB]

So if WP defames someone for the good of the project,
that's okay? If a WP member threatens a WR member
with physical violence for the good of the project, that's
okay?

There is never any justification to threaten someone with violence (except in the case of self-defense, I wouldn't threaten, I'd just do it) but I see where you're going with this and I agree with you.

Well, not just self-defence, but defence in general. You can
morally defend other innocents, not just yourself. (And by
'innocent', I don't mean someone who has done nothing
wrong, but rather, I mean someone who has not threatened
or used violence against innocents.)

But anyway, threatening violence for the good of the project
is a particularly morally grotesque reason for threatening
violence. I mean, threatening someone with violence because
they are in debt to you is morally wrong, but at least in that
case the person did wrong you in some tangible way. But for
the good of the project? Putting supposed encyclopaedias
ahead of human beings offends my very bones.

By what reasonable theory does a Small Number Of Individuals have a right to subjugate the well-being of Wikipedia to their own peculiar notion of the Good Of The Project?

Jon Awbrey

The well-being of WP?

Y'know, it took me 5 or 6 rewrites to arrive at that 1-liner, 'cause I saw the potential for diss-interpretation, but I finally decided to go with the Brevity Is The Soul Of Wit (BITSOW) theory and maintain the parallel phrase structure with the sentence being transformed.

So much for BITSOW — I won't let it happen again.

In this case, "Wikipedia" means the espoused goal of writing a high quality encyclopedia, not the enacted goal of maintaining an Ediot Immune System.

Jon Awbrey

Even supposing defaming someone or threatening violence
did help one write a high quality encyclopaedia, these things
would still be wrong. And if defaming people and threatening
violence hinders one from writing a high quality encyclopaedia,
the fact that these things hinder one are not why they are
wrong.

Wikipedia is not a human being. I have no moral issue with powerful people on Wikipedia destroying the project, because I care about the well-being of Wikipedia as much as I care about the well-being of a rock. All that I care about is that the group in power on Wikipedia (I choose to use the convention for countries and call them simply "Wikipedia"; you may do whatever you like) is causing harm to other human beings.

Well-stated.

{{{Amarkov}}}


This post has been edited by AB:

[Jonny Cache]

AB,

Can you tell me what made you think of physical violence in connection with the topic of this thread?

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[AB]

AB,

Can you tell me what made you think of physical violence in connection with the topic of this thread?

Jonny B)

Fascism can sometimes involve physical violence / threats of
physical violence. Physical violence / threats of physical
violence are typically unjust, excluding specific circumstances
discussed by Nathan and I.

And then there was Saltimbanco thinking that the good of
'The Project' should come before the good of individual human
beings. The same argument, taken to extremes, could be
used to justify threats of physical violence.


This post has been edited by AB:

[Jonny Cache]

AB,

Can you tell me what made you think of physical violence in connection with the topic of this thread?

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Fascism can sometimes involve physical violence / threats of physical violence. Physical violence / threats of physical violence are typically unjust, excluding specific circumstances discussed by Nathan and I.

And then there was Saltimbanco thinking that the good of 'The Project' should come before the good of individual human beings. The same argument, taken to extremes, could be used to justify threats of physical violence.

Okay, that makes sense.

But I doubt if Saltimbanco was advocating physical violence, or even ethical violence, on behalf of any publication project, no matter how noble. Most likely he/she was simply reminding us of the "Not For Thy Own Self" aspects of any collective project.

But you are Wise to remember that Programmes Of Violence to Words and Images often Pre-Seed Programmes Of Violence via the media of Sticks & Stones, as the saying goes.

Which reminds me, did you see Freedom Writers?

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[AB]

But I doubt if Saltimbanco was advocating physical violence, or even ethical violence, on behalf of any publication project, no matter how noble. Most likely he/she was simply reminding us of the "Not For Thy Own Self" aspects of any collective project.

Indeed, what Saltimbanco said and what Saltimbanco meant
may not be the same. There are many people who have
philosophies that even they do not believe apply in all
circumstances.

However, there are circumstances where individuals should
absolutely, without doubt, come ahead of 'The Project'.
Defamation and threats of physical violence are examples.
And, once you've made exceptions for those, aren't you
saying that individuals are indeed more important than 'The
Project'? If 'The Project' claims to be a charity, isn't it
supposed to be about helping people, not hurting people?

Besides, I'm really flaming AW, not Saltimbanco.

But you are Wise to remember that Programmes Of Violence to Words and Images often Pre-Seed Programmes Of Violence via the media of Sticks & Stones, as the saying goes.

Nothing stopping anyone from doing both at the same time,
for example, threatening violence if material is not censored.

Which reminds me, did you see Freedom Writers?

Jonny B)

No, I don't watch films that often.

[Saltimbanco]

Oh, sweet Jesus.

Wikipedia is a project. It is not the government. Aside from the matter of individual articles defaming people (something that any media that carries information on people has the potential to do), everyone is free to avoid the damn thing.

By way of illustration, let's consider a fascistic organization that most of us are familiar with: the corporation. Corporations are extremely fascistic. If you belong to (i.e., are an employee of) a corporation, you have (at least under US law) essentially zero rights with regard to the corporation. About the only right you have is not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age. Beyond that, if the control apparatus of the corporation does not find that you contribute to its mission, you're out.

And shouldn't Wikipedia be this way? If we believed that Wikipedia's control apparatus accurately promoted the quality of the encyclopedia (it doesn't, but play along with me for a moment ...), then should it have any qualms about not being "fair" to particular editors whom it finds not to contribute?

This is not to say that Wikipedia's workings should not be subject to law. Wikipedia cannot kill someone for the good of the project. But it can, and it should be able to, deny all access to someone, just as any private corporation can fire an employee and bar him from its property.

[Moulton]

Truth In Advertising

Then let the welcome mat say that WP is a fascistic oligarchy, rather than an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

[Amarkov]

Oh, sweet Jesus.

Wikipedia is a project. It is not the government. Aside from the matter of individual articles defaming people (something that any media that carries information on people has the potential to do), everyone is free to avoid the damn thing.

By way of illustration, let's consider a fascistic organization that most of us are familiar with: the corporation. Corporations are extremely fascistic. If you belong to (i.e., are an employee of) a corporation, you have (at least under US law) essentially zero rights with regard to the corporation. About the only right you have is not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age. Beyond that, if the control apparatus of the corporation does not find that you contribute to its mission, you're out.

And shouldn't Wikipedia be this way? If we believed that Wikipedia's control apparatus accurately promoted the quality of the encyclopedia (it doesn't, but play along with me for a moment ...), then should it have any qualms about not being "fair" to particular editors whom it finds not to contribute?

This is not to say that Wikipedia's workings should not be subject to law. Wikipedia cannot kill someone for the good of the project. But it can, and it should be able to, deny all access to someone, just as any private corporation can fire an employee and bar him from its property.

It's not an issue of legality. Legally, Wikipedia can of course block anyone deemed to not be productive. But, especially considering all their professed values of freedom and openness, they are not morally justified in doing so without a good reason.

[AB]

This is not to say that Wikipedia's workings should not be subject to law. Wikipedia cannot kill someone for the good of the project. But it can, and it should be able to, deny all access to someone, just as any private corporation can fire an employee and bar him from its property.

If denying access was all they did to people, it wouldn't be a problem.

However, they have threatened physical violence. They have defamed
people, on top of Google. They have dragged people's names through
the dirt on top of Google and prohibited them from responding. They
have violated people's privacy.

Additionally, I've never heard of anyone getting fired after they have
already quit. WP bans people all the time after they have already left.