- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,078
- Reaction score
- 17
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Montesano
- Website
- soundcloud.com
After following (and contributing) to several of the political off-topic threads here, I thought it might be both interesting and potentially educational to dedicate a thread to political language itself. At least in terms of finding common ground in which such a disparate international community can better understand each other.
We are symbol makers and manipulators of pure abstraction. Unfortunately, in many instances this has been reduced to an absurdist position that it really doesn't matter. But it does.
For English users the phrase, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me," is a cliche. But it is utter nonsense and minimalizes the power contained in the language we use. How often do people come to blows after the escallation of charged language attacks?
Back in 1946, George Orwell published an essay titled, "Politics and the English Language." For those unfamiliar with it, although in many ways dated, its two part thesis is still applicable today.
Orwell writes, "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." It doesn't take much reflection to see that very little has changed in the last 62 years. Terminology such as "uncorrelated targets," "liberation," and "fledgling democracies," do more to obscure reality than allow us to have informed positions.
The second part of his thesis is this: "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." In many ways, this is even more provocative and the basis for the direction I'm hoping this thread will go.
In other words, Orwell indicates that if we're not thinking about the words we use, then the words are doing the thinking for us. What's important then is the definitions we're using, as the definitions offer boundaries to contain meaning.
I, for one, would rather not be a meat puppet.
What I'm proposing here is to define, discuss, and debate the political models and philosophies themselves. What exactly is meant when someone invokes "democracy?" What is "socialism," and how is it different than "communism?"
And how have these definitions slipped and/or been appropriated to mean something entirely different?
To start it off, and to give you an idea of what I'm asking for, I'm going to give you one of the modern terms that annoys me to no end.
"Islamo-fascist."
This one bothers me because it's a conflation of terms, and a juxtaposition of two incompatable models. It also relies on people accepting that "fascism" is a bad thing without knowing what it is.
However, my annoyance is also because of the definition of "fascism" that I have chosen to embrace, and must conceed that there are many who don't find "corporatism" to have any connection to fascism.
Here's the definition I've been using as articulated in Wikipedia:
"Corporatism and fascism
Some critics equate too much corporate power and influence with fascism. Often they cite a quote claimed to be from Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
Several variations of the alleged quote exist. However no text written by Mussolini has yet been found with any variation of the alleged quote.[20]. Despite this, the alleged quote has entered into modern discourse, and it appears on thousands of web pages[21], and in books[22], and even an alternative media advertisement in the Washington Post.[23]. However, the alleged quote contradicts almost everything else written by Mussolini on the subject of the relationship between corporations and the Fascist State.[20].
In one 1935 English translation of what Mussolini wrote, the term "corporative state" is used,[13] but this has a different meaning from modern uses of the terms used to discuss business corporations. In that same translation, the phrase "national Corporate State of Fascism," refers to syndicalist corporatism. The dubious quote is sometimes claimed to more accurately summarize what Mussolini did and not what he said. However many scholars of fascism reject this claim.
There is a very old argument about who controlled whom in the fascist states of Italy and Germany at various points in the timeline of power. It is agreed that the army, the wealthy, and the big corporations ended up with much more say in decision making than other elements of the corporative state[24][25][26]. There was a power struggle between the fascist parties/leaders and the army, wealthy, and big corporations. It waxed and waned as to who had more power at any given time. Scholars have used the term "Mussolini's corporate state" in many different ways[27].
Franklin D. Roosevelt in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism:
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes
stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.[28][29][30]
From the same message:
The Growing Concentration of Economic Power. Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935: "Ownership of corporate assets: Of all corporations reporting from every part of the Nation, one-tenth of 1 percent of them owned 52 percent of the assets of all of them."[28][30]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_fascism/Redirect#Corporatism_and_fascism)
Ok, the rules here are simple. This is the domain of the Hegelian dialectic and the ideas are allowed to openly duke it out. However, this is a battle of ideas and there is no room for personal attacks. Personal attacks don't promote dialog or debate, but shut down communication altogether.
Edit:
Perhaps someone would like to tackle "Democracy?" It seems as an ideal, a system worth pursuing. But which form? Again, the term itself can be rather limiting if you think there's only one type.
Anyone?
We are symbol makers and manipulators of pure abstraction. Unfortunately, in many instances this has been reduced to an absurdist position that it really doesn't matter. But it does.
For English users the phrase, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me," is a cliche. But it is utter nonsense and minimalizes the power contained in the language we use. How often do people come to blows after the escallation of charged language attacks?
Back in 1946, George Orwell published an essay titled, "Politics and the English Language." For those unfamiliar with it, although in many ways dated, its two part thesis is still applicable today.
Orwell writes, "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." It doesn't take much reflection to see that very little has changed in the last 62 years. Terminology such as "uncorrelated targets," "liberation," and "fledgling democracies," do more to obscure reality than allow us to have informed positions.
The second part of his thesis is this: "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." In many ways, this is even more provocative and the basis for the direction I'm hoping this thread will go.
In other words, Orwell indicates that if we're not thinking about the words we use, then the words are doing the thinking for us. What's important then is the definitions we're using, as the definitions offer boundaries to contain meaning.
I, for one, would rather not be a meat puppet.
What I'm proposing here is to define, discuss, and debate the political models and philosophies themselves. What exactly is meant when someone invokes "democracy?" What is "socialism," and how is it different than "communism?"
And how have these definitions slipped and/or been appropriated to mean something entirely different?
To start it off, and to give you an idea of what I'm asking for, I'm going to give you one of the modern terms that annoys me to no end.
"Islamo-fascist."
This one bothers me because it's a conflation of terms, and a juxtaposition of two incompatable models. It also relies on people accepting that "fascism" is a bad thing without knowing what it is.
However, my annoyance is also because of the definition of "fascism" that I have chosen to embrace, and must conceed that there are many who don't find "corporatism" to have any connection to fascism.
Here's the definition I've been using as articulated in Wikipedia:
"Corporatism and fascism
Some critics equate too much corporate power and influence with fascism. Often they cite a quote claimed to be from Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
Several variations of the alleged quote exist. However no text written by Mussolini has yet been found with any variation of the alleged quote.[20]. Despite this, the alleged quote has entered into modern discourse, and it appears on thousands of web pages[21], and in books[22], and even an alternative media advertisement in the Washington Post.[23]. However, the alleged quote contradicts almost everything else written by Mussolini on the subject of the relationship between corporations and the Fascist State.[20].
In one 1935 English translation of what Mussolini wrote, the term "corporative state" is used,[13] but this has a different meaning from modern uses of the terms used to discuss business corporations. In that same translation, the phrase "national Corporate State of Fascism," refers to syndicalist corporatism. The dubious quote is sometimes claimed to more accurately summarize what Mussolini did and not what he said. However many scholars of fascism reject this claim.
There is a very old argument about who controlled whom in the fascist states of Italy and Germany at various points in the timeline of power. It is agreed that the army, the wealthy, and the big corporations ended up with much more say in decision making than other elements of the corporative state[24][25][26]. There was a power struggle between the fascist parties/leaders and the army, wealthy, and big corporations. It waxed and waned as to who had more power at any given time. Scholars have used the term "Mussolini's corporate state" in many different ways[27].
Franklin D. Roosevelt in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism:
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes
stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.[28][29][30]
From the same message:
The Growing Concentration of Economic Power. Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935: "Ownership of corporate assets: Of all corporations reporting from every part of the Nation, one-tenth of 1 percent of them owned 52 percent of the assets of all of them."[28][30]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_fascism/Redirect#Corporatism_and_fascism)
Ok, the rules here are simple. This is the domain of the Hegelian dialectic and the ideas are allowed to openly duke it out. However, this is a battle of ideas and there is no room for personal attacks. Personal attacks don't promote dialog or debate, but shut down communication altogether.
Edit:
Perhaps someone would like to tackle "Democracy?" It seems as an ideal, a system worth pursuing. But which form? Again, the term itself can be rather limiting if you think there's only one type.
Anyone?