![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyI hear that a phrase coming into common parlance is a shift in the meaning of the word ‘rape’. Thus students coming out of a difficult exam might claim that they were ‘totally raped!’, or if beer is too expensive they might claim that they were ‘completely raped’ at the bar.
Language does this, but it’s interesting to watch how completely inappropriate but highly emotive terms are co-opted by people trying to make a point. What, of course, also happens is that the emotional impact of the word used is lessened by it’s use in inappropriate circumstances, thus making it less likely that people will take it so seriously in future - even when used in the correct context. A good example of this would the slanging wars of the 80’s, with Margaret Thatcher being called ‘Fascist!’ in the street, and Kinnock getting ‘Commie!’ from the other side of the fence. Of course, neither were deserving of these epithets, and the efforts of their opponents to tar them with a morally repugnant brush simply resulted in the words used having less emotional force in appropriate circumstances.
Now an accusation that’s been levelled at Dave Williams recently is “McCarthyism”, for his idea of linking up Livejournals whose contents he objects to. Naturally, what he’s doing isn’t McCarthyite at all, and the use of the word (which in itself displays a depressing ignorance of the actually history of the era) is simply an attempt by his opponents to paint him & his actions as blackly as possible.
It’s sad that this should be the case. McCarthyism destroyed the lives of hundreds of innocent people, demonstrably drove several dozen into suicide and remains a scar on the American conscience to this day. Dave Williams is setting up a public domain website. To link the two is not to blacken him, but to weaken the emotional impact of a sad period of history and to dishonour the names of those people who died or were ruined by the actions of Senator McCarthy.
If you disagree with Daves actions (which I do) then you achieve nothing by making baseless and inaccurate accusations, saving reducing by a little more the emotional power of a word that could be better used to describe other more pressing and damaging social ills. Rather you should develop a well reasoned and well-written argument to press your beliefs, then resort to throwing about the worst names you can think of as an alternative to effort or thought.
Language does this, but it’s interesting to watch how completely inappropriate but highly emotive terms are co-opted by people trying to make a point. What, of course, also happens is that the emotional impact of the word used is lessened by it’s use in inappropriate circumstances, thus making it less likely that people will take it so seriously in future - even when used in the correct context. A good example of this would the slanging wars of the 80’s, with Margaret Thatcher being called ‘Fascist!’ in the street, and Kinnock getting ‘Commie!’ from the other side of the fence. Of course, neither were deserving of these epithets, and the efforts of their opponents to tar them with a morally repugnant brush simply resulted in the words used having less emotional force in appropriate circumstances.
Now an accusation that’s been levelled at Dave Williams recently is “McCarthyism”, for his idea of linking up Livejournals whose contents he objects to. Naturally, what he’s doing isn’t McCarthyite at all, and the use of the word (which in itself displays a depressing ignorance of the actually history of the era) is simply an attempt by his opponents to paint him & his actions as blackly as possible.
It’s sad that this should be the case. McCarthyism destroyed the lives of hundreds of innocent people, demonstrably drove several dozen into suicide and remains a scar on the American conscience to this day. Dave Williams is setting up a public domain website. To link the two is not to blacken him, but to weaken the emotional impact of a sad period of history and to dishonour the names of those people who died or were ruined by the actions of Senator McCarthy.
If you disagree with Daves actions (which I do) then you achieve nothing by making baseless and inaccurate accusations, saving reducing by a little more the emotional power of a word that could be better used to describe other more pressing and damaging social ills. Rather you should develop a well reasoned and well-written argument to press your beliefs, then resort to throwing about the worst names you can think of as an alternative to effort or thought.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 05:23 am (UTC)Basically because I agree with many communist/socialist principals (not in its Stalinist etc. manifestations) and by contrast find facism and its standpoint 'repugnant' - I could barely speak after I came of of the spanish civil war exhibition for being so angry.
Is that a well-reasoned answer, probably not, but I should really be working atm.
Oh yes, and many members of my family were card-carrying members of the party and to a man and woman they are/were some of the best human beings out. So familial loyalty comes into it too I suppose.
Michael
Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 11:28 am (UTC)Communism believes in the fundamental good of human nature and that freed from the sociological effects of grubbing for food and (in some cases) the directives of religion we're basically all good chaps with each others best interests at heart working together for the betterment of the community/species as a whole.
What a lovely positive thing.
Fascism believes in human weakness and believes that only the exceptional are suited to lead (be that by race, adherence to fascist thought or something else.
In practice Fascist thinkers latch onto communist popularity to raise themselves to power as well as exploiting problems in democratic or other sytems and economies to present their ideas.
Communism is therefore preferable because it has a much more positive view of human nature and tries to produce the best from everyone, while expecting the same.
And as to Thatcher being Fascist...
Well.. to quote Planetary because this popped into my head the moment I saw this post...
"Jack always said it was difficult for us Americans to understand what it was really like here in the darkest parts of the eighties. We had a doddery old President who talked about the end of the world a little too often and was being run by the wrong people. But they had a Prime Minister who was genuinely mad.
You know there were even feminists and women's studies theorists who denied she was even really a woman anymore, she was so far out of her tree?
She wanted concentration camps for AIDs victims, wanted to eradicate homosexuality even as an abstract concept, made poor people choose between eating and keeping their vote, ran the most shameless vote-grabbing artificial war scam in fifty years... England was a scary place. No wonder it produced a scary culture."
Adolf was pretty much voted in remembe, so was Hitler. The adoration that people had/have for Hitler is reflected in the similar thoughtless praise given to Thatcher which flies in the face of all the authoritarian bitch did.
She was an elected dictator effectively, Blair has been similar in a lot of regards, the only reason he isn't so fantastically popular is because he's PM in a time of economic downslide rather than climb.
The way she 'dealt' with the miner's strike is enough evidence all on it's own.
Mrs T is one figure you can't demonise enough, even as a mad old deranged battleaxe she still scares the bejaysis out of me.
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 01:52 pm (UTC)thank you grim, that'd be the well-reasoned answer as opposed to my lunch-time quick knee-jerk answer
and on the whole thatcher-reference thing, have you ever read a one-off comic called "St. Swithin's Day" ?
if not, I'll try and get my copy down from glasgow, I reckon you'd like it : )
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 04:08 pm (UTC)I mean look at her record Falklands quick war to get votes and popularity wave the british flag and all that...
Toxteth (sp?) riots and other such things changes done? no stuff for locals done? no what do they get a crappy park that is now full of drug dealers and muggers...
Miners strike... destroyed the unions in this country yeah unions were pushing their luck a bit but for christs sakes that reaction??
I could go on forever with her crap but won't you know it all as well as me.
By your definition she probably does almost count as fascist but I'm not quite sure on that - if some of her views had been put into practice more though I reckon she could be classed this way (I'm speaking as to her actions as PM rather than her as a person).
Strangely enough though we did have her to "thank" for the rise to political knowness of green policies (mainly due to britain looking good for emissions due to switch from coal to gas) and the ERM and our first attempt at the euro..
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 06:05 pm (UTC)Communism believes in the fundamental good of human nature and that freed from the sociological effects of grubbing for food and (in some cases) the directives of religion we're basically all good chaps with each others best interests at heart working together for the betterment of the community/species as a whole.
What a lovely positive thing.
[Liam]
I'm not so sure.
I thought, Communism which was based on Karl Marx's theories, believed in everyone being equal.
[GRIM]
Fascism believes in human weakness and believes that only the exceptional are suited to lead (be that by race, adherence to fascist thought or something else.
[Liam]
Is Fascism not a political stance based on national pride and one leader. In Hitler's case, it was him being chosen by God to lead Germany to providence with a racially pure nation.
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 06:12 pm (UTC)not sure my head is screwed on right at 2am to do it.
Fascism isn't necessarily based on national pride, that's just the impression given by the samples of overtly fascist states we have, same as 'communist' states give a wrong impression of communism.
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 06:47 pm (UTC)He wasn't exceptionally bright, not exceptionally physically fit. Yet because he waited until Hjalmar Schact had finally annoyed Hitler to the extent of removing him from the position of Minister for Economics, he got to lead Germany. He got to lead them economically. Allbeit shoddily and to the detriment of the jewish people without even getting into the Nazi beliefs. Which everyone knows they stole and no one EVER brings that up.
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 06:50 pm (UTC)Fascism (and other rule based on elites) rewards croneyism to a very large extent allowing incompetents to hold positions because they do not harbour ambitions.
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 06:58 pm (UTC)Surely that's also true of Communism?
Stalin would replace commanders on the Battle fields if they told him something he didn't like. Or if they hadn't beaten the Germans back. If I remember my history correctly.
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 07:13 pm (UTC)Stalin wasn't a communist.
In fact, there is little functional difference between post-revolution Communism and fascism.
Stalin basically wrecked any chance of a workers utopia because of greed and paranoia.
Stalin WASN'T a communist
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 07:42 pm (UTC)Stalin wasn't a communist. Yes. That much is true.
However he is the people's view of the communist; other than Marx and Mao Tse Tsung.
I'm thinking of adding Lenin to the list but he was a Bolshevik, right?