4 ms·
I don't like how the writer absolves the individual of any responsibility in perpetuating 'Moloch'. It's not the case that we live in > a dictatorless dystopia
by mxkopy 4y ago
I don't like how the writer absolves the individual of any responsibility in perpetuating 'Moloch'. It's not the case that we live in
> a dictatorless dystopia, one that every single citizen including the leadership hates but which nevertheless endures unconquered
- there are people who want the status quo to continue and unilaterally benefit from it.
IMO a better discussion of this sort of thing lies in the Anti-Oedipus. Its answer to "What does it?" is fascism. And not in a strict political sense, but in a more abstract psychological sort of sense.
Take for example an elderly person going to their grocery store, who sees one of the workers with their shirt unbuttoned. The elderly person promptly goes to the manager, who apologizes profusely and fires the worker on the spot. This is a sort of fascism that we are all capable of doing, and some make a living out of doing it. It's morality on a post-industrial scale. It's our tendency to think about "the way things are supposed to be", enforced by iron-clad rules.
Everyone should have a family.
Everyone should have a job.
Everyone should wear a uniform.
The penalties for not doing these things result in much of the strife Scott references (no uniform => no job, no job => homeless).
And it's not because we live in a system TM, but because some people actively perpetuate their own beliefs about how the world should work and dole out punishment accordingly. We all have a little fascist in us that tells us what should happen. Some people end up nurturing it more than others, and no one in a position of great power isn't listening to it. Moloch will be defeated when that stops being the case IMO
EDIT
This is from Foucault's intro to the Anti-Oedipus:
"Last but not least, the major enemy, the strategic adversary is fascism (whereas Anti-Oedipus' opposition to the others is more of a tactical engagement). And not only historical fascism, the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini—which was able to mobilize and use the desire of the masses so effectively—but also the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us."
- aeternum 4y ago[flagged]
- mxkopy 4y agoThat's kind of a contrived example. Having a uniform doesn't help you load groceries or stock shelves, but wearing a tinkerbell costume does in fact help you act like tinkerbell. It'd be more like if Disney required the actress to make certain movements or say certain phrases just because "that's how we remember the movies doing it". Fascism in the Anti-Oedipus has a very specific meaning so I implore you to read some of it before you criticize my use of the term.
- whythre 4y agoIf the term you are using deviates significantly from the common understanding, you might want to refrain from using it. Also that last bit amounts to ‘you can’t criticize me until you educate yourself on my idiosyncratic definitions,’ which seems both silly and unreasonable. You might just want to use a different word than fascism, anti-Oedipal or otherwise.
- mxkopy 4y agoIt's not that different though. 'Fasces' means 'a bundle of sticks bound tightly together', which signifies how the uniformity of a people can be made into a powerful instrument put into the hand of a single person. In the case I gave the customer demands uniformity from the workers. It's a sort of fascism but on the level of an individual's psyche rather than an entire nation.
- IX-103 4y agoSo call it micro-fascism?
- jamilton 4y agoThey said upfront that they were using it in a non-standard way, I think it's fine.
- skybrian 4y agoGetting fired from a job is bad and that seems like an unforgiving place to work. But equating it to becoming homeless and calling it fascist seems a bit much? There are other jobs out there. A similar argument is used by men who blame women for them being single. Getting dumped is no fun, but...
- mxkopy 4y agoYou can get fired for stealing from the company. You can get fired for attacking a customer. I'm not talking about those things, I'm talking specifically about getting fired because of someone's psychology, even - especially - if that psychology is of the customer. And again, fascism here means something close to but not the same as fascism in a political context. And from what I know, correct me if I'm wrong; usually if you don't have a job for some time you end up being homeless unless you have some support. Again I might be off the mark here.
- jahewson 4y agoFascism means… whatever you want it to mean?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- FumblingBear 4y agoThis isn't an instance of a random person arbitrarily deciding to define fascism in a way that doesn't expressly adhere to the concept of "historical fascism". Mxkopy is explicitly quoting Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia and adhering to the definition posited by Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari, and Michael Foucault. If you're unfamiliar with the work, I can understand the confusion, but he's clearly using the term appropriately given that context—not arbitrarily changing the definition to "mean... whatever you want it to mean".
- yterdy 4y agoI was just remarking the other day of the danger one particularly self-righteous man can present to many. There was the guy who advocated zealously against separating bike and car traffic, for years, resulting in untold numbers of dead cyclists. There was the guy who advocated zealously for work search reqs as a condition of receiving unemployment, robbing millions of the opportunity to reskill after being fired or laid off. There was the guy who flipped dozens of state houses by planting lies about his party's opponents. There was Richard Nixon and his waves hands vaguely. This kind of person doesn't even necessarily lead a movement or anything of that sort. He is simply loud, and single-minded, and shrewd about couching his disastrous visions in terms that the go-along-to-get-along majority find agreeable enough to outweigh the discomfort of confronting him.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- germinalphrase 4y agoTo derail the conversation further (since we’re caught up on the ‘definition of fascism’ but), Aldous Huxley notes the same Will to Subjugate and provided a physical/philosophical answer in The Island: if we all have, in varying doses, the will to subjugate others - we should require those for whom the desire is strongest to engage in activities that force the individual to command power over themselves. In the text, Huxley’s answer was rock climbing.