1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[Otto]

"But the unseemliness of an argument (...) does not necessarily make it
wrong."

Not that I had a problem with it, but I stumbled across & smiled about that
"sarcasm" (and it must be read as this) too. I really wonder if  "those who
remain . . ." would like to be called proto-fascists. Especially in the
light of what has happened in the USA concerning "homeland security" versus
"civil liberties" in the last two years.

One must not forget that this is an American author writing a foreword (a
text written after 9/11, under 'Code Orange') to a new edition of Orwell's
"1984" in 2003 and he is using the words "altering the landscape" (my
reading: from the WTC to Ground Zero) and "casualties among friends and
neighbours" (he's living in NYC ) in this quote which starts in the present
before returning to WWII near the end.

Pynchon is very precise in what Churchill's war cabinet could be compared to
fascist Germany & Italy, "censoring news, controlling wages and prices,
restricting travel, subordinating civil liberties to self-defined wartime
necessity." (ix-x) All this which is "standard" in a fascist country was
war-driven necessity in Britain (the alternative would have been nazi-rule
all over Europe), but the "self-defined" should alert us and I do believe
that Pynchon is warning not to believe every official statement & be
critical of measures imposed on us under the state of emergency.

If Pynchon's use of the term 'fascism' is muddy this is so because Orwell's
is too. I think one has to read the preceding and the following quote too to
get the picture. I get the impression that Pynchon says that Orwell feared
that a British socialism could go similar catastrophic ways as the German
(National-) and Russian (Stalinism) socialism(s) had gone. I have no problem
to distinguish between proto-, open and disguised fascism.

"'For somewhat complex reasons,' he wrote in March of 1948, early in the
revision of the first draft of 1984, 'nearly the whole of the English Left
has been driven to accept the Russian regime as 'Socialist,' while silently
recognizing that its spirit and practice are quite alien to anything that is
meant by 'Socialism' in this country. Hence there has arise a sort of
schizophrenic manner of thinking, in which words like 'democracy' can bear
two irreconcilable meanings, and such things as concentration camps and mass
deportations can be right and wrong simultaneously.' (pp. xi-xii)

Pynchon points out further that this absurd way of thinking is the basis for
Orwell's idea of  "doublethink, (...) a way to transcend opposites" (ibid)
and I think this is what interests Pynchon given his own massive use of
binary oppositions in his fiction.

Although I disagree to MalignD's post I'm grateful that he really gave me
something to think about. His last sentence is something one could really
argue about:

["with a war on one does best to shut up and support the troops (...) Hardly
a radical position"]

For me this is a radical position. Maybe I wouldn't go that far as Pynchon
to call it some kind of proto-fascism but there's a dangerous element for
every democracy in it.

Otto

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 10:40 AM
Subject: 1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"


> on 29/4/03 1:10 AM, Malignd quoted:
>
> > Now, those of fascistic disposition - or merely
> > those among us who remain all too ready to justify any
> > government action, whether right or wrong - will
> > immediately point out that this is prewar thinking,
> > and that the moment enemy bombs begin to fall on one's
> > homeland, altering the landscape and producing
> > casualties among friends and neighbors, all this sort
> > of thing, really, becomes irrelevant, if not indeed
> > subversive. With the homeland in danger, strong
> > leadership and effective measures become of the
> > essence, and if you want to call that fascism, very
> > well, call it whatever you please, no one is likely to
> > be listening, unless it's for the air raids to be over
> > and the all clear to sound.  But the unseemliness of
> > an argument - let alone a prophecy - in the heat of some
> > later emergency does not necessarily make it wrong.
> > One could certainly argue that Churchill's war cabinet
> > had behaved no differently than a fascist regime,
> > censoring news, controlling wages and prices,
> > restricting travel, subordinating civil liberties to
> > self-defined wartime necessity. (ix-x)
>
> I didn't have a problem with this. I get the impression that there is a
bit
> of sarcasm in the first sentence, and that Pynchon is implying that "those
> of fascistic disposition" and "those among us who remain all too ready to
> justify any government action, whether right or wrong" are more or less
the
> same cohort.
>
> In the second sentence, "all this sort of thing", though the immediate
> context is missing, would seem to refer to socio-political critique,
> opposition to government policy or ideology, Orwell's stance etc.
>
> The following sentence ("With the homeland in danger ... ") takes up the
> point of view of "those of fascistic disposition" or "those among us"
(which
> indeed seems potentially more inclusive of Pynchon himself) who "justify"
> government actions indiscriminately. This is putting into words what they
> "will ... point out."
>
> The following sentence ("But the unseemliness ... ") is offered as a
> refutation of the attitude expressed in the previous sentence, and is also
a
> justification for Orwell's satire of British socialism (i.e. Orwell's
> "argument") in the novel, which the final sentence reinforces.
>
> Two points: if unintentional ambiguities exist in something like this
> Foreword or the _SL_ 'Intro', then editorial sloppiness rather than
> sloppiness of thought or writing is to blame. With the conveniences of
> modern technology, how difficult or time-consuming would it be to flick it
> back to the writer with a request for clarification? I agree that the
> sentence in the _SL_ 'Intro' (p.12) is ambiguous, but from the context
there
> it's possible to get the general gist about the way racism has motivated
> American ideology, and the way that "racial differences", or disputes
> between different ethnic groups (both domestically and globally), are
> manipulated by the ruling elite. But I don't see any such ambiguity in
this
> passage from the 1984 Foreword, even absent the surrounding context.
>
> Secondly, Pynchon seems to throw the "fascist" label around with blithe
> abandon. This, to me, seems one of the major stumbling blocks to taking
his
> political commentaries seriously. I get the impression here that he's
> defining "fascism" (or "fascistic", if that's even a word) as the
political
> manifestation of nationalism, which in terms of the etymological
derivation
> of the term from the ancient Roman "fasces" (bundle of sticks tied
together
> with an axe head, symbolising the absolute authority of the higher
> magistrates) is fair enough I guess. But the problem is that contemporary
> associations of the term override this denotation, so that when we get to
> the specifics of it (as here, lumping the British Labour Party and Clement
> Attlee with the Third Reich and Stalin) it is bizarre. The term "fascism",
> as used by Pynchon, is almost meaningless a result.
>
> best
>
>
> > I have read the above a number of times and I find it
> > interesting and vexing; vexing primarily because of
> > lack of a sure context within the larger piece, but
> > also because of (what seems to be, anyway, given the
> > lack of context) a sloppiness of attribution or flow
> > on Pynchon's part.
> >
> > The first sentence enunciates what Pynchon feels would
> > be an argument from "those of fascistic disposition"
> > and perhaps less rabid government justifiers that
> > enemy bombs and casualties make "all this sort of
> > thing irrelevant, if not indeed subversive."
> >
> > I'm assuming this "sort of thing" is complaint against
> > those who hold with "any government action, whether
> > right or wrong."
> >
> > Translated: {Those of a fascistic disposition would
> > say that]people who complain about a too-controlling
> > government shut up right quick when their protection
> > is at stake.  So I read it, in any case.
> >
> > Here it becomes tricky.  The second sentence,
> > beginning "with the homeland in danger ..."  Is
> > Pynchon continuing to enunciate the fascistic
> > disposition?  If so, is he in agreement with it?  Or
> > is he speaking there in his own voice?  And, in either
> > case, is he not in (at least limited) agreement with
> > the position, that "strong leadership and effective
> > measures become of the essence"?
> >
> > The unseemly argument would seem to be, in P's opinion
> > (or P in agreement with the rhetorical fascist),
> > Orwell's calling the British government fascistic,
> > unseemly during time of war.  Further, Pynchon is
> > saying that such complaint that a government is acting
> > fascistically when there's a war on is "unseemly,"
> > even if true.  Unseemly (even if true!) to point out
> > that Churchill's war cabinet behaved no differently
> > than a fascist regime ..."
> >
> > Again, I'm hobbled by the lack of continuity and
> > context as well as questionable syntax.  But, is
> > Pynchon not saying here that, with a war on, one does
> > best to shut up and support the troops?
> >
> > Hardly a radical position, but one I should think not
> > in accord with attitudes readily assumed and
> > attributed to Pynchon by many on this board.