Pynchon and fascism

[Paul Mackin]

On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 13:48, Paul Nightingale wrote:
> Paul Mackin wrote:
> 
> "Did Orwell believe that political parties of the democracies were as
> fascistically minded in their way as Germany, Italy, and Spain? Pynchon
> seems to think Orwell was not far from such a position. Perhaps Pynchon
> is not far from agreeing with him. He doesn't really say but if he does
> agree is he correct in doing so?"
> 
> I think the danger is, the questions above presuppose that we know what
> fascism is. Perhaps we do, and perhaps we'll know it when we see it.
> Once again, I think it more productive, when discussing the Foreword, to
> consider how P writes about how we know what we (think we) know.

I fall off the wagon immediately  with your first sentence. Some
political scientist many years ago first invented the word fascist to
refer to something taking place in Italy (I guess). From there it just
took off. Fascism like every word has no fixed and stable "meaning." 
Of course like Voltaire said, one could define one's terms. Force
establish a meaning. Therefore, it's not a question of "knowing" what
fascism is, but deciding what it is. 

But no big deal. I will climb back aboard.
 
> 
> For example, in what I have called phase 2 (ix-xv) of the Foreword P
> mentions fascism several times. On each occasion I think he aims to
> challenge the reader to think about what the word means: meaning is
> elusive, context-bound, a matter of perception ... and not to be taken
> for granted. Just as Orwell's identity, and that of the novel, are
> elusive, so is that of the concept 'fascism'.


Pynchon might have the best of intentions but each time he uses the term
in a non-defined way he's running the danger of being part of the
problem and not the solution. That's assuming it IS a problem.  

> 
> This isn't an abstract exercise (although I've no doubt some will see it
> as that and no more). Political rhetoric is heavily dependent on the
> labelling of one's enemies. Such labelling only works if and when we
> don't think about it.

Yes, throwing loosely defined terms at your opponents IS a problem  We
shouldn't do it.I agree. 

> 
> Anyway, the references:
> 
> "... the difference between real and phony antifascism" (ix)
> specifically in Spain (but the distinction of course has a wider
> application than that). Commitment to a principle vs a pose.

Orwell learned the Soviets were every bit as brutal and undemocratic as
the Falangists. This translated in Orwell's mind to phony antifascism.


> 
> Hence O's view of the Official Left/Labour Party "as potentially, if not
> already, fascist" (ix) because it only pretended to fight against
> capitalist: "... professing" (ie political rhetoric) vs "in reality
> concerned only with ..." eg Parliamentary politics.


Orwell had several issues with the Labour Party.
1. Although they professed to be bettering the lot of the working class
by curbing the excesses of capitalism, in actuality they were overly
concerned with feathering their own nests and gaining higher economic
positions for themselves.
2.They were not sufficiently reluctant to give up normal civil liberties
in the name of winning the war.
3. They closed their eyes to the way the Soviet Union was departing from
the British idea of socialism.



> 
> In the first two references above, then, the pose adopted by phonies and
> Official Left masks a commitment to something other than socialism, the
> pursuit of power as an end in itself. Political activity that serves a
> goal (socialism) vs political activity that is/becomes its own goal
> (achieving power, then keeping it).

Orwell apparently believed that the goal of socialism could never be
furthered by merely gaining concessions from the Conservatives in the
area of curbs on capitalism's excesses if the politicians pushing for
these concession were not a little more selfless with regard to their
own private betterment. Or that socialism could never be furthered by
putting the best light possible on the Soviet experiment even if Soviet
socialism had departed so far from the idea of democratic socialism.


> 
> Time out ... and a story that features two Labour politicians of the
> time. Ernest Bevin (working-class, on the right of the Party) has
> clashed with Stafford Cripps (from an upper-class background, on the
> left). Cripps says: "You and I, Ernie, have one thing in common - we're
> both traitors to our class". 

Good story.

> 
> Then, "those of fascistic disposition" are juxtaposed to "merely those
> who remain all too ready to justify any government action" (ix). Hence
> the latter are not necessarily fascist, although their acquiescence will
> lead them to support/justify fascist measures, even if they don't
> recognise said measures as being fascist.

The noun becomes an adjective.  In Orwell's view the fascistically
disposed rate this appellation because they are not sufficiently
concerned about the long term dangers of taking away normal civil
liberties or freedom of movement in wartime, even though they certainly
didn't relish these loses the way Hitler and Mussolini no doubt did. 
> 
> Finally, Churchill's cabinet might act "no differently than a fascist
> regime" (x). Note that P does not say the cabinet was fascist, simply
> that its actions might, on occasion, be so described.

Churchill's wartime curtailments of freedom are beginning to look a lot
like what those two or three guys across the Channel are doing. 
Churchill may not be enjoying it as much however.

> 
> In the first two refs, P discusses the pursuit of power; in the latter
> two refs, the way power might be exercised. In the latter refs we can
> distinguish between the individual whose mindset is always 'fascist' as
> opposed to anything else (assuming such a person exists) and the fascist
> gesture or act that an individual (or govt) might choose (or which might
> be the result of their actions). Hence the discussion has moved from
> political activism per se to the relationship between govt and
> electorate.
> 
 It's safer to say P is discussing O's perceptions. Whether P agrees
fully or partially is at least in some doubt.