those of a fascistic disposition...

[pynchonoid]

--- Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> OK. If we can't retire fascism and fascist and
> socialism from our
> thinking and discourse can't we at discipline them
> and make them obey
> some set of carefully laid out rules?????????


B-but, that would be fascistic, wouldn't it?

This discussion about what "fascist" and "fascistic"
means seems to sidestep the fact that Pynchon explains
what he means with those terms in the Foreword:

After writing that "Churchill's war cabinet had
behaved no differently than a fascist regime" (and
note in passing the echo of "regime change" which has
been part of the general buzz ever since Bush started
talking about taking Hussein out) P identifies some
characteristics of a "fascist regime":  "censoring
news, controlling wages and prices, restricting
travel, subordinating civil liberties to self-defined
wartime necessity", on p. x.  (also in passing, three
of those four items are current US government policy).

In describing the "will to fascism" (p. xvi), P adds
"the corruption of spirit, the irresistible human
addiction to power".

On p. xvii P writes, "Big Brother's regime exhibits
all the elements of fascism--the single charismatic
dictator, the total control of behavior, the absolute
suborndination of the individual to the
collective--except for racial hostility, in
particular, anti-Semitism, which was such a prominent
feature of fascism as Orwell knew it".

This doesn't all add up to a definition as neat and
tidy as some essay-critics might like, but Pynchon has
in fact gone to some trouble to explain what he means
by "fascist" and "fascistic". 


=====
<http://www.pynchonoid.org/>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com