From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no>
Subject: Re: AUT: Fwd: [VT_THEORY] on empire and negri
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 18:38:37 +0200



----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowe Laclau" <lowelaclau-AT-hotmail.com>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: AUT: Fwd: [VT_THEORY] on empire and negri


<< The traditional definitions of fascism all presuppose
certain chance sociological developments at the molar
level (macro) that just kinda happen amongst people that
are somehow also just by chance "bad" or "evil" people....
all divided and homogenized in their historically fixed
german, spanish and italian fashions. >>

Is that really true? That is not my impression, although
it might fit some the most simplistic ones. I certainly
never thought of fascism in those "just kinda happens"
terms ( apart from tending to distinguish more clearly
between the nazism in Germany and the fascisms of
Italy),  while not finding "the fascism in us all" approach
very satisfying either. I have no particular need or
desire to go searching for the fascism in the writings
of Deleuze and Guattari. Although there is much there
I disagree with, I do not for a moment believe the
adequate term for it would be micro or molecular
fascism, even if that is what seem to follow from
a "fascism in us all" claim.
        It is in fact hard to see how fascism could exist
without a Führer. What you can talk about is certain
cultural, socio-economic, socio-psycological pre-
conditions ( in dynamic terms) for fascism to at all be
able to establish itself. But fascism does not exist
before the fact.

Harald









     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---