From: dmwri1-AT-student.monash.edu.au
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:25:21 +1000
Subject: Who wields the fasces?


Saul counselled:
> dear gilligan
> Having just returned from the other Riech, I would suggest that you begin
> your quest by
>  seperating yourself from  the vernacuular use of the term fascist and
> adapting the more specific-- technical meaning. I suggest this  because
> Fascism is not merely represseive, it is repressive in very specific ways
> intended to achieve  very specific and programatic ends.  You must remember
> that fascism arose  as the inverse vision (version) of Marxist socialism.
> To know and understand it specificity would consitute the first step toward
> thinking  in terms of an antifascism that can not be turned in upon itself
> --  by the way Guy duBord and the siuationiste proposed the detournement as
> practice that was unusable to fascism, for the moment you are successful in
> turning something you also turn against it, such a practice which
> necessitates flexiblity and fluidity  leads to a situation that is unfixed,
> distablized and potentially results in either the co-optation of fascist
> positions or that you and your fascist both end up opposing your actions.
> SAUL
I feel myself muddied by my trip into vernacular land. Becoming-quest 
gilligan apologises for shoddy, for sloppy, for smelly. But does this 
not rather put you at odds with Ken's Ted Adorno, which if I read him 
aright, advises letting fascism be and getting on with the job of 
democratic theorising free from the constraints of complicity? 
I'm not too cut up if you don't like Ted, but I want to see how you 
want to define fascism in the *technical* sense.

And in a gratuitous open invitation to the whole wide list, I want to 
see who thinks not being a fascist is the most important 
methodological step to take.

Ha ha ha.

gilligan.