Posts tagged fascism
my-massivelyhopefulcollection:
notallmensheviks:
coffee-and-rainsticks:
feministism:
“Surely nothing could be worse than a lot of women dying,” she thinks. “Ah,” she says.
Far-Right Extremists Helped Create The World’s Most Powerful Facial Recognition Technology
source
What non-creepy, non-terrorism related reason is there for this to exist?
A professor who advocates for sex with robots and ran as a candidate for Fraser Anning’s far-right micro-party at the May election, has been awarded a Queen’s birthday honour. Adrian Cheok was made a member of the Order of Australia for “significant service to international education”. Cheok initially joined the Palmer United party but quit to join Fraser Anning’s Conservative National party after he was told to “dumb down” his policies.
via https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/11/fraser-anning-candidate-given-queens-birthday-honour
A reading list created by a group of Black, Brown, Indigenous, Muslim, and Jewish people who are writers, organizers, teachers, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists, and radicals.
via http://thenewinquiry.com/features/a-time-for-treason/
So these four points can be resumed: collectivism against private property, polymorphous worker against specialization, concrete universalism against closed identities, and free association against the state. It’s only a principle, it’s not a programme. But with this principle, we can judge all political programmes, decisions, parties, ideas, from the point of view of these four principles. Take a decision: is this decision in the direction of the four principles or not. The principles are the protocol of judgement concerning all decisions, ideas, propositions. If a decision, a proposition, is in the direction of the four principles, we can say it’s a good one, we can examine if it is possible and so on. If clearly it’s against the principles, it’s a bad decision, bad idea, bad programme. So we have a principle of judgement in the political field and in the construction of the new strategic project. That is in some sense the possibility to have a true vision of what is really in the new direction, the new strategic direction of humanity as such.
via http://mariborchan.si/video/alain-badiou/reflections-on-the-recent-election/
Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola. But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.
via http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
The Gini Coefficient, which can measure inequality in any set of numbers, has been in use for a century, but until recently it rarely left the halls of academia. Its one-number simplicity endeared it to political scientists and economists; its usual subject—economic inequality—made it popular with sociologists and policy makers. The Gini Coefficient has been the sort of workhorse metric that college freshmen learn about in survey courses and some PhD statisticians devote a lifetime to. It’s been so useful, so adaptable, that its strange history has survived only as a footnote: the coefficient was developed in 1912 by Corrado Gini, an Italian sociologist and statistician—who also wrote a paper called “The Scientific Basis of Fascism.”
http://www.psmag.com/magazines/january-february–2013/gini-coefficient-index-poverty-wealth-income-equality–51413/