Fascism for Dummies

“A useful take on a misused word”

Well that source is definitely not a well-respected political science journal! I question its usefulness.

And the examples they give definitely show that there definitely is some kind of family resemblance between what Trump is doing and all-out fascism, even if you don’t want to call it that.

And this one from the same commentator.. I’d probably say what this one first:

First time I’ve heard anything from Vlad Vexler, had a listen through the second video linked and I have got to say I am very unimpressed. He makes a series of unsupported suppositions and then presents them as logical argument and fact.

A quick example, he states from 4.08 onward, that ideologies are “a collection of beliefs and images which sit in us and facilitate the negotiation of the political landscape“, this is not support by any definition of ideology and is a very questionable definition, for instance he mentions beliefs but no mention of ideas, how ideas have been formed, there are also other problems with his definition.

He then goes on to make the analogy that reducing ideologies to a set of propositions is “no more bearable than reducing than reducing your experience of a walk in the forest to the physical properties of the trees“. It’s not a particularly helpful or accurate analogy, but I’ll go with it. The point being made is that the world of ideologies (the forest) is made up of lots of trees, many different, the trees have physical aspects, you can look at the trees, but you can’t see the forest, but the other argument also applies, you can look at the forest and you don’t see the individual tree.

Reducing a walk in the forest to the physical properties of the trees, is not a particularly unbearable thing, however, by starting his statement that reducing ideologies to a set of propositions is “no more bearable” he introduces a pejorative note, which is neither helpful or supportive to his later points. Analysing the trees is as helpful to understanding the forest as analysing the forest is to understanding the trees. So what? Ideologies aren’t trees and a collection of ideologies is not a forest. The forest is a collection of trees, the trees are individual trees. He is looking at Fascism, a single, or possibly a collection of very similar trees (using his analogy), analysing them individually will be useful, as will analysing them alongside other ideologies (the forest)

However, problematically, he then uses this to support his point that “The borders of ideology are muddied“. Not only does he give no supporting evidence that his assertion, the analogy he has used are opposite to the view he is trying to use to support his assertion. The borders of the trees are not muddied, the border of what is an oak tree is not muddied by a Scots pine that lives on the other side of a vast forest.

He then states that “what’s inside an ideology is going to be sometimes closely, but sometimes distantly related, related by a relation of family resemblances“. So,for example, other than the fact that they are the opposite of each other, how is a democratic ideology relate to an antidemocratic ideology, related? Another assertion, dressed up with a series of sophisms, which are clearly mistaken.

He then makes further unsupported assertions (based on the false reasoning of his earlier very poor and limited analogy) by concluding “it’s going to mean that nobody is going to be zero on any major ideology”. As his foundational arguments are clearly mistaken, his conclusions are, as a result, equally shaky. Wrapping this part of his argument up by saying that “if you despise socialism, you’re a little bit socialist, if you despise conservatism, you’re a little bit conservative” adds to the confusion. Taking his assertion to the logical conclusion, does he mean that everyone who is an atheist is a little bit religious, and that the Pope is a little bit of an atheist?

This is just a small analysis of his work. Speaking slowly and deliberately, whilst occasionally rubbing your chin, does not disguise the weakness of an argument.

• This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bijou Drains.

I won’t have the time to get into any in-depth discussion of “ideology here”, but the up-to-date use of the term is something like what is outlined in this book.

https://academic.oup.com/book/768

Or in section 2 here. Vlad Vexler is using ideology in the “cultural” sense.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ideology/#MapIde

As the first sentence in that article puts it; “The uses of the word “ideology” are so divergent as to make it doubtful that there is any conceptual unity to the term.”

• This reply was modified 1 month ago by DJP.

There are literally hundreds of articles and books that use “ideology” in the way he is using it. These could be described as the “cultural”, “descriptive” or “interpretive” approach. You don’t need to quote an “authoritative source” when using a word in a common way…

That you are unfamiliar with this seems self-evident.

You don’t need to quote an “authoritative source” when using a word in a common way…

Says who? Where I teach there is an expectation that all sources are authoritatively referenced. As you yourself have already stated, “contemporary”, clearly you feel there is a difference between contemporary definitions and other definitions, it follows therefore that this “contemporary” definition is not the way it is used commonly.

It’s strange that you seek out authority “Well that source is definitely not a well-respected political science journal” when it suits you.

“That you are unfamiliar with this seems self-evident.”

I didn’t say I was unfamiliar with it, you are moving from assertion to fact. You have stated this yourself “the only conclusion I can draw” (assertion), which you’ve now changed to “you are unfamiliar with this” (fact).

What I was pointing out that throughout the piece Vexler attempts to turn a foundation of assertion into a presentation of fact. It looks like that is a process you are familiar with, as you are using the same process yourself.

Psychology, social policy, child development, law, etc at undergraduate and masters level