Re: CHAT: Support/Oppression of Conlanging

En réponse à JS Bangs <jaspax@...>:

>
> This is certainly true, if you're simply talking about practical
> things.
> We already have a term for this: totalitarian. Totalitarianism can be
> motivated by any number of things, however, and the motivation is what
> we
> use to distinguish the other words in this discussion.  Hitler, thus,
> was
> fascist (totalitarian right), while Stalin was, er, Stalinist
> (totalitarian left--we don't have a really good term for this). If
> your
> narrow definition of "fascist" includes Stalin then your narrow
> definition
> needs to be revised.
>
No thanks. It's the definition I was taught and the one I found in French
dictionaries (they add "properly refers only to the Mussolinian regime"). It's
true that fascism *usually* refers to extreme right totalitarian governments,
but if we were to take the actual meaning of the word, only the Mussolinian
regime was ever fascist. We already have a word for Hitler's ideology and
regime: nazism. The regime of Franco was Franquism. Stalinism opposes to
Nazism. But if you enlarge fascism to include nazism and franquism (and
franquism was quite different and yet called fascist), then I really don't see
why you can't include stalinism. The division looks much too artificial to me.

>
> Except that that's not the definition of fascist at all.  Hitler was
> fascist before he killed a single Jew. Mussolini never did a very good
> job
> of killing anyone, but he was also fascist.
>
Of course not, he sent everyone to Germany. Why build expensive ovens when
facilities exist already somewhere else? As for not killing anyone yet, the
intention to kill is enough. And it was present in both stalinism and nazism.

>
> But fascist *does* have to be extreme right--that's the word's
> definition!
Nope, that's your definition. Not mine, nor the one that I was taught and found
in my books.

> Conflating "fascist" with "totalitarian" serves no purpose, except to be
> a
> verbal brick for pot-headed protesters to throw.
>
Except that I don't conflate totalitarian with fascist. You can be totalitarian
without being fascist. The regimes of USSR and Germany are not the only
examples of totalitarian regimes in the world, and certainly not the only
possible ones. Don't accuse me of doing things I don't just to prove your point.

>
> I don't know why we make this distinction, but it does seem like a
> good
> one to make.  Totalitarians, while they all do similar things, are
> motivated by different things, and our terminology reflects this
> difference. In this case I'm not trying to complicate the definition,
> but
> merely preserve its original meaning.
>
Except that by your very definition you already don't preserve its original
meaning. I find the definition I learnt just making more sense than the one you
use. If you want to oppose the regimes of USSR and Germany, use the words
stalinism and nazism, they are perfect for the purpose. But don't equate nazism
and fascism, they are *not* equal. If we take their pure meanings, fascism
refers *only* to the Italian regime. If we take a larger meaning, I can't see
why you can include in it nazism, franquism and the Japanese militaristic
regime of that time without including stalinism. It's making a distinction
which I find functionally uneffective. When you stretch the meaning of a word,
strech it to logical limits or not at all.

But instead of making that into a flame, let's just agree to disagree.
Definitions of words are by essence changing and personal. Dictionaries are
nothing but a compromise.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.

Replies