The presumption that some nations are ‘excluded’ from wealth reveals a socialist mindset that is fundamentally unaware of how wealth is generated in this world. It is generated when stable governments perform the proper functions of government; thus, freedom of action is a necessary condition for wealth. It is generated when political freedom and stability attracts foreign investment; thus, political freedom is a necessary condition for true, sustained growth. It is directly generated by individuals pursuing their own self-interested ends.

So now we have generated some wealth. This does not mean that others have also generated wealth. We should not put on a blindfold and proclaim that capitalism has destroyed the others. We should help them achieve the necessary conditions for freedom of private action.

“To return to the situation at hand: fascism is the one of the many banal horrors that comes neatly packaged in the state form. It emerges alongside insurgent desire, and it is either given a space to breath by liberalism (and so called political “conservationism”), where it spreads its radical authoritarian practices, or it and the society that births it are engulfed in a far more terrible destruction of capitalist time and being. As our good friend Adorno says, “there is no way out of entanglement.” ”

Of course fascism is a banal horror. It’s totalitarian. I’m not going to agree with the assessment that fascism rides on the back of the non-totalitarian ideologies, though.

“There is no place for us to speak without the sovereignty of capital to clean our words—the outside is at the center and there are only zones of indistinction for us to locate.”

If you want to believe in a world, always untouched, always being made anew, outside of the gates, go ahead and have your dream. The slight difference in policy does not change the very known fact that tomorrow, everywhere, if one wants to eat, one will exchange one’s labor and the time one has left for capital. Even if one wants to be homeless, there is a place in capitalism for that. If one finds oneself as the indigenous hard working folks of wherever, Capital can include you by excluding. The same can be said for the countries that happen to be in the way, or have whatever the shiny thing is that everyone who acts according to the law of value want. Capitalism is a political (practice of ethics, morals, values) economy (ecos: dwelling, home, world and nomos: law, management). Capitalism is the form all human relationships take place in. This or that country may be excluded from certain bits of wealth, but that does not mean this or that country is excluded from the Law of those who manage.

To return to the situation at hand: fascism is the one of the many banal horrors that comes neatly packaged in the state form. It emerges alongside insurgent desire, and it is either given a space to breath by liberalism (and so called political “conservationism”), where it spreads its radical authoritarian practices, or it and the society that births it are engulfed in a far more terrible destruction of capitalist time and being. As our good friend Adorno says, “there is no way out of entanglement.”

To say that anyone “achieved” a capitalist world (world? I don’t think one can seriously apply such a claim to even the United States) is so ignorant of the fiscal and monetary policies of the governments of the 19th and 20th and 21st centuries that I feel I would max out the blog character limit citing examples of the government interventions that moved us backwards, towards the feudalism of the late first and early second millennium AD, over these three centuries.

It is utterly false to claim that everyone has been included in a democratic and capitalistic world. Zimbabwe? Cuba? China? Europe (see govn’t expenditures as a percentage of GDP)? Mexico (see federal government failing to fulfill one of its only legitimate duties: protecting citizens from the positive coercion of others)? You say that we have achieved a democratic and capitalist world society. But any serious person recognizes that much progress is left to be made.

Although I think we’re departing into a bit deeper water than our lil’ fascist spectacle might appreciate, it would be foolish to not recognize how these events are related.

Considering that I did not personally use the word “fascist” in my original post, I am having a bit of a hard time seeing how I claimed that the protesters are fascists (or that the YWC aren’t, though they are not national socialists, at least according to their mission statement).

“Just how exactly is capital not at its limits? It would appear that economies of scale certainly seem limited.”

Because governments control the capital. Governments make decisions about price signals that with far less information than is available to individual parties to transactions.

I say: “Who gave the order to use pepper spray? Who ended up putting this in-force?”

Zach says: “If courts had to hold a hearing during violent events to decide whether police could use pepper spray or other nonlethal force, cities across the nation would fall into chaos. The preservation of order with mild force is hardly an indication of incipient fascism.”

The point I am making is merely the secret solidarity between Law and anomie–a biopolitical imperative of sovereignty, that without god is based on nothing. You are correct to think that it would all fall into chaos, it already does. Count the corpses, if you wish but looking away does not make nihilism or fascism or even insurrection vanish.

I say: “Everyone admits it, even The Economist, capital is once again at its limits.”

Zach says: It is easy to skew the evidence to claim that ‘capital is at its limits.’ The reality of things is quite a bit different.

The G20 ministers were quoted in UK newspapers saying people ought be angry with them, neoliberalism has failed. One can only think of lil’ Karl Adolf Eichmann who, before a jury of his peers, pleaded to be able to hang himself in public so young Germans would be alleviated of the tremendous guilt–that he felt guilty before a “higher-power” (even though, he was an atheist) but would refuse to be guilty to mankind. Nonetheless, once more an intervention into conversation…ah, but no substance. Just how exactly is capital not at its limits? It would appear that economies of scale certainly seem limited.

Adent, I’ll try again for you and the others, who are perhaps carried away by my pretty words:

[elaborations/gloss contained]

“…there is no other way to confront that[fascist practices] than to make the university a zone of conflict between parties complicit with fascist and anti-fascist practices. Everything else [illusions of free speech] is an act of neutralization. [the liberal hand-wringing of existing campus groups and the administration already in-motion]

The University wants to be market place of ideas [a mall of enlightenment thought] ; the student organization, a factory of ideology [the productive force of enlightenment notions--free speech, justice, representation, democracy], but the university is nothing more than a space–a position. Fascism is attempting to gain a position, [to have a space from which to act from, with a air of legitimacy, and from which an increased frequency of fascist practices can emerge] and to be neutral, to be “open to dialogue”, will neither confront, nor impede anything. [which is to say: fascism doesn't care if you are neutral, nor will the partisans against it. Fascism is totalitarian, it desires to occupy all positions. If you want to fight fascism, you cannot take a neutral position, because there are none.]

Fascism and anarchy draw lines in the sand that will make it totally clear what a University is–and what it can become.”
[this means, if you liked the Tancredo talk, you'll love what happens to a university when fascists attempt to occupy it. I know I will; and I imagine after the first or third gesture of conflict all the other meaningless principals of the university as a place of a free exchange of ideas will fade and a terrible joy of social conflict will emerge. See Greece or France for a recent-history lesson.]

Nowhere did I say that socialism equals fascism. But both fascism and socialism are misguided collectivist ideologies, and fascism’s leaders and ideas were the result of a merge of socialist and nationalist ideologies. Early fascists fought to control the same political space on the left.

Benito Mussolini lead the socialists in Italy. Adolf Hitler led the National Socialist German Workers Party in Germany. Neither leaders were socialists in name only – both pursued socialist economic ends and used corporatist, anti-competitive means to get there. Both constantly violated classical-liberal principles.

Your “mental midget” charge is not even worthy of response. . . you commit an ad hominem logical fallacy (again) in an attempt to discredit an entire body of work which you may not even have read.