No Room For Me at Home (II)
a definition of ‘autocracy’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy : “An autocracy is a system of government in which a supreme power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for the implicit threat of coup d'état or mass insurrection).”
6. forcible suppression of opposition:here we return to the Merriam Dictionary: “fascism noun: Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems. The leaders of the fascist governments of Italy (1922–43), Germany (1933–45), and Spain (1939–75)—Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Francisco Franco—were portrayed to their publics as embodiments of the strength and resolve necessary to rescue their nations from political and economic chaos. Japanese fascists (1936–45) fostered belief in the uniqueness of the Japanese spirit and taught subordination to the state and personal sacrifice. See also totalitarianism; neofascism.
While it is true that the above mentioned states and regimes did use the stated methods for gaining and staying in power, it is just as clear that said governments had no or little understanding of the place of a community in the scheme of human society or the state as a mechanism for the facilitation of communal values. On the other hand, it cannot be said that the impulses that lead to the creation of a fascist state did not originate with a desire by a disintegrating community to preserve the community.
The question over what forces create a community necessarily lead us to consider the nature of human being, consciousness, the Superego, the subjective mind, primal times, and more.
Any attempt to look at the community leads one to look at the nature of human being. We begin as children, and as children our natures are as needful of parental protection and love as we as remain barbarous, anarchistic, and largely untutored in our behavior. As babes, we all insist that we are born billionaires, and the first billion that we own is attached to the nipple of our mother’s breast.
Because parents have gone through the experience of
learning that the physical habitat we are born into does not offer us a
cornucopia of everything we want, they must wean the child not only off the
mother’s breast, but that instead of getting two pieces of candy, we may have
to be satisfied with one, and sometimes none at all. This is when the
cornucopia appears in heaven and the figure of God. However, ‘God’ and ‘heaven’
Paradise) are meaningless words until
these are supplemented with images and stories that create the illusion that
these promises are real. By the time the child discovers that a storyteller
tells lies, he-she has reached puberty and discovers the pleasures of sex,
which discovery may have been caused by parental sex education. Instead of
being truly educational, it more likely lead to self-education through
masturbation. Because for a man the desire of his penis tends to be stronger
than the man himself, the penis provokes fantasies of women as cornucopias.
Since a boy knows that the women of his own family are no cornucopias, his
fantasies project to women of other families and/or tribes, and results in
stealing for himself a ‘wife’.
It may be that the first communities began through the act of rape, which deed was resolved by the myth that women ‘enjoyed’ being raped. While today we seem to ‘unknowingly know’ that rape is an unmentionable, this was not necessarily so for our forebears. While the reason for rape for a man was sexual pleasure, its consequences were assured pregnancy culminating in the birth of a child. Another inevitable consequence was social turmoil: one small social unit, one family (in prehistoric days headed by a woman) had intruded into the space of another family. Conflict was always just short of being imminent, even though it was not always inevitable.
Imminent conflict could be avoided by following a number of simple tactics. One of these was rape, an immediate (asap) deflowering of the stolen-kidnapped maid. This fait accompli act defused the conflict, because the brothers of the maid, who gave chase (the father always was no one knew where) knew enough about ‘facts of life’ that a child could be the consequence. If a child was indeed the consequence, it was better for the families of the two women (one of the groom, the other of the bride) to live in peace. In other words, the custom that prevails to this day in pre-borgeois ‘organic’ communal life, which encourages the raped woman’s family to blame her rape on the woman, is not because it favors rape or wishes to besmirch one of their own, but to avoid mortal conflict between the brothers of the two families.
Another tactic employed was to carry the stolen ‘bride’ beyond easy reach of her pursuing brothers, such as carrying the maid across a natural barrier, say, a river. The barrier means that the pursuers will be delayed, during which time the sexual act will be consummated.