News & Articles

An axe that has a bundle of sticks tied to its handle was used as a symbol of civic authority in ancient Rome, but is potentially offensive due to its use a symbol of Italian fascism during the 20th century.

I wonder weekly (say it aloud) if I’m up to further violation of what is a public trust, or is it trusting public? Both? Silly sarcasm aside, trust is the root and life of communication. If you can’t trust the meaning of my words there’s no social interaction / communication. As social beings (socialization fostered in the dependency of infancy) we’re inclined to trust. Con men (or con women or con persons) use the natural level of trust against us with wordy trickiness or deceit. The fraudsters know we’ll be inclined to trust what scientists say or the people want. But who are these scientists and who the people of the supposed popular will? As social beings we’ll trust and believe serious sounding statements (oft akin to proclamations) about this generation being one way and some other group being elsewise. Really? Aside from the self-assured tone just where might this truth-to-be-trusted come from? Tell me, O trusting reader, when you last attended a meeting of your generation to agree on some behavior or attitude? When was it? Never, same as the great many group claims thrown at us with the firm knowledge the lying perpetrator will never be called to explain or admit (they might not be aware) they invented or assumed more than they reported.  

In communication, trust is assumed. That’s essential and good, but also something subject to abuse. If I say left and go left we’re fine. If instead I use oatmeal to mean left there’ll be confusion until that term is accepted to mean left. In time a reformer will insist sandpaper best represents left. Such changes in communication, however, require an authority to back them up. In religious authority, this word says god, that one not. Politically one announcement for the people is correct and the other not. Authority is needed to enforce changes in what we trust. My brief time behind the Iron Curtain was enough to leave a lesson in trust rather difficult to explain. How did I know by their eyes the person saying X, Y, Z believed hardly a word of it? How did it become the practice to look around and lower voice to ask “Can I trust you,” before speaking? If and when we stop ordinary trusting then communication as we know it ceases to be replaced by hearing and following orders. Worried that I exaggerate and confound? Of course, of course, each of us accepts in advance what we’ll trust or not abide. My useless experience tells me, however, that one nasty bias generally gets replaced by another of equal distaste.  

An enemy of orders representing communication is the simple question. Would you be surprised that even among the highly order-following SS questions would arise, sometimes at risk of serious consequence? “Why are we shooting these prisoners?” “Who bears the responsibility for these actions?” Even where following orders was the norm questions would appear. Maybe selfish ass-covering questions, but questions no less. Is that a lesson in valuing free speech (almost as easily abused as issuing orders)? Instead of philosophical speculation turn to some situation you know where in advance you accepted someone’s honesty or knew they were lying? Think now. Have you not trusted and been stung? But, do you nonetheless have a reasonable ability to sense dishonesty in another? I’m guessing you’re capable and know that in the arena of trust in public discourse the salesperson’s promotion may easily be more about her (did you expect a he) commission than your finances. Trust, truth and lies are tricky things we social citizens handle daily to the tune of many thousands of advertising efforts to sway our trust. Once it’s had, what’s done with it? Future prosperity or further promotions?  

As a change from issues of communication and trust, I turn to one of my favorite amusements, trying to determine exactly what people mean when using the terms Nazi or fascist. Privately, I call this the Fantasy Fascism game. First, how often have you heard fascism called right wing? An interesting way, I grant you, to look at two successful socialist movements – the Nazis (National Socialists) in Germany and Italian Fascism another version of the socialist ideal. Fair to say both were nationalistic. Let’s start with fasces, root of fascism and an icon used in our past. A little looking and you’ll find it, often on old silver coinage. The fasces is a bundle of rods or reeds. Individual rods or reeds are weak. When bound together they are strong. When bound the bundle can support an axe representing the authority, power and dignity of the state. The fasces was an important symbol of the Roman Republic and then Empire. The reed bundle representing strength in unity is a worthy image. Citizens united and bound plus the axe for governmental authority provides a model workable from Roman republic to Italian socialism.      

Fascism is a political, governmental, industrial amalgam detailed by Mr. Gentile in writing heavy with Italian nationalism. For concepts to span several thousand years is no small matter, but as with any design concept the fasces has some distinct issues. Citizens are stronger when bound in unity, but unity comes at sacrifice of freedom for safety. But that’s not all. The bundled reeds are limited to workable size. How, after all, could the image be useful if the bundle held so many reeds it couldn’t be swung in use? Authority rests in a bundle of manageable size. The ideal says everyone is included, but in practice representation was not equal. Another of fascism’s tricky issues is its marriage of business with government. Socialism is supposed to be opposed to capitalism. Instead grows fascist forms of risk-free capitalism with state mandates to do particular things. As I see things, all systems produce potential monsters. Religions make mega preachers. Monarchies promote nobles. Communism replaces nobles with apparatchiks. Capitalism makes super-rich elites who become socialism’s oligarchs. Systems have much in common, though under different titles. But in this diversity a commonality for many. When something’s wrong; blame the JOOS.