Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism for people with experience with the application of violence?
Before becoming a Buddhist, I saw some very difficult things in the world as a result of a job that I once held. When I mention the profession to the few other Buddhists I know, well they sort of recoil in shock and horror. My job involved government sanctioned ways of preventing others from coming to harm through the selective and focused use of violence. I never looked forward to using force or even relished the pain I cause others to expereience, but at the same time I had no reservations about using measured violence as the big tool in my bag of many possible tools. Most of which were non-violent.
Even before knowing about the concept of Karma I just naturally knew they "had it coming" and didn't feel much beyond being annoyed at having to clean up the tool kit afterwards. To me it was clean justice and nothing to worry about later. However, my Buddhist associates seem to expect me to feel guilty and several have mentioned that I may have accumulated an overwhelming negative Karmatic charge.
As you/we Buddhists tend to be a peace loving, pacifist, non-violent lot I have not encountered much discussion of this issue, other than an outright ban on it. So, I'll start the disccusion. Has anyone here formerly, or I guess even currently, ever held a job where you sometimes were forced to put a hurt on bad people? Or maybe you just held a job where something like that was a possibility. I'm talking about jobs like being a police officer, soldier, bodyguard, bouncer, prison guard.... I'm not talking about jobs like schoolyard bully, collector for the mob, criminal, or psycopath...
If so, have you come over to the total non-violent approach, or do you have trouble rationalizing standing by while people are being hurt or killed?
Now, please understand I didn't post this thread to upset the pacifists here. I respect the heck out of you all. I'm just coming from a different background and I am struggling with the dissonance I have in my own head.
Even before knowing about the concept of Karma I just naturally knew they "had it coming" and didn't feel much beyond being annoyed at having to clean up the tool kit afterwards. To me it was clean justice and nothing to worry about later. However, my Buddhist associates seem to expect me to feel guilty and several have mentioned that I may have accumulated an overwhelming negative Karmatic charge.
As you/we Buddhists tend to be a peace loving, pacifist, non-violent lot I have not encountered much discussion of this issue, other than an outright ban on it. So, I'll start the disccusion. Has anyone here formerly, or I guess even currently, ever held a job where you sometimes were forced to put a hurt on bad people? Or maybe you just held a job where something like that was a possibility. I'm talking about jobs like being a police officer, soldier, bodyguard, bouncer, prison guard.... I'm not talking about jobs like schoolyard bully, collector for the mob, criminal, or psycopath...
If so, have you come over to the total non-violent approach, or do you have trouble rationalizing standing by while people are being hurt or killed?
Now, please understand I didn't post this thread to upset the pacifists here. I respect the heck out of you all. I'm just coming from a different background and I am struggling with the dissonance I have in my own head.
0
Comments
take alook at your own statement..
"and I am struggling with the dissonance I have in my own head. "
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/thichnhathanh/index.shtml
Hope you find something of value.
_/\_
metta
For my part - and this is just my personal stance on things - I find it incomprehensible that there are people in this world that actively sit at their desks and willfully design and engineer objects specifically designed to inflict maximum pain.... I read an article the other day about how arms manufacturers are trying to create more environmentally friendly weaponry... less smoke, fewer harmful chemicals for soil and plants...... It made me laugh.....
But then I am reminded at one and the same time that I fel hostility and agression towards those in the news and current events programmes, who deliberately incite violence and aggression, and advocate revenge and destruction.... They make me seethe and expose a self-righteous anger I have to consciously quell....
So I too have conflict I actively, and with measure, have to come to terms with and channel accordingly.....
It's a bummer, isn't it....?
Naturally,I agree with this. I also agree with the general Buddhist sense that violent karma is not an asset, and that the wise human being tries to purify it. What is generally missing from the Buddhist discussion, however, tends to be exactly what you've asked about: What are the spiritual, and perhaps other, significances of using violence for good purposes? Meher Baba's discussion of that is without parallel.
__________________________________________
Meher Baba on Non-Violence
Non-violence, pure and simple, means love infinite. It is the goal of life. When pure and infinite love is reached, the aspirant becomes one with God. To reach this goal, there must be intense longing, and the aspirant who has this longing must begin by practicing the "non-violence of the brave." This applies to those who, though not one with all through realization, consider none to be their enemy and try to win over even the aggressor through love. They give up their lives through love, not through fear.
"Non-violence of the brave" is practicable for those who have the intense longing to attain the supreme state. This longing is not to be found in the majority. If, therefore, it is intended to lead the majority to "non-violence," it is necessary first to prepare them for the "non-violence of the brave." To achieve this in a practical way, it is necessary to make them follow, in the beginning, the principle of "non-violent violence"; that is, violence done solely for defending the weak, without any selfish motive. In times of war, when the masses are not even in the mood to listen to advice about having intense longing to attain the supreme goal of life, the only practical way to lead them toward the goal is to begin by inculcating in them the principle of "non-violent violence" and then gradually introducing the "non-violence of the brave." Otherwise, nonviolence would not only fail but there would be serious danger of the fatal "non-violence of the coward" - that is, non-resistance to aggression because of fear. The masses may also be led to the "non-violence of the brave" by following the principles of "selfless violence" instead of those of "non-violent violence." This selfless violence is violence done in self-defense when attacked treacherously. No other motive should be allowed to justify the violence. Thus, for example, if a woman is threatened with violation and one defends her by resorting to violence, one can be said to have followed the principles of "selfless violence." Similarly, when the motherland is being attacked by enemies, the nation's effort in defending the motherland is "selfless violence." An element of selfishness being there, the love expressed is limited human love.
"Non-violence of the coward" is fatal; so also is "selfish violence," i.e., violence for selfish motives by individuals or a nation to gain power or for other selfish ends.
It will therefore be seen that while non-violence, pure and simple, is the goal of life, this goal is to be attained by individual seekers of God by following "non-violence of the brave." The majority, who have not the intense longing for being one with God, have to be led toward this goal on the principles of "non-violent violence" or those of "selfless violence," according to the circumstances. It must be very clearly understood that "non-violent violence" and "selfless violence" are merely the means of attaining the goal of life, namely pure and simple "Non-violence" or "Love Infinite." These means must not be confused with the goal itself.
The motive and result are determined by general acceptance as to whether they are good or bad. For example, "nonviolence of the brave" and "non-violence of the coward" are both non-violence, but, from the viewpoint of the motive force behind it, "non-violence of the brave" is born of love and non-violence of the coward" is born of fear, which is opposite to love. Although as "non-violence" they are not opposites, their motives are opposed. The motive behind "nonviolence of the brave" is losing one's life to gain infinite love, and the motive behind "non-violence of the coward" is to save one's own life. So "non-violence of the coward" we describe as "non-love," as we describe "non-violence of the brave" as love.
"Non-violent violence" cannot be described as love, but as duty - duty done selflessly for others according to Karma Yoga, which is eventually linked up with unlimited love - but motivated by human love.
The difference between these two opposite forces cannot be obliterated; but the transformation of one force to another can happen when expressed through the right channels. Food given wrongly becomes poison, but poison given in small quantities as a tonic may become food for the nerves. Indeed, all food is poison; it is only in the power of transformation that it becomes converted into good.
It was also during this time that the first Gulf War happened, and I found myself on a 48-hour call-out list, waiting to be sent into the combat zone. I was newly married and had two young children, and I am not ashamed to admit I had never experienced fear like this at any other time of my life. I began to realise that my youthful bravado counted for nothing, and that at a moment's notice, I could become a carcass in a box, should a bullet find it's mark. I found myself fervently hoping that I would never be called, and I became dimly aware of my own mortality for the first time. Thankfully, the call-up never came, but I was exposed to the horrors of war nevertheless, as two comrades from my unit who had volunteered sadly fell in battle, and I was chosen for the duty of honour guard at their funeral.
Not long after that, I sustained an injury when on training manouevres, and found myself in a military hospital for two weeks, amongst the amputees and burns victims who returned from Kuwait. The recollections they gave me of the things they had experienced made my blood run cold, and I realised fully for the first time that war was no game, and the most horrific concept that Man had ever invented. Needless to say, I chose to leave soon afterward, and it took several years of searching inside for answers, and many other unfortunate life experiences, before I stumbled upon the path, and chose the way of non-violence. This choice seems perfectly natural to me, and I have no problem identifying with it or undertaking it. Many former soldiers I have met since are of the same vein; they long for a peaceful solution to disputes as fighting is needless and futile. In negative situations, I still feel anger rise within me, but knowing what it can eventually become gives me the necessary impetus to pull back from the brink, accept my anger and release it.
I think somehow that those whose career paths expose them to the harsh cruelties of human violence are sometimes the most fervent converts to the practise of non-violence.
I also worked in a psych hospital, and part of the job is restraining patients who are out of control. Of course, we took care not to injure them, but it still involved wrestling them down and putting them in a position where they couldn't harm anyone or themselves. Generally it did not invoke any particular anger on my part, just doing my job, but occasionally it did. Inevitable I suppose when you're dealing with other people.
So you do bring up an important point. Violence is never really that far away, no matter how much we train our minds to be non-violent and peaceful. We are, after all, natural born killers. Ever read Lord of the Flies? I've always felt that book represents the truth about humans. We are naturally violent and really good at causing pain and death to our fellow beings. So it takes a great deal of effort and training to pacify those poisons.
When I first came to our temple, I was very angry. I was just coming off an incredibly difficult part of my life, and anger was bubbling up all over the place. I was advised by my teacher to do lots of 7-line prayer (an invocation of Guru Rinpoche) to help pacify all that anger. I took the advice and did do lots of it, particularly while I was driving. I had a long commute to work and back, and driving was one area where the anger could easily erupt. It helped immensely, and instead of driving like a maniac, trying to do combat with other aggressive drivers, I actually experienced peace and a quiet mind during these long drives.
So there are ways to deal with anger, aggression, violence. That's one way, and there are others. Meditation also helps a lot as it tends to quiet your mind and give you the space you need to avoid getting caught up in those mental patterns that lead to anger, violence, etc.
Palzang
I was quite the pacifist a few years ago. A violent encounter with some ruffians changed my mind though.
While I agree that a compassionate nature to humans has been integral in the progress of society, I must acknowledge that we are by nature very violent individuals. I mean the first tools we ever made as humans were killing devices. Spears, swords, bows. And we continue to refine those original tools to make guns, bombs, and other deadly weapons. To say simply by nature we are compasionate beings is truly ignorance of our history. Look at every great and advanced society in our world today. Yeah, and how many of those had non-violent beginnings? America, Germany, England, France. What we call the free world is a product of lots of bloodshed.
Just about every religion (yes Buddhism) when involved in politics or the military has always caused the deaths of lots of people.
Even tonight I had a near violent experience. A kid I got in a fight with 5 years ago (a criminal now by the way) rode past me tonight and said some choice words to me. I smiled and asked how his evening was but inside I was burning with a desire to fight. I waited for him to go around the path and planned to knock him off his bike. But unfortunately, the recently paroled juvenile exited somewhere else. (Letting go of the ego is not as easy as I thought you know)
Anyway, non-violence is much easier when you imagine your friend or family. But think about a murderer or a child molester. Or a drugged up thief in the case of my neighbor. At least it changes things for me.
Palzang
Am I correct to infer from your post that you do not advocate non-violence?
Well, I would have to say that violence should be used as a last resort. However, I emphasize should because it has only been a goal and not always a truth for me. I have nothing against non-violence. Obviously it worked for Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Unfortunately things didn't end well for either of them.
I have much less patience than either of these two great men especially when it comes to bullying or harassment. Since I have been a target for both, I am much less tolerant of them and have a hard time feeling sorry for people that have hurt (or tried to hurt) me. I hardly excuse peoples' total lack of dignity and respect just because they are ignorant.
So it brings up a tough question for myself. How can I practice compassion especially to those who try to hurt me? I know Buddha said something along the lines of, "and if you feel hatred when they chop off your limbs, you are not a follower of the path."
Well I don't necessarily have to hate people when I defend myself. So do I advocate non-violence? Yes. But I also advocate self-defense and the ocassional 'phyiscal communal activism' as well.
What is less OK is to suggest that anything that the Tathagata taught gives licence for the use of such force in any situation. Neither Gotama nor Jesus, both of whom spoke in favour of non-violence, promised that it would be easy or comfortable, or, indeed, end 'well'.
A few years ago a popular new form of therapy was introduced in which the patient was encouraged to hit a blow up clown, the kind that never stays down after you hit it, in order to get one's frustrations out. Or to put on big boxing gloves and hit some other object. The therapists had high hopes for this therapy but were disappointed when the exact opposite outcome manifested and the patients became generally more angry and violent. Talk about irony. But this exercise proved what wise people have been saying for thousands of years; violence breeds violence. Period.
Well I did take that opportunity 5 years ago when they picked a fight with me. They were 3 troublesome pre-teens doing vandalism to the park and harassing people. I was minding my own business going down slides after a baseball game and one of them was going up the slide. He fell off as I was coming down and his two buddies picked a fight. One of them shoved me, so I kicked him pretty hard, pushed another one down, and threw the last one into a wall. And it has only been recently that a new gang with two of those same kids has been robbing, vandalizing, and harassing more people.
I really try to avoid conflict with people. I mind my own business and leave others alone. I don't go after trouble, it usually comes to me. While it is easy to sit here and say I won't be violent and I will refrain from violence, animal instincts take over when confronted with it. Here in the concrete jungle much like the real one, sometimes it is 'kill or be killed'.
While I don't much like this evolutionary maxim, it is part of reality.
I really like this kind of honesty and practicality, and it's true. All other things being equal, you want to at least be a competent animal, ensuring your survival, defending your turf, and passing down your genome. This kind of head, and also your avatar, remind me of when I was practicing Native American medicine (I have that blood). That level of animal power has its validity, and the evidence to me is that, in the West at least, you can't escape its demand. If you want to be Buddhist, you first have to make sure you're not dead. There's just no way out of it.
But if you have a Buddhist practice that you actually to do fruition every day, and in America at this point, this typically means either meditation or Buddha recitation, all other things are no longer equal for you, and you find that you just don't attract this kind of energy anymore, and gradually, gradually, gradually, you can spend more time on your practice, and less time defending yourself. The power of an orthodox lineage at your back is an overwhelming asset in this, to the point that I would say that is impractical to practice the Buddhadharma without it.
When you actually put your energy into compassion, it wipes out your attractiveness as prey, but not until you can stabilize that energy of compassion, which can take decades in the emotional wilderness that our culture is at the moment.
Morality comes before practice, before awareness, not as a result of them. It is the choice that we make as humans in the world, presented with the necessity, at every moment, to choose.
The above quotation comes from our "Daily Dharma Drops" and is referenced as The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya.
Book [V: 165-6] 47 The Foundations of Awareness: 47 Bahiya
KoB,
I see where you are coming from, and I don't see too much of a problem with it, especially considering that you are a lay buddhist. Generally speaking, the person doing the threatening has less moral justification than the person defending themselves. That seems to be a given, to me. Also, if your survival is, in fact, directly threatened, then the hurt feelings of someone else is the lower priority. However, there are many ways to diffuse or avoid these situations, that do not involve killing or even violence. The Buddha allowed even his monks to defend themselves, with the injunction that they make every attempt to avoid harm (I don't remember the sutta reference, but I remember reading it). That means no intentional harm. The mind ideally is to remain in a state of goodwill. If you can maintain this mind of goodwill, even in the face of someone beating you or robbing you, then you are doing very well in practice. Now, this does not mean simple passivity as people threaten your life, but a fearless, creative & active engagement of the situation at hand.
Now, I think the problem that Simon is addressing is the seeming justification of survivalism. This mental state/attitude is quite unskillful & can be used to justify all sorts of activities. Does the term 'pre-emptive strike' ring a bell? Additionally, this mind is quite unrefined and is based on a fundamental delusion of one's own 'selfhood' and comes with many defilements. If we are seriously on the path to Buddhahood, we cannot operate from such a basis. Granted, one does not rid themselves of such states of mind until stream-entry. Anyway, if one's survival is to be defended, it is not based on the mentality of survivalism, but in terms of skillfulness in regards to the 4 Noble Truths. Fortunately, one can defend one's own life within this context. Of course, there will be instances where one's own survival is of less importance than the survival of others, from a Buddhist POV. Really, though, it is difficult to see this, much less to operate from this basis, until we really get a handle on what this whole 'liberation' thing is about in the first place. And then we still have to sincerely desire it. It takes a lot of work to get to that point. I'm still working on those two myself.
There's more I wanted to say, but I can't remember what that was right now. So I guess I'll leave it at that. Hope this helps the discussion in some way.
take care
_/\_
metta
Anyway, let me just reiterate that just because it is the so-called nature of humans to be violent doesn't mean that it's OK to be violent. It's also not our "nature" to be compassionate or generous or any of the other good qualities that the Buddha taught. In fact, that's mainly what Buddhism is all about, changing those habitual tendencies (which is what they really are, not some sort of inherent quality) and purifying the poisons that keep us on the wheel of suffering and rebirth. Of course, being ignorant sentient beings, we'll screw up countless times. However, we must always keep the goal in clear view and strive towards it, not try to justify our negativity with excuses and self-clinging. It can be done, the Buddha proved it, and it's up to us, if we have the motivation to change, to follow his instructions on how to accomplish it.
Palzang
I did not say it was good that we are like that. Rather that kind of fierce survivalism was necessary before society. The problem is that we have yet to outgrow that quality when we operate in society now.
Relatively speeking, in my own experiences yes.
Perhaps I should reword what I said. Compassion without wisdom is useless. I don't like the idea that the good things in our world are much a result of the bad things we have done in history. But this is hardly a deniable aspect of our history.
I try to use reason in all aspects of my action and speech. Whether I used right or wrong judgement when I was 11 years old in a childish fight is debatable long before I had heard the word Buddhism. It was practical to protect myself from people trying to hurt me. I don't think it was necessarily compassionate to fight them, but then again I was not the one to throw the first punch.
I will have to scan my posts again, but I don't recall using Buddhism as an excuse for violence. I think using any religion as an excuse for violence is absurd and dangerous. I quoted what I recalled of the Buddha saying on violence (the one about feeling hatred). I stated that one does not have to feel hatred to defend one's self. If anything, you are compassionate to your loved ones by keeping yourself alive.
Whether I am selfish is debatable for the members here. If any of you ever met me, you wouldn't believe I had ever hurt anyone before or gotten in a fight. The last fight I was in was just last year in which I refused to fight any of this much tougher bunch. I took a few hits and they left me alone. It might have saved my life. The practical thing was not to try and fight 8 people at once alone. The compassionate thing was to keep myself alive by not making them hurt me more.
I know, gangs seem to have a thing for me. Maybe that's why I don't like any Rap music about being all 'gangsta'. I have had too many bad experiences.
I must say though I have never been called fascist before. I don't really know how that fits in here? When I said I was being honest, I meant it. I'm not trying to beat around the issue by twisting my own words to make myself sound better. If saying that a certain level of survivalism is necessary in one's own life makes me a fascist, then I don't know what to say. :-/
The basic tenet of fascism, whether Italian ab ovo or, more significantly, National Socialism, is the groos misunderstanding of the doctrine of the "survival of the fittest". This is the ultimate justification of sop much of the brutality carried out by humans against each other. The words that you used which point to this are: To me, this argument justifies any action so long as it appears to lead to some personally acceptable outcome. But it is based on an ethic that I believe that both Buddhist and Christian morality reject.
If we expand the "if I can... why shouldn't I?" doctrine into a national one, we come to the current situation of internationally unlawful actions by so many nations. It justifies the imperialist monopolisation of resources discovered overseas which may be beyond the capacity of the native people to exploit, for example. It justifies disastrous military adventurism such as the Anschluss or the invasion of Grenada: it could be done so why not?
The reason not to do it is very clearly outlined throughout the sutras. It is the deep paradox (hi, Ajani!) of both Christianity and Buddhism. When I hear the fundamentalist preachers calling for 'crusade' or 'jihad' or 'national interest' in retaliation for attack, I hear, too, a very soft voice calling for forgiveness and cheek-turning. That this is counter-intuitiuve, even counter-evolutionary, in no way changes the message: .
take care
_/\_
metta
I use the term very specifically and in its 20th century original political meaning. I have little or no truck with those who would apply it to Islamism. My source is the 'horse's mouth': the coiner of the term, Mussolini:
This is his definition in the Italian Encyclopaedia of 1932. The emphases are mine.
Your annoyance at the current fashion to label anything that one does not like as fascist should not obscure the percipience of Musso's comment that "there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time". The fight against fascism did not end in 1945 and still as relevant today. It may no longer appear in uniforms and rallies or overt propaganda like The Triumph of the Will but its poisonous tenets insinuate themselves into the attitudes and policies of overbearing, warmongering regimes around the world. They even infect our young today with the appeal to 'might' over 'right' to settle disputes.
Now, I already argued that this desire to defend oneself can be twisted to justify all sorts of actions (referencing our 'preemptive strike'), but that is aggression. You can say that this idea of 'defending oneself' with force does not hold up to the standards of the Buddha or Christ, but to argue that it constitutes fascism is a vast overstatement, imo.
And I certainly realize that the factors of fascism are still alive & well, barely being held at bay by our governmental structure in this current administration. I understand how this simple desire for self defense (or 'national security') can be abused to support dangerous policies which bring us closer to fascism. So, I see your concern. However, I still cannot make the immediate equation of self-defense with fascism. I would also argue that while the fringe Muslim Extremist do share some elements with fascism, that does not necessarily make them fascist. I would consider them to be more theocratic than fascist.
_/\_
metta
Interesting point. If I might add something from my PoV, I hold certain rules to be given to others before insight as useful to have a stable basis to depart. However, if it said that morality is not a result of practice, I`d like to add that at least the insight that a moralsystem is needed and a particular one is useful, should be gained at some point thru insight, elsewise it is risked to be abandoned.
Interesting also, that my sources state that SN47 43-47 are not needed :-D http://www.palikanon.com/samyutta/sam47.html#s47_43t47
But I think this does not change the fact that most Buddhists are asked to take the 5 percepts as granted when they begin, or aren`t they?
To the term fascism. I also admit to be disgusted by the inflatory use of it. Without wanting to blame anyone here, one should imagine that many people have no clear and subtle idea of fascism and its forms, many proably instantly think of "the nazis" and there goes all that is associated with it. That`s actually the trick political demagoges work with when they entitle their opnonets *group-of-your-choice*-fascists. Still it is their fault if they have no clear idea of it, and it doesn`t make a fascist better, but one should consider that one could really shock and hurt people with it more than one could imagine.
Inflatory?!
Anyway, I also object to the use of the word "fascist" in this context. Just because someone believes in defending him/herself does not ipso facto qualify that person as a fascist. While I don't agree with KoB's opinion, I don't see anything to be gained by hurling invective, eh?
Palzang
inflationary I meant, sorry. meaning entiteling everything one does not like sooner or later as nazi/fascist, aka Godwin`s law, like the yellow press is currently doing with the term "islamo-fascism"
Yes, but I feel a man's views help define who they are and I have no views aligned with fascism nor am I a fascist by any standards.
Well I guess I could have let people push me around, but then again I would rather live and keep my health. When I encountered a much bigger gang years later, obviously the personally acceptable outcome was to survive. However, I was not fully capable of defending myself, therefore it was better not to fight. Survival is a personally acceptable outcome for just about every living thing.
All actions are done in the hopes of a particular outcome. I don't think perpetuating my own existence is exactly unreasonable. I also don't think that staying alive is an ethic opposed by any religion or philosophy.
Imperialist monopolisation? Please, first fascism, now imperialism!? I am a staunch anti-imperialist, who believes in self-government as well as Woodrow Wilson's idea for self-determination. There is never justification for imperialism.
You talk of invasions and disastrous military campaigns done by justification of 'opportunity'. But I am talking about self-defense, not attacking people because you feel like it. Invasions and offensive military strategies are usually done out of hatred, greed, and delusion (these sound familiar). Self-defense is done rather out of necessity than greed. I don't think the drive to survive is greedy at all.
I oppose nearly all wars that are fought. Because once again the underlying causes are greed, hatred, and delusion. I am against the Iraq...thing or whatever you want to call it now. The War on Terror is a joke, Vietnam was a waste. These have been nothing but synonyms for self-rightousness and imperialism.
I agree with the Catholic Church when it comes to war, it should only be used as a last resort in defense of a civilization.
I just don't understand how self-defense is a fascist, or imperialist notion?
Please accept my sincere apologies for the rough language that I have used. I truly will take more time before I post, particularly when I feel strongly.
I agree. 'Fascist' is as bad as 'Nazi.' There are other terms that can be used for its dictionary meaning, such as 'statist.' Another Communist usage -- 'hegemonist' -- is also better for what most people actually mean when they write "fascist." But probably what was meant in this discussion did not actually rise above the political significance of 'redneck.'