The rise of Hitler's Revisionism in America might breed a Nazi in 2012 or 2016

[TrueLeninist]

USA HAS 2 OPTIONS: SOCIALISM OR A MAD MAX FASCIST FEUDALIST SCENARIO

What i fear in USA is not The Democrat Party nor the Republican Party. What i fear is the rise of a NAZI FASCIST messianic leader in America with the following combo of ideologies and doctrines:

Libertarianism + free market fundamentalism + evangelical christian zionism + white-nationalism + Adolf Hitler's and Nazi Germany's revisionism (There is a rise in Hitler's revisionism in America. Claiming that Hitler was a "victim of zionist jewish millionaire bankers" and not evil dictator like most History books say !!

These people are found in the Tea Party movement, Alex Jones, Jeff Rense's followers, and most white-nationalist, free market, conspiracy theory websites such as Infowars, Rense, Henry Makow's 'Save The Males' website, Illuminati-news, Educate-yourself.org, Prison Planet, even some of Glenn Beck's followers. Many of them are Republican Party voters, who hate Bush, Mccain and corporate capitalism, but who also hate socialism and communism, because they think that The Bolshevik-Revolution was funded by The Rothschild Dynasty Bankers and The Illuminati Order.

I know that the Rothschild Dynasty, The Morgans, The Rockefellers, and other 50 super-rich families of America and the world have lots of power, are trillionaires, zillionaires and control both political parties in America and in many other countries. However social uprisings and revolutions like FARC, Zaptistas, Bolivarian-Revolution, Cuban-Revolution, Russian-Revolution, American-Revolution in 1776, were just natural human reaction to abusive governments, and not "funded by bankers" like these Tea-Baggers New World Order people say.

TrueLeninist

[Sasha]

i think you yourself hang out on tinfoil hat sites a bit more than is healty cause this sounds like the pot calling the the tea-party-ketle black....

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

That's nice dear.

[Dimentio]

While the formulations truly are tinfoily, there is a grain of sound observance within them. The USA, due to its size and its inner dynamics, has concentrated most of the wealth inside the cities, while smaller towns and the countryside has generally fallen more and more behind. This has given good soil for a particular American form of right-wing extremism to take hold and establish itself.

One of the two major parties courted the right-wing extremist sentiments in order to mobilise voters against the other party, which dominated the cities. This right-wing extremism, during the 90's manifested in the militia movement, and partially in the evangelical right, is still lurking there and will continue to lurk as long as the federal government or the society fails to adress the deterioration of the American small-town petty-bourgeoisie.

A failure of Obama's reforms will most likely give rise to more sentiments like these. But due to the self-destruction of the Republican Party, there is a risk that new movements, which are professing towards right-wing extremism and with small connections to the establishment could start to gain wind in their sail and offer a reactionary challenge to the status quo.

[TrueLeninist]

I have a theory about USA politics of today. I think that the libertarian conspiracy-theory movement in America is one of the main causes for today's destruction and weakening of the USA Left. If USA didn't have such a strong libertarianism, conspiracy theory movement today, the USA left would be stronger. In fact even Cindy Sheehan is a libertarian. I was banned in one of her bloggers and forums for saying that socialism is the only solution for USA, and not libertarianism. Lots of americans embrace libertarianism, are looking for the libertarianism ideology over leftism, i dont really know why, when we all know that libertarianism has never been applied, is too utopian and not a scientific-ideology like socialism and social-democracy.

Thanx


TrueLeninist


While the formulations truly are tinfoily, there is a grain of sound observance within them. The USA, due to its size and its inner dynamics, has concentrated most of the wealth inside the cities, while smaller towns and the countryside has generally fallen more and more behind. This has given good soil for a particular American form of right-wing extremism to take hold and establish itself.

One of the two major parties courted the right-wing extremist sentiments in order to mobilise voters against the other party, which dominated the cities. This right-wing extremism, during the 90's manifested in the militia movement, and partially in the evangelical right, is still lurking there and will continue to lurk as long as the federal government or the society fails to adress the deterioration of the American small-town petty-bourgeoisie.

A failure of Obama's reforms will most likely give rise to more sentiments like these. But due to the self-destruction of the Republican Party, there is a risk that new movements, which are professing towards right-wing extremism and with small connections to the establishment could start to gain wind in their sail and offer a reactionary challenge to the status quo.

[hugsandmarxism]

While the formulations truly are tinfoily, there is a grain of sound observance within them. The USA, due to its size and its inner dynamics, has concentrated most of the wealth inside the cities, while smaller towns and the countryside has generally fallen more and more behind. This has given good soil for a particular American form of right-wing extremism to take hold and establish itself.

One of the two major parties courted the right-wing extremist sentiments in order to mobilise voters against the other party, which dominated the cities. This right-wing extremism, during the 90's manifested in the militia movement, and partially in the evangelical right, is still lurking there and will continue to lurk as long as the federal government or the society fails to adress the deterioration of the American small-town petty-bourgeoisie.

A failure of Obama's reforms will most likely give rise to more sentiments like these. But due to the self-destruction of the Republican Party, there is a risk that new movements, which are professing towards right-wing extremism and with small connections to the establishment could start to gain wind in their sail and offer a reactionary challenge to the status quo.

Pretty much this.

When capitalism comes into crisis, and when bourgeois democracy fails to solve the problem, fascism rears its ugly head, preaching nationalism and class unity. It is also in these times that the revolutionary left gains popularity, but in an anti-communist, ultra-nationalist, and highly reactionary society like that of a good portion of the United States, fascistic reaction draped in stars and stripes will appeal to many.

The current administration is incapable of solving the fundamental problems they are facing. Obama will fail, and the result will be a public outcry. Does this mean an American Hitler, Pinochet, or Mussolini? I don't think so (but we can't exactly be sure though, can we?) but there will be new challenges in store for the revolutionary left in any case.

[Dimentio]

Pretty much this.

When capitalism comes into crisis, and when bourgeois democracy fails to solve the problem, fascism rears its ugly head, preaching nationalism and class unity. It is also in these times that the revolutionary left gains popularity, but in an anti-communist, ultra-nationalist, and highly reactionary society like that of a good portion of the United States, fascistic reaction draped in stars and stripes will appeal to many.

The current administration is incapable of solving the fundamental problems they are facing. Obama will fail, and the result will be a public outcry. Does this mean an American Hitler, Pinochet, or Mussolini? I don't think so (but we can't exactly be sure though, can we?) but there will be new challenges in store for the revolutionary left in any case.

The main thing, is that the rise of a strong fascist party in the USA will probably be beneficial to the democrats, as it would split the vote of the right parties. As USA is using a first-past-the-post voting system, two right-wing parties will take out each-other's votes.

If we in the elections of 2012 get like this:

Reps: 35%
Fash: 25%
Dems: 40%

It will mean the Democrats will win with just two fifths of the vote. In the presidential elections and in the congress elections. The right-wing parties will steal voters from each-other. In a proportional system, the right-wing parties would have been able to rule in a coalition, but in a first-past the post system, only the politician who gets the most votes in a district will represent that district.

So, the emergence of a strong fascist party in 2012 or 2016 will only ensure a democrat victory, but probably a further radicalisation into Italian-style right-wing terrorism.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

While I'm not going to discount such a thing happening in the future- politics is a wild and wooly game- I am a bit skeptical of it.

The thing is, democracy is a good thing for the bourgeoisie. It just works. It helps them work out their differences and contradictions within their own system, helps them maneuver into various parts of society and power, and is a good illusion for the people/helps them use the people for their own gains. Fascism is, more or less, a last-resort thing (though not always) when capitalism is in decay.

These tumultuous times, however, keep the future unwritten at this moment.

[Dimentio]

While I'm not going to discount such a thing happening in the future- politics is a wild and wooly game- I am a bit skeptical of it.

The thing is, democracy is a good thing for the bourgeoisie. It just works. It helps them work out their differences and contradictions within their own system, helps them maneuver into various parts of society and power, and is a good illusion for the people/helps them use the people for their own gains. Fascism is, more or less, a last-resort thing (though not always) when capitalism is in decay.

These tumultuous times, however, keep the future unwritten at this moment.

There is a quite large petty-bourgeoisie in the small-towns of the south and the heartlands, namely the area often derogarorily referred to as "Jesusland". Fascism is in itself mostly relying on support from the petty-bourgeoisie "middle class". While fascists in the 30's served the bourgeoisie, todays fascists and also the libertarians do not rely too much on the support of the bourgeoisie, not because they want it, but because the bourgeoisie are no longer dependent on a single nation.

[gorillafuck]

USA HAS 2 OPTIONS: SOCIALISM OR A MAD MAX FASCIST FEUDALIST SCENARIO
Fascist feudalist?


What i fear in USA is not The Democrat Party nor the Republican Party. What i fear is the rise of a NAZI FASCIST messianic leader in America with the following combo of ideologies and doctrines:

Libertarianism + free market fundamentalism + evangelical christian zionism + white-nationalism + Adolf Hitler's and Nazi Germany's revisionism (There is a rise in Hitler's revisionism in America. Claiming that Hitler was a "victim of zionist jewish millionaire bankers" and not evil dictator like most History books say !!
Free market fundamentalism/libertarianism is incompatible with Nazism. So is Zionism. If you think that a good portion of the population are Pro-Hitler then you're nuts. And I have no idea what you mean by "Nazi Revisionism".


These people are found in the Tea Party movement, Alex Jones, Jeff Rense's followers, and most white-nationalist, free market, conspiracy theory websites such as Infowars, Rense, Henry Makow's 'Save The Males' website, Illuminati-news, Educate-yourself.org, Prison Planet, even some of Glenn Beck's followers. Many of them are Republican Party voters, who hate Bush, Mccain and corporate capitalism, but who also hate socialism and communism, because they think that The Bolshevik-Revolution was funded by The Rothschild Dynasty Bankers and The Illuminati Order.
You extremely heavily overestimate the following that conspiracy theories have. And the vast, vast majority of anti-communists aren't anti-communist because they "think the Bolshevik revolution was funded by the Illuminati".



America isn't going Nazi in the near future.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

namely the area often derogarorily referred to as "Jesusland".

Ohhhh yes. Trust me, I live in the suburbs of Atlanta. What's worse is that I live in a working-class/predominantly immigrant enclave within a burb-town that is mostly upper-middle-class Jesus freaks. Soccer moms in SUV's with Jesus fish and Mike Huckabee stickers, everywhere. Perfect breeding ground for fascism.


Fascism is in itself mostly relying on support from the petty-bourgeoisie "middle class".

Mmmmm.... I'm not quite sure you can say that. The Nazis gained power not just with the help of the middle class, but with massive help from the industrialists and the military (as well as from the proletariat... the Nazis gained a lot of support by being the National SOCIALISTS and before the Night of the Long Knives they used a loooot of anti-capitalist rhetoric).


todays fascists and also the libertarians do not rely too much on the support of the bourgeoisie

This is actually something to consider... if you read/look at any Neo-Nazi or Militia nutjob website, you'll notice they actually have a very "anti-establishment" mentality and see themselves as the underdogs trying to take down "the Man". That's something that should be kept in mind when analyzing fascist currents within the U.S.

[Dimentio]

This is actually something to consider... if you read/look at any Neo-Nazi or Militia nutjob website, you'll notice they actually have a very "anti-establishment" mentality and see themselves as the underdogs trying to take down "the Man". That's something that should be kept in mind when analyzing fascist currents within the U.S.

These currents has been used by parts of the Republican Party, and some isolated individual capitalists with reactionary convictions. But the majority of the US bourgeoisie seems to favour some sort of conservative liberalism at home and some kind of social liberalism abroad.

I think the main reason for the US bourgeoisie to not weigh in support on fascists or libertarians is that they are well-entrenched in the US empire. They gain markets, contracts and status within the framework of the informal imperial construction.

Most of the American people have not gained that much from the US Empire, and is steadily gaining less and less. Instead, their sacrifices have increased.

Bizarrely, the different fascist and the different libertarian programmes for the USA would, if implemented, serve to castrate the US empire, and bring power away from the large urban centres down to the smaller local and regional bourgeois leaders.

Could it be a conflict between centre and periphery which we are seeing unfold before our eyes?

[Agrippa]

While I'm not going to discount such a thing happening in the future- politics is a wild and wooly game- I am a bit skeptical of it.

The thing is, democracy is a good thing for the bourgeoisie. It just works. It helps them work out their differences and contradictions within their own system, helps them maneuver into various parts of society and power, and is a good illusion for the people/helps them use the people for their own gains. Fascism is, more or less, a last-resort thing (though not always) when capitalism is in decay.

These tumultuous times, however, keep the future unwritten at this moment.

If the bourgeoisie could somehow magically prevent everything that is not "a good thing for the bourgeoisie" from happening, we would be in big trouble.

Everything you say about democracy is true, but you're making the mistake of using "fascism" as a synonym for totalitarianism. All forms of capitalist class-rule are equally totalitarian. Fascism isn't something imposed upon society by the bourgeoisie as a "last-resort". That may be true of certain, more naked forms of totalitarianism, but this is just as likely to happen under, say, a Leftist regime (eg: Stalinist Russia) or a traditional liberal or conservative state as it is in a fascist regime.

Fascists are not the same thing as the current ruling-class. Fascists are their own political faction, with its own material motivations, as much at war with the current ruling-class as they are us. That the bourgeoisie prefers democracy to fascism is obvious, hence why the current political hegemony will move to crush fascist movements. However, again, this doesn't liquidate fascism as a very real and dangerous threat, in the US, or anywhere else, since the fascist movement is only growing and getting more powerful.

[Agrippa]

Ohhhh yes. Trust me, I live in the suburbs of Atlanta. What's worse is that I live in a working-class/predominantly immigrant enclave within a burb-town that is mostly upper-middle-class Jesus freaks. Soccer moms in SUV's with Jesus fish and Mike Huckabee stickers, everywhere. Perfect breeding ground for fascism.

But popular support for fascism is a predominately working-class phenomenon. These "upper-middle-class" types are unlikely to migrate to fascist politics en masse until the decline of the global economy causes their social and economic priviliges to evaporate. If anything, most "upper-middle-class" Americans embrace Social Democratic politics to some degree...


Mmmmm.... I'm not quite sure you can say that. The Nazis gained power not just with the help of the middle class, but with massive help from the industrialists and the military (as well as from the proletariat... the Nazis gained a lot of support by being the National SOCIALISTS and before the Night of the Long Knives they used a loooot of anti-capitalist rhetoric).

You're correct on the second part but on the first part I believe you are misinformed. Which "industrialists" and "military" are you referring to? Certainly not the "industrialists" and the "military" of Weimar-era Germany. Perhaps the "industrialsts" and the "military" of France and the UK supported the Nazis, but only once they got into power, and only out of nessecity - it wasn't an ideal situation for them. (I'm sure they would have preferred a more stable, obedient pawn) There may have been individual members of the German bourgeoisie who gave money to the Nazi cause but individual members of the bourgeoisie also occasionally support Marxist-Leninist and anarchist causes as well. (For example, many of the most committed members of the Red Army Faction came from upper-class families)

Considering, as you pointed out, the Nazis were very hostile towards the existing regime, using anti-capitalist rhetoric to blast it and justify acts of violence against it. Why would the existing industrial and military establishment support this?

When you say the Nazis had support from "the military", perhaps you mean individual soldiers. Under my book, these people would fall under "the proletariat"....

[Dimentio]

Hitler received monetary support from Krupp and I.G Farben, and some other German industrialists. But the liberals and conservatives gained far more support from the same groups. Besides, Germany had little access to raw materials during that time.

Most of the high officers were against Hitler.

[FreeFocus]

I seriously doubt that fascism is a serious near-term threat in the US as far as seizing power goes. There may be isolated pockets of that here and there but in 2012? 2016? I doubt it.

What is much more likely, and in fact already exists, is a form of race-neutral imperialism practiced by the US. Obama is using soft power techniques and rallying Americans to be color-blind. Why? Because the US' power is waning. The only way to preserve American imperialism is to bring all groups into the fold, which is what Obama has done. You may argue not through deeds, but words and sentiments are usually enough. For example, take the percentage of African-Americans in November 2008 who agreed in a poll (conducted by CNN I believe) that racism in America was largely over - it was a whopping 90%.

There are parallels with the Nazis to be drawn here, too. The Nazis raped and pillaged all over Europe, but there were beneficiaries - namely, Germans back in Germany, who were sent all sorts of money, gold, rare items, antiques, etc by Nazi soldiers. It's a form of egalitarian imperialism (although, of course, the bourgeosie benefits the most, so "egalitarian" is a bit of a misnomer).

[Dimentio]

I seriously doubt that fascism is a serious near-term threat in the US as far as seizing power goes. There may be isolated pockets of that here and there but in 2012? 2016? I doubt it.

What is much more likely, and in fact already exists, is a form of race-neutral imperialism practiced by the US. Obama is using soft power techniques and rallying Americans to be color-blind. Why? Because the US' power is waning. The only way to preserve American imperialism is to bring all groups into the fold, which is what Obama has done. You may argue not through deeds, but words and sentiments are usually enough. For example, take the percentage of African-Americans in November 2008 who agreed in a poll (conducted by CNN I believe) that racism in America was largely over - it was a whopping 90%.

There are parallels with the Nazis to be drawn here, too. The Nazis raped and pillaged all over Europe, but there were beneficiaries - namely, Germans back in Germany, who were sent all sorts of money, gold, rare items, antiques, etc by Nazi soldiers. It's a form of egalitarian imperialism (although, of course, the bourgeosie benefits the most, so "egalitarian" is a bit of a misnomer).

I won't claim that the Americans have benefitted much from US imperialism, at least not all Americans. The working class and the managerial class have not seen their conditions improve since 1980 (even though the collapse of the Soviet Union!). And large parts of the USA are decaying. Roads, schools, infrastructure has slowly been crumbling since the 1970's.

Most superprofits seem to go to New England and California, as well as smaller hubs of large urban areas, where both living conditions and prices has gone up until the financial crisis.

Moreover, the US bourgeoisie would probably never support an outright fascist government, neither a Mussolini-style imperialist one or a more militia-type heartland movement, or a libertarian government.

That is because the US bourgeoisie is entrenched in Europe, Asia and the US informal dominions. Fascist direct imperialism will make it much more difficult to reign with the consent of the national bourgeoisie of occupied nations, and hence make administration harder.

Militia fascism and libertarianism is led by people who are not identifying themselves with the aims of the US bourgeoisie, but instead want to cut down the US army, decentralise power to the small towns and rural areas, to the benefit of the local elites there, and who see the US empire as a "UN-imposed socialist plot to create the banker-run communist New World Order".

US militia fascism (even the Stormfront variation) has more resemblance of US isolationist libertarianism than the current US empire.

The US Empire is:

* Universalistic
* Assimilationistic
* Expansionistic
* Centralistic

The militia fascists are:

* Provincialistic (State's Rights)
* Segregationistic
* Isolationistic
* Decentralistic

The goals of the militia movements and the libertarians are totally contrary to the interests of the US imperial bourgeoisie. They are unsensible if we assume that the US bourgeoisie would support them.

Therefore, I conclude that the militia movement and the libertarians represent dissappointed local elites (on the state level in areas which have not shared so much of the revenue in US imperialism). These local elites want to decentralise power in order to strengthen their own position, and weaken the central elite.

Sometimes, parts of the central elite has tried to woo over the provincial elites, but the provincial elites has got more and more issues with the republican party.

[bcbm]

A MAD MAX FASCIST FEUDALIST SCENARIO

Sweeeeeet.

[TrueLeninist]

Wrong !! USA was hardcore fascist in the 8 years of Bush, and there are still elements of fascism going on in these months of Obama. If US Imperialism with its gulag jails, police-repressions,the merger of corporate power and military state power, chauvinism, anti-muslim racism and ethnic cleansing, is not fascism, then I change my name right now.

TrueLeninist


America isn't going Nazi in the near future.

[TrueLeninist]

Dimentio: Thanks a lot for your view about USA. Your sociological and political knowledge of US imperialism and fascism is pretty good. And i agree with you, that the US and international capitalist class hate fascism, and instead prefer republican-bourgeoise, electoral formal democracies over fascism, because their goals are mainly profits and a "gobernability" peaceful environment in order to sell their goods and services.

trueleninist



I won't claim that the Americans have benefitted much from US imperialism, at least not all Americans. The working class and the managerial class have not seen their conditions improve since 1980 (even though the collapse of the Soviet Union!). And large parts of the USA are decaying. Roads, schools, infrastructure has slowly been crumbling since the 1970's.

Most superprofits seem to go to New England and California, as well as smaller hubs of large urban areas, where both living conditions and prices has gone up until the financial crisis.

Moreover, the US bourgeoisie would probably never support an outright fascist government, neither a Mussolini-style imperialist one or a more militia-type heartland movement, or a libertarian government.

That is because the US bourgeoisie is entrenched in Europe, Asia and the US informal dominions. Fascist direct imperialism will make it much more difficult to reign with the consent of the national bourgeoisie of occupied nations, and hence make administration harder.

Militia fascism and libertarianism is led by people who are not identifying themselves with the aims of the US bourgeoisie, but instead want to cut down the US army, decentralise power to the small towns and rural areas, to the benefit of the local elites there, and who see the US empire as a "UN-imposed socialist plot to create the banker-run communist New World Order".

US militia fascism (even the Stormfront variation) has more resemblance of US isolationist libertarianism than the current US empire.

The US Empire is:

* Universalistic
* Assimilationistic
* Expansionistic
* Centralistic

The militia fascists are:

* Provincialistic (State's Rights)
* Segregationistic
* Isolationistic
* Decentralistic

The goals of the militia movements and the libertarians are totally contrary to the interests of the US imperial bourgeoisie. They are unsensible if we assume that the US bourgeoisie would support them.

Therefore, I conclude that the militia movement and the libertarians represent dissappointed local elites (on the state level in areas which have not shared so much of the revenue in US imperialism). These local elites want to decentralise power in order to strengthen their own position, and weaken the central elite.

Sometimes, parts of the central elite has tried to woo over the provincial elites, but the provincial elites has got more and more issues with the republican party.

[Zeus the Moose]

Wrong !! USA was hardcore fascist in the 8 years of Bush, and there are still elements of fascism going on in these months of Obama. If US Imperialism with its gulag jails, police-repressions,the merger of corporate power and military state power, chauvinism, anti-muslim racism and ethnic cleansing, is not fascism, then I change my name right now.

TrueLeninist

Then I'd suggest changing your name, comrade.

[Guerrilla22]

USA HAS 2 OPTIONS: SOCIALISM OR A MAD MAX FASCIST FEUDALIST SCENARIO

What i fear in USA is not The Democrat Party nor the Republican Party. What i fear is the rise of a NAZI FASCIST messianic leader in America with the following combo of ideologies and doctrines:

Libertarianism + free market fundamentalism + evangelical christian zionism + white-nationalism + Adolf Hitler's and Nazi Germany's revisionism (There is a rise in Hitler's revisionism in America. Claiming that Hitler was a "victim of zionist jewish millionaire bankers" and not evil dictator like most History books say !!

These people are found in the Tea Party movement, Alex Jones, Jeff Rense's followers, and most white-nationalist, free market, conspiracy theory websites such as Infowars, Rense, Henry Makow's 'Save The Males' website, Illuminati-news, Educate-yourself.org, Prison Planet, even some of Glenn Beck's followers. Many of them are Republican Party voters, who hate Bush, Mccain and corporate capitalism, but who also hate socialism and communism, because they think that The Bolshevik-Revolution was funded by The Rothschild Dynasty Bankers and The Illuminati Order.

I know that the Rothschild Dynasty, The Morgans, The Rockefellers, and other 50 super-rich families of America and the world have lots of power, are trillionaires, zillionaires and control both political parties in America and in many other countries. However social uprisings and revolutions like FARC, Zaptistas, Bolivarian-Revolution, Cuban-Revolution, Russian-Revolution, American-Revolution in 1776, were just natural human reaction to abusive governments, and not "funded by bankers" like these Tea-Baggers New World Order people say.

TrueLeninist

Oh you!

[bcbm]

Wrong !! USA was hardcore fascist in the 8 years of Bush

If this were true, I would've been shot for demonstrating at the RNC, or probably just killed by the SWAT team that woke me up one morning instead of detained. The US was not and is not a fascist state.

[9]

A conspiracy theory about conspiracy theorists. Twilight zone.

[Dimentio]

Wrong !! USA was hardcore fascist in the 8 years of Bush, and there are still elements of fascism going on in these months of Obama. If US Imperialism with its gulag jails, police-repressions,the merger of corporate power and military state power, chauvinism, anti-muslim racism and ethnic cleansing, is not fascism, then I change my name right now.

TrueLeninist

No, it was'nt.

Hardcore fascism is:

* Racist
* Revanschist
* Militaristic
* The state governs the corporations

Bush's regime was:

* Non-racist (Colin & Condi)
* Status Quo
* Consumeristic
* The corporations govern the state

The only similarities between Bush's regime and "hardcore fascism" is territorial expansionism. And the reasons for a fascist state to expand (gain resources) is a bit more simplicistic than the goals for the wars in the Middle East (gain resources + create allied puppet states + establish geopolitical control)

[TrueLeninist]

Bush's regimen was fascist and it had these 14 elements:

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections




No, it was'nt.

Hardcore fascism is:

* Racist
* Revanschist
* Militaristic
* The state governs the corporations

Bush's regime was:

* Non-racist (Colin & Condi)
* Status Quo
* Consumeristic


The only similarities between Bush's regime and "hardcore fascism" is territorial expansionism. And the reasons for a fascist state to expand (gain resources) is a bit more simplicistic than the goals for the wars in the Middle East (gain resources + create allied puppet states + establish geopolitical control)

[Dimentio]

Please, refrain from using the service of LARGE LETTERS on me. I am not blind. Besides, your quote does'nt become anymore trustworthy if you are using letters of that size. Could you give example of that "disdain of academics" advocated by the Bush administration? Or of any professors arrested? Or even fired?

[TrueLeninist]

Dementio: Hi my dear friend and brother, sorry for the big letters, i copied that from a website which talked about the 14 main elements of fascist regimens comparing it with Bush's regime. And i think that Bush's 8 years were very similar to those 14 main traits.

trueleninist



Please, refrain from using the service of LARGE LETTERS on me. I am not blind. Besides, your quote does'nt become anymore trustworthy if you are using letters of that size. Could you give example of that "disdain of academics" advocated by the Bush administration? Or of any professors arrested? Or even fired?

[Dimentio]

Dementio: Hi my dear friend and brother, sorry for the big letters, i copied that from a website which talked about the 14 main elements of fascist regimens comparing it with Bush's regime. And i think that Bush's 8 years were very similar to those 14 main traits.

trueleninist

That a dolphin swims does'nt make it a shark.

Besides, the author seems not to have an idea what differentiates fascism from everyday authoritarianism. An authoritarian dictator, like Pinochet or Noriega, tries to deactivate the people and rule through the military and the bureaucracy. A fascist dictatorship is built on creating pseudo-popular mobilisation of the entire nation in the service of the state. That is managed through fiery speeches, creation of youth organisations, institution of state-run industrialism and enormous public demonstrations in support of the leadership.

Bush's administration was characterised by apathisation of the people. The president asked them to consume, not to join the army. If there was any huge demonstrations, they were often directed against the policies of the administration.

I could agree that Bush had support from some elements which could be defined as fascist in an American sense. But European-style fascism has never been a hit in USA.

[Agrippa]

The "14 Characteristics of Fascism" are crap. Since when do fascists have a "disdain for intellectuals and the arts"?

[Dimentio]

The "14 Characteristics of Fascism" are crap. Since when do fascists have a "disdain for intellectuals and the arts"?


And did Bush have disdain for intellectuals and the arts?

Well, there is one similarity at least. Neither Bush or the fascists held any disdain for the intellectuals or the arts.

Fascists loved arts and intellectuals as long as it was of their taste. Like anyone else.