Chance of a fascist takeover in U.S.?

[Nolan]

What's the chance that the economic crisis could leave people desperate enough to vote for an extreme right-wing party such as these?


Christian Falangist Party (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.falange.us/)
Falconist Party (http://www.anonym.to/?http://falconistparty.tripod.com/)

[Jia]

America is already there.

[FreeFocus]

Fascism, if it comes to the US, won't come from a third-party - it would come from the Republican Party.

[Nolan]

I don't think you could call the neolibs and neocons fascist.

[The Douche]

Zero. American culture is anti-classical fascism. If we get fascism in the US it will come by the libertarians/tea party types.

The republican party won't be won over by them either.

[jaycm610]

I personally think it will come from the democratic party, because they are no where near socialism, and certainly not advocating a classless state, yet they exert more control over the government than the republicans. If a form of fascism came from the republicans, it would be in the form of Walmart, Microsoft, or some big corporation.

[Nolan]

Zero. American culture is anti-classical fascism. If we get fascism in the US it will come by the libertarians/tea party types.

The republican party won't be won over by them either.

No. It could happen here. They won't call themselves fascists, but "third positionists" or some other bullshit. The fascists would surely promise a return to the new deal era with its pensions, social programs, and greater social security net, as well as "cleaning up american culture" (McCarthyism on steroids) coupled with extreme nationalism and possibly isolationism if not the other end of the spectrum (more imperialism).

[Nolan]

This could only happen in the event of another great depression or civil unrest, where people are finally disillusioned enough by the traditional parties to turn to third parties in droves. The dems and republicans will only give us the same old neoliberal "progressivism" and neoconservatism, not fascism.

[FreeFocus]

The electoral system in the United States is so slanted against third-parties that it's nearly impossible for any third party, much less a fascistic third party, to seize state power through elections.

[Nolan]

The big two have a huge advantage due to the system, but if enough people vote for a third party, it could be elected.

I'm talking a mass movement here, encompassing disgruntled teabaggers, neocons, progressives, and unions. It's not the first time.

You know as well as I do they'll have plenty of corporate friends.

[RadioRaheem84]

Is everyone forgetting that we almost had a fascist coup take over the US government back in the 30s? It was called the business plot. Several businessman got together with the military to over throw FDR because of his social democratic measures.

I doubt that this could happen again unless a social democratic leader were to be elected which is highly doubtful because of the American political system.

But maybe the US could see a junta in Brooks Brothers Suits like the old administration of Park in South Korea.

[Nolan]

The "Christian Falangist Party of America" promotes something called "national capitalism" which would be extremely appealing to a lot of Americans, especially in my area.

[RadioRaheem84]

I am always reminded of the movie Z by Costas Garvas when I think about the political situation today in the US. If a Social Democrat were to ever take center stage in the American political scene you would have a right wing movement thinking that he is a communist and wanting to incite violence on behalf of preserving the nation. In the movie the right wing is nationalistic and Christian. It isn't fascistic per se but it wouldn't mind a strong man that would keep the nation safe. That's what I picture the right in this country to want; a nationalist strong man that is willing to bring down the full force of the State on "subversives", namely us. It would be general freedom for everyone except Leftists, terrorists and other "subversives".

I don't see it being a junta per se, but an administration that is more or less extremely right wing, borderline fascist but always has an avenue of denial. An extreme version of the Bush adminstration.

[Robocommie]

I think most third parties, including the fascist ones, weird Americans out. It tends to seem extremist just because it doesn't fall within the Republican-Democratic divide.

The conservative narrative of the 2008 election is that Jon McCain won because he tried to appeal to the center, instead of staying true to his conservative base, and if this narrative catches on, then I believe the Republican Party could very well shift right with time until it's so nationalistic and pro-military that it's practically fascist, since it will never be non-corporatist.

[ChrisK]

No. It could happen here. They won't call themselves fascists, but "third positionists" or some other bullshit. The fascists would surely promise a return to the new deal era with its pensions, social programs, and greater social security net, as well as "cleaning up american culture" (McCarthyism on steroids) coupled with extreme nationalism and possibly isolationism if not the other end of the spectrum (more imperialism).

It won't happen. You'd need a very weak bourgeosise and a very weak proletriat. While the proletariat is weak, the bourgeosise are still very powerful and won't let it happen.

[Robocommie]

It won't happen. You'd need a very weak bourgeosise and a very weak proletriat. While the proletariat is weak, the bourgeosise are still very powerful and won't let it happen.

This is very true. The bourgeoisie social institutions are still quite stable. Army officers still take orders, cops are still getting their paychecks, etc etc.

[The Douche]

No. It could happen here. They won't call themselves fascists, but "third positionists" or some other bullshit. The fascists would surely promise a return to the new deal era with its pensions, social programs, and greater social security net, as well as "cleaning up american culture" (McCarthyism on steroids) coupled with extreme nationalism and possibly isolationism if not the other end of the spectrum (more imperialism).

You really think the American public will allow for a dictator and give up on its beloved "democracy"?

Fascism will come (if it does) through the "free market" not through the state. There will be thousands of little dictators (bosses employing private security), not one massive state.

You won't see a traditional fascist movement because the base of fascism in the united states hates the working class, tea baggers align with the unions? hahahahahahaha

[The Ben G]

Sadly, I think that Fascism is more easier to disguise than Socialism or Communism. I fear that Fascism is more appealing to the american people than Socialism or Communism is/would be.

The whole Nationalism thing is Very, Disturbingly Very appealing to americans. :(

[Nolan]

It won't happen. You'd need a very weak bourgeosise and a very weak proletriat. While the proletariat is weak, the bourgeosise are still very powerful and won't let it happen.

If a serious depression were to hit, it could. That was one of the major ingredients of the rise of fascism in Europe.

I don't think you people are thinking outside the box enough.

[Nolan]

You really think the American public will allow for a dictator and give up on its beloved "democracy"?

They won't know it. They'd be convinced it still exists or that it's being "restored."


Fascism will come (if it does) through the "free market" not through the state. There will be thousands of little dictators (bosses employing private security), not one massive state.

Fascism will come when the "free market" collapses, not in the free market itself. If strict Reaganism is implemented again and it drives the economy into the ground at last, then people will listen to the "third position." They'll still be convinced that the democrats are evil socialists, but not trust the libertarians or republicans either.


You won't see a traditional fascist movement because the base of fascism in the united states hates the working class, tea baggers align with the unions? hahahahahahaha


It doesn't have to be a traditional fascist movement. Since fascist parties were historically supported by disenfranchised sectors of the working class allied with the petit bourgeoisie, I don't see what's so laughable. Again, no one will think it's fascism. You're not going to see people waving swastikas in the streets in America.

[The Douche]

They won't know it. They'd be convinced it still exists or that it's being "restored."

These are the same people who think Obama is a communist dictator. But they'll be willing to give up actual freedoms, you think?


Fascism will come when the "free market" collapses, not in the free market itself. If strict Reaganism is implemented again and it drives the economy into the ground at last, then people will listen to the "third position." They'll still be convinced that the democrats are evil socialists, but not trust the libertarians or republicans either.

The collapse of our current economy will not be blamed on the market, it will be blamed on "socialism" and state intervention. So the people will turn to advocates of the "real free market" (libertarians) so that our system can be purged of all the "socialist" influences. This will of course inspire a mass movement against leftists/progressives.


It doesn't have to be a traditional fascist movement. Since fascist parties were historically supported by disenfranchised sectors of the working class allied with the petit bourgeoisie, I don't see what's so laughable. Again, no one will think it's fascism. You're not going to see people waving swastikas in the streets in America.

Which is exactly what the tea baggers represent, but they're not pushing for a state dictatorship, they're pushing for a market dictatorship.

You say it won't come waving swastikas, and it won't be traditional fascism, but then in your OP you link to traditional fascist organizations, which use traditional fascist language and imagery.

[RadioRaheem84]

You really think the American public will allow for a dictator and give up on its beloved "democracy"?

Fascism will come (if it does) through the "free market" not through the state. There will be thousands of little dictators (bosses employing private security), not one massive state.

You won't see a traditional fascist movement because the base of fascism in the united states hates the working class, tea baggers align with the unions? hahahahahahaha

It won't come in a Pinochet military style dictatorship but it would come in the election of a real nationalist President. The American people would allow for a government to crack down on subversives and people deemed a threat to the State. Like I said before, it would be a junta in suits. It would be the Bush administration times ten.

Most candidates from both camps have to appeal to their base but once in office, they turn to their corporate masters. Chomsky once noted in Understanding Power that we're lucky that most of the Republican candidates have been absolute charlatans that pandered to the Christian Right and the Nationalists. But watch out if there was to ever be a candidate that was actually a serious Christian Right Wing conservative that wants to clean house. That would be a disaster.

Luckily the power structure keeps both a religious nutcase from assuming power as much as a left wing candidate.

[RadioRaheem84]

These are the same people who think Obama is a communist dictator. But they'll be willing to give up actual freedoms, you think?



The collapse of our current economy will not be blamed on the market, it will be blamed on "socialism" and state intervention. So the people will turn to advocates of the "real free market" (libertarians) so that our system can be purged of all the "socialist" influences. This will of course inspire a mass movement against leftists/progressives.



Which is exactly what the tea baggers represent, but they're not pushing for a state dictatorship, they're pushing for a market dictatorship.

You say it won't come waving swastikas, and it won't be traditional fascism, but then in your OP you link to traditional fascist organizations, which use traditional fascist language and imagery.


Yes, it would be a free market ideological movement, there is no doubt about that but it would still be repressive against leftists and others deemed subversive. Could you not picture sort of Pinochet-like junta in suits, with Chicago Boys waiting to dismantle what's left of our social benefits?

[Nolan]

These are the same people who think Obama is a communist dictator. But they'll be willing to give up actual freedoms, you think?

Hell, the right wing cheered in the patriot act. Fascism is built on deception, you should know this.


The collapse of our current economy will not be blamed on the market, it will be blamed on "socialism" and state intervention. So the people will turn to advocates of the "real free market" (libertarians) so that our system can be purged of all the "socialist" influences. This will of course inspire a mass movement against leftists/progressives.Which is what I adressed in my last post. If the teabaggers get their way and it makes everything worse, then people will lose their faith in free market capitalism and panic.


Which is exactly what the tea baggers represent, but they're not pushing for a state dictatorship, they're pushing for a market dictatorshipIn american politics they tend to go hand-in-hand.


You say it won't come waving swastikas, and it won't be traditional fascism, but then in your OP you link to traditional fascist organizations, which use traditional fascist language and imagery.It doesn't have to be, but it could be. They could change their tune, come off as social neocons but economic "third positionists," and distract people. Those are just examples.

[The Douche]

Yes, it would be a free market ideological movement, there is no doubt about that but it would still be repressive against leftists and others deemed subversive. Could you not picture sort of Pinochet-like junta in suits, with Chicago Boys waiting to dismantle what's left of our social benefits?

I don't think it will be just ideologically free market, I think we will actually see the implementation of Misean economics. And no, I don't think it will be Pinochet style, I don't think the American public will tolerate an authoritarian state, I think the state/movement will whip the populists up into a frenzy (especially the unemployed ones) to attack socialists/progressives, but it will not be official policy.


Hell, the right wing cheered in the patriot act. Fascism is built on deception, you should know this.

The dynamic of the right wing is changing. The tea party movement has allowed the neocons to be influenced by the libertarians, Obama having the power of the patriot act makes them oppose it, and has brought on a more anti-authoritarian trend on the right. (one which has always been there in the american right, unlike the european right) And no, fascism is not built on deception, its built on class cooperation for the benefit of the nation.


Which is what I adressed in my last post. If the teabaggers get their way and it makes everything worse, then people will lose their faith in free market capitalism and panic.

And then we'll either have socialist revolution or another new deal.


In american politics they tend to go hand-in-hand.

You don't understand what I'm saying by a dictatorship of the market. Look at the 20s, tons of radicals were being killed, and striking workers were under constant threat of violence, but it wasn't the state pushing for it, it was the bosses, and they used private contractors (pinkertons) MUCH more than they relied on the state, and the state was usually hesitant to get involved.

[9]

Is everyone forgetting that we almost had a fascist coup take over the US government back in the 30s? It was called the business plot. Several businessman got together with the military to over throw FDR because of his social democratic measures.

I doubt that this could happen again unless a social democratic leader were to be elected which is highly doubtful because of the American political system.

But maybe the US could see a junta in Brooks Brothers Suits like the old administration of Park in South Korea.

I do not understand on what basis the Business Plot could be described as fascist, nor do I understand what definition of fascism you are using.
Fascism originates with the petit-bourgeoisie, but it co-opts socialist language and imagery to appeal to the masses. From my understanding, a "fascist takeover" can only come about when the normal institutions of capitalist society which protect the rule of the bourgeoisie cease being capable of containing a revolutionary proletariat, so the former turns to the petit-bourgeoisie, lumpenproletariat (etc.) in the form of the fascist mass movement in order to crush the working class and ensure the continuation of capitalism. It also tends to be precipitated by disorder and disorientation within the proletariat resulting typically from betrayals by reformists, which retard the capability of the proletariat to effectively assume power.

Of course, there can be fascist movements in the absence of these conditions, but I don't think there can be a "fascist takeover". So military juntas and racist ultranationalist governments (etc.) do not qualify as fascist simply by virtue of being military juntas and racist untranationalists.

So to answer the OP - no, there is no chance whatsoever at the present time of a 'fascist takeover' in the US.

[The Douche]

I do not understand on what basis the Business Plot could be described as fascist, nor do I understand what definition of fascism you are using.
Fascism originates with the petit-bourgeoisie, but it co-opts socialist language and imagery to appeal to the masses. From my understanding, a "fascist takeover" can only come about when the normal institutions of capitalist society which protect the rule of the bourgeoisie cease being capable of containing a revolutionary proletariat, so the former turns to the petit-bourgeoisie, lumpenproletariat (etc.) in the form of the fascist mass movement in order to crush the working class and ensure the continuation of capitalism. It also tends to be precipitated by disorder and disorientation within the proletariat resulting typically from betrayals by reformists, which retard the capability of the proletariat to effectively assume power.

Of course, there can be fascist movements in the absence of these conditions, but I don't think there can be a "fascist takeover". So military juntas and racist ultranationalist governments (etc.) do not qualify as fascist simply by virtue of being military juntas and racist untranationalists.

So to answer the OP - no, there is no chance whatsoever at the present time of a 'fascist takeover' in the US.


I think you could make a case for the business plot being fascist. There was certainly a militant workers movement at the time, and the plotters wanted to use elements of the bonus army (mostly lumpenproletarians, with some socialist elements/foundations and some fascist ones) as the force to sieze power.

[Outinleftfield]

Fascism is already creeping up on us. The US government can now legally detain American citizens without trial indefinitely by declaring them an "Enemy combatant". They're closing down GITMO (or they're supposed to be) BUT they're not closing down the secret prisons. And remember the "Free speech zones". Obama just signed a 1-year extension of the PATRIOT ACT. And if you look at 2000 and 2004 there was a great amount of electoral fraud. Sham elections, spying, restrictions on free speech, detention without charge.

All the government powers are in place to enable a fascist takeover. And if you listen to the rhetoric on the right its scary. People like Ann Coulter have said Muslims should be rounded up and put into concentration camps. Right-wing nut Ted Nugent said Obama should be thrown in jail for being a communist. They want to lock us up too! It's not much of a stretch that the next Republican president could seize on these emotions and things could get a lot worse.

[The Red Next Door]

God forbid that from actually happing, I don't want my body being dump in the rockies or in the ocean.

[Robocommie]

Perhaps time to start lawfully possessing firearms. If it does indeed come to that, I mean.

[Tatarin]

I'm not so sure they would really need fascism. The system is "perfect" as it is today. They already have the picture of "democracy" legally and in the media, and it is near impossible to start any new party, fascist or not. Then there are different interests in both parties, may it be business or political, but I don't see them uniting for one leader or one party to "guide freedom" for all time.

If drastic change will happen in the US, it will most likely happen after a second civil war, for better or worse. However, fascist elements will prevail. The police will get increased power, zones will be created, air monitoring devices and overall surveillance will increase. In short, would Nazi Germany be any different if they could vote for Hitler or for Himmler to be the furher?

[Axle]

The threat of fascism in America is very, very real, and it's coming out of the Tea Party movement and Republican Party. Republican politicians have been embracing teabaggers since the movement's inception, and its only gained support with the GOP and the right. The Republican Party is going to adopt greater and greater portions of Tea Party politics to save face and regain votes. It's just the way politics are played.

Both the Tea Party and Republican Party are dangerously close to fascism as it is, the combination of the two would almost definitely result in actual fascism. Using the 14 points of fascism on both, its uncomfortably easy to see where they both stand, and what they could become in the future:

Nationalism, disregard for human rights, scapegoating, militarism, sexism, control of mass media, obsession with national security, combining church and state, protecting corporate power, suppressing labor, disdain for intellectuals, obsession with crime and punishment, cronyism and corrpution, fradulent elections...its ALL there, in one or both groups.

[9]

Fascism is already creeping up on us. The US government can now legally detain American citizens without trial indefinitely by declaring them an "Enemy combatant". They're closing down GITMO (or they're supposed to be) BUT they're not closing down the secret prisons. And remember the "Free speech zones". Obama just signed a 1-year extension of the PATRIOT ACT. And if you look at 2000 and 2004 there was a great amount of electoral fraud. Sham elections, spying, restrictions on free speech, detention without charge.

Yes, the law works for the ruling class, as do bourgeois elections; what’s that got to do with fascism? “Freedom of speech” is a disposable luxury - a smokescreen. Look at McCarthyism! Speech is only free when it doesn’t pose a threat to the ruling class. Again, what’s that got to do with fascism?



They want to lock us up too! It's not much of a stretch that the next Republican president could seize on these emotions and things could get a lot worse.

It's not much of a stretch that this will be exactly the language of the liberal scaremongers and pseudo-socialist reformists in 2012, as they explain to the working class the importance of voting Democrat.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Is everyone forgetting that we almost had a fascist coup take over the US government back in the 30s? It was called the business plot. Several businessman got together with the military to over throw FDR because of his social democratic measures.

Fascism is not a backroom cabal, and it won't be brought about in this country by a coup. Honestly I see the Daly/Rizzo supercop mayors, along with Nixon in the wh, to be much more representative of fascism.

If it comes it will have been elected in, plain and simple.

[ChrisK]

If a serious depression were to hit, it could. That was one of the major ingredients of the rise of fascism in Europe.

I don't think you people are thinking outside the box enough.

We don't have a serious depression. If we did then sure it could happen. But what we have is a down economy with the government keeping the bougeogise strong. Unless they weaken then fascism can't take over.

Perhaps you are thinking too far out of the box.

[eyedrop]

It won't happen. You'd need a very weak bourgeosise and a very weak proletriat. While the proletariat is weak, the bourgeosise are still very powerful and won't let it happen.

I can't really say I agree very much with this. I wouldn't say that Italy, Spain, Germany and Chile had weaker workers movement than normal when the fascists. Quite the opposite in fact.

It was the same here when Fædrelandspartiet gained power as the then-too-progressive Arbeiderpartiet and the half-syndicalist tendencies within it gained power.

A part of a fascistic movement road to power is defeating the militant parts of the working class and as such you end with a weak proletariat.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If comrades would like an example of what fascism in the US might look like or how it might come about, I recommend reading "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis (I think you can find it online at Project Gutenberg).


These young condottieri were the “Minute Men”: the private troops of Berzelius Windrip [right-wing populist Democratic Party President], about which Doremus had been publishing uneasy news reports. He was thrilled and a little dismayed to see them now—the printed words made brutal flesh."

First, as other comrades have pointed out, the US ruling class currently has no need for fascism because it has (so far) been able to stick it to the working class and also make them pay the costs of the capitalist crisis through the normal bourgeois legal channels. If the regular government was unable to control the working class through either regular "legal" repressive means or by co-opting working class opposition through reforms, then certainty sections of the ruling class would be looking for "extra means" to smash the working class movement.

What might this look like? Imagine that the recession becomes a depression or becomes years of stagnation and high unemployment. Obama is a failed President and is trailing Republican candidates and Democratic challengers to the right and left of him in election polls because people don't believe he can solve the problems. The stagnation has increased political polarization: many students and workers and so on are waging radical struggles against the budget cuts and layoffs and racism and radical organizations are increasing in size exponentially; meanwhile the social base for fascism (a petty-bourgoise that is being pushed by these worker movements on one side and the big capitalists on the other) is radicalizing and going from just the tea-parties to militia groups by the hundreds. The far right finds an ally in a populist politician (let's say Lou Dobbs* since I really hate that piece of shit) who claims not to represent one group or one political faction but "good old American values" or "hard-working decent Americans" - they campaign for him and he gives them legitimacy. He wins the election and then rewards the militia groups and the modern Minutemen (or even the KKK) by making them part of the official government. Laws are changed so that the militias have carte-blanche to "defend America" and they get to march in the streets and intimidate immigrants, people of color, political activists, community organizers (booooo!), and union members and so on. If anyone tries to counter-protest, the cops come to the aid of the legal militia members and the protesters are put on trial and jailed because of testimony from the militia members.

To me this is the important difference between a regular old clampdown on dissent or any other political repression that we see in the US today. It's not only the restriction of bourgeois rights, it's also the "legalization" of vigilante boots on the ground to enforce repression and terrorize the working class into submission.

*or Tom Tancredo

[Uppercut]

I personally think it will come from the democratic party, because they are no where near socialism, and certainly not advocating a classless state, yet they exert more control over the government than the republicans. If a form of fascism came from the republicans, it would be in the form of Walmart, Microsoft, or some big corporation.

Good point. I never thought about that. We're seeing Obama requesting more state control over banks and the economy, but we're not seeing any employee/worker participation or any grassroots control.
If the state runs everything without any feedback from the people, that's fascism IMO. Workers' councils need to make the decisions and the state will simply back up their decisions.

[RadioRaheem84]

I do not understand on what basis the Business Plot could be described as fascist, nor do I understand what definition of fascism you are using.
Fascism originates with the petit-bourgeoisie, but it co-opts socialist language and imagery to appeal to the masses. From my understanding, a "fascist takeover" can only come about when the normal institutions of capitalist society which protect the rule of the bourgeoisie cease being capable of containing a revolutionary proletariat, so the former turns to the petit-bourgeoisie, lumpenproletariat (etc.) in the form of the fascist mass movement in order to crush the working class and ensure the continuation of capitalism. It also tends to be precipitated by disorder and disorientation within the proletariat resulting typically from betrayals by reformists, which retard the capability of the proletariat to effectively assume power.

Of course, there can be fascist movements in the absence of these conditions, but I don't think there can be a "fascist takeover". So military juntas and racist ultranationalist governments (etc.) do not qualify as fascist simply by virtue of being military juntas and racist untranationalists.

So to answer the OP - no, there is no chance whatsoever at the present time of a 'fascist takeover' in the US.


The Business Plot was described as 'fascist' by FDR and the General who blew the whistle. I wouldn't describe it as fascist with a capital F like what happened in Nazi Germany but it would've been seen as a fascist attempt in the military Pinochet sense (the misuse of the world fascist). And this came about when the business community couldn't control the labor movement or the call for social democratic reform, which was under way in FDR's New Deal. Granted, these were piddly efforts by the Prez but at the time they were considered pretty radical by the business community. There was a plot to overthrow him.

I don't get it. I describe a near 'fascist-like' scenario in US history and you throw the actual fascist definition on me, while everyone else in here is debating over whether the US will see a 'fascist'-like coup in the near future. No, I don't think we'll actually a swastika, Brownshirt, beer putsch, actual (F)ascist movement in the US any time soon.

[RadioRaheem84]

Fascism is not a backroom cabal, and it won't be brought about in this country by a coup. Honestly I see the Daly/Rizzo supercop mayors, along with Nixon in the wh, to be much more representative of fascism.Just what type of Fascism are you guys describing, anyways? It would be good to know to avoid these trappings. The Business Plot of the 30s was not just a backroom "cabal", it was a orchestrated plot by several former military men and their financial backers to oust FDR. It was just something I brought up to ensure people that the thought of something like this happening again isn't far fetched.


If it comes it will have been elected in, plain and simple. Not so plain and simple. Our electoral process is one that practically scrapes away all radical elements from ever being elected into office, that includes both extremely right wing nationalists as well as left wingers. This extreme right wing candidate would have to come out of nowhere and be elected by a sizable majority.


And what is this talk that the US is somehow this absolutely freedom loving wonderland that is incapable of 'fascist'-like penetration. It reeks of cultural supremacy. I find it insulting to the many republics that succumbed to fascist takeover. Chile, for instance, had a pretty reputable Republic with a history of relatively free elections and a strong democratic tradition until it was crushed by the force of the military in 73. This happened because a Socialist stepped in to change things and granted a SOCIALIST was elected in largely conservative, classist, traditional country.

I showed that something similar happened with FDR and the business plot and that there is nothing in the history books that says something like this would never happen if a real progressive were to ever be elected into office. But somehow our citizens are the most freedom living libertarian patriots that would never succumb to authoritarian control. :rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

You don't understand what I'm saying by a dictatorship of the market. Look at the 20s, tons of radicals were being killed, and striking workers were under constant threat of violence, but it wasn't the state pushing for it, it was the bosses, and they used private contractors (pinkertons) MUCH more than they relied on the state, and the state was usually hesitant to get involved.

What are you talking about? Are you forgetting about the couple of years before the date you cited? The Red Scare? The Sedition act of 1918, that was largley anti-immigrant and anti-anarchist, lasted for two years. Abrams vs. USA? Sentenced to twenty years for distributing anti-war leaflets? Woodrow Wilson conducted hundreds of raids to disperse the "red threat". The Palmer Raids?


In 1919–20, several states legislated “criminal syndicalism” laws out-lawing advocacy of violence in effecting and securing social change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_change); the restrictions included free speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech) limitations


Passage of these laws, in turn, provoked over-aggressive police investigation of the accused persons, their jailing, and deportation for being suspected of being either communist or left-wing Regardless of ideologic gradation, the Red Scare did not distinguish among communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist), socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist), or Social Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) — because all were deemed "foreign" (European) "ideologies", thus, "un-American"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_scare#First_Red_Scare_.281917.E2.80.9320.29

The State was involved.

[9]

The Business Plot was described as 'fascist' by FDR and the General who blew the whistle. I wouldn't describe it as fascist with a capital F like what happened in Nazi Germany but it would've been seen as a fascist attempt in the military Pinochet sense (the misuse of the world fascist). And this came about when the business community couldn't control the labor movement or the call for social democratic reform, which was under way in FDR's New Deal. Granted, these were piddly efforts by the Prez but at the time they were considered pretty radical by the business community. There was a plot to overthrow him.

I don't get it. I describe a near 'fascist-like' scenario in US history and you throw the actual fascist definition on me, while everyone else in here is debating over whether the US will see a 'fascist'-like coup in the near future. No, I don't think we'll actually a swastika, Brownshirt, beer putsch, actual (F)ascist movement in the US any time soon.

Oh, I wasn't trying to be combative, if that's how its come across. I just didn't understand what criteria you'd used to arrive at that conclusion. As to why I didn't respond to anyone else, I actually started typing up a post last night which was intended to address some of the crazy claims in this thread, but I didn't have the time to finish it. I have done that now, just for your benefit ;) (I'm short on time, so I had to leave out a lot of points that I'd wanted to include, but whatev):

[9]

I would remind people that fascism is a specific phenomenon. There is no potential at all for it to become dominant if the proletariat of a given country is not - or was not very recently - at the height of class consciousness and militancy and flexing its capability to depose the bourgeoisie. I can’t imagine I need to remind anyone here that the working class in the US right now does not fit that description. At all.

I think what people tend to do is use the term ‘fascist’ (or ‘fascism’) as a catch-all for “a more repressive government than we have now”. Or sometimes also people will draw some obscure parallel between something like the PATRIOT ACT provision which allows those identified as “enemy combatants” to be detained without trial, and the Nazis sending dissidents to concentration camps, and conclude that somehow (!) it must mean the US is fascist.
One only has to consider some of the events of the last century in the US to see that the level of domestic repression (political and otherwise) has many, many times been indescribably worse than it is now. And yet not once has there been a ‘fascist takeover’. Consider, to use a particularly interesting example, that the US government rounded up approx. 110,000 people of "Japanese ancestry" living in the US and put them in concentration camps!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Instructions_to_japanese.png/250px-Instructions_to_japanese.png

And yes, they were concentration camps. Authorized via executive order by none other than every liberal’s favorite wet-dream-of-a-president, FDR (Michael Moore would have this man’s babies if he were still living).
And yet having over a hundred-thousand people put in concentration camps on the basis of ethnicity still didn’t make the US fascist. This should indicate to people that fascism is something very specific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p1) - not just a word to describe things when they get really fucked up. Because really fucked up things happen all the time in regular old non-fascist liberal democracies.

[Robocommie]

And yet having over a hundred-thousand people put in concentration camps on the basis of ethnicity still didn’t make the US fascist. This should indicate to people that fascism is something very specific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p1) - not just a word to describe things when they get really fucked up. Because really fucked up things happen all the time in regular old non-fascist liberal democracies.

That's a really good point. They also had forced sterilizations in the US, slavery, and what's more, ethnic cleansing against the Native Americans. And yet it would be really weird to call the US fascist, even at the height of it's fucked-upness.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think you guys are missing the obvious notion that people like Chomsky stress over and over. That state repression in a liberal democracy means that the ruling class has exercised subtle control over the population so it need not engage in full scale authoritarianism. Fascism in the lower case sense, military rule, means the failure of misinforming the masses through systemic propaganda. That is why so many Americans think that they US was "misguided" in its attempts to free the Vietnamese, or that supporting the Contras was a good thing, etc. If the US wasn't so good at misinforming its citizens and as a result we weren't so good at keeping tabs on our democratic rights, I doubt we would have the level of freedom the State allows us to have.
Not all of the Republics that succumbed to US puppetry were these backwards places where liberal democracy wasn't a tradition. Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Greece were good examples of Western style liberal democratic places that went under. While I don't think that the US would sink to military rule, what's to stop it from sinking under a near authoritarian republican administration that mirrors Park in South Korea?

[Devrim]

I would remind people that fascism is a specific phenomenon. There is no potential at all for it to become dominant if the proletariat of a given country is not - or was not very recently - at the height of class consciousness and militancy and flexing its capability to depose the bourgeoisie. I can’t imagine I need to remind anyone here that the working class in the US right now does not fit that description. At all.

I think what people tend to do is use the term ‘fascist’ (or ‘fascism’) as a catch-all for “a more repressive government than we have now”.

I think that this is a very important point. Fascism does not mean a slightly more right-wing government. It is important to realise that.

I disagree slightly on your definition of when fascism can arise though. Fascism, historically, arose on the back of defeated worker revolutions, not directly against the revolutionary working class. Fascism arose after the revolution had been defeated by the left.

Devrim

[chegitz guevara]

You really think the American public will allow for a dictator and give up on its beloved "democracy"?

Yes. Look at how gleeful a segment of the American public was over how Bush ran roughshod over the law and Constitution. These are people who don't care about democracy as they care about their side winning. There is a very strong authoritarian streak in the American people, and the other side doesn't have the cahones to fight a civil war against them.

Keep in mind that in Italy, Germany, and Spain, the fascists never had a majority. Even in Germany, when they won 44% of the vote, the Nazis own analysis was that half of those votes were protest votes. In other words, in Nazi Germany, the Nazis had less than a quarter of the population in favor. Look what they were able to do with less than one out of four people.

The danger of fascism in America is very real. It's time for socialists, communists, anarchists, and even social democrats to stop fucking around with each other and fight this threat. If we don't unite against the fascists, they will unite us ... in a common grave.

[RadioRaheem84]

I agree. The fascist sympathies among the older generation and new generation of conservatives is alarming. They love freedom and love the nation's Democratic-Republican values, I will give them that, but they don't want it to extend to people who they believe hate the country; namely us. The mere fact that these people cannot distinguish between social democrats, anarchists, progressives, communists and socialists sounds my fascist alarm bell like no other. The fact that they want to attribute them all to anti-American sentiment is another alarming trait.

Lets run down the movement of the right:

Tea-Baggers
Nationalists
Mainstream Conservatives
Christian Right
John Birchers
Corporate Libertarians
Fringe reactionary groups; KKK, Neo-Nazi

These movements love freedom but wouldn't mind it if the government put a boot up a subversives ass. I don't know just how much of an extent they're willing to go and if that translates into supporting a vile reactionary government but when it comes to "America haters" I assume they're willing to accept a violation of their civil liberties.

[RadioRaheem84]

Have you guys not seen the CPAC 2010?

All their conventions are about are how the New Deal ruined this country and how social services are dangerous for liberty. They put us in the same category as liberals.

[Comrade Gwydion]

On an (overly simplyfied) economic level, many see socialism as a way of workers taking over the economy,
Fascism as the state taking over the economy,
and Capitalism as the economy running rampant ("free").

Rightwingers mistakingly confuse the first two.
Funny enough, a fusion between the last two is quite easy to imagine.
I think modern fascism would not be petit-bourgouisie and the state taking over the economy, but the other way around: large companies taking direct controll over the government. As said, Fascism 'wallmart-style'. I specifically think the phenomenon of private prisons and private 'security companies' employed by the USA in the M-E as signs for this path. More and more functies of the government will be directly controlled by undemocratic companies.
This combined with the anti-left and anti-civil-liberties propoganda by influential republican and libertarian public opinion makers can lead to a dynamic, dangerous fascism. Less like Franco, still less like Hitler, more like Pinochet or Berlusconi (but 10 times worse)

[ChrisK]

I can't really say I agree very much with this. I wouldn't say that Italy, Spain, Germany and Chile had weaker workers movement than normal when the fascists. Quite the opposite in fact.

While I don't know about Spain or Chile, Germany's Fascists came into power off the back of a defeated revolution and a depression destroying the bourgeoisie. Italy, same case, only the workers hadn't tried a revolution, they were weakened in the wake of the backlash from the Russian Revolution.


A part of a fascistic movement road to power is defeating the militant parts of the working class and as such you end with a weak proletariat.

While they certainly do this, they do it to a weak working class movement. If the movement was strong, the workers wouldn't allow fascists to destroy their movement by voting for them.

[bcbm]

The danger of fascism in America is very real. It's time for socialists, communists, anarchists, and even social democrats to stop fucking around with each other and fight this threat. If we don't unite against the fascists, they will unite us ... in a common grave.

so what do you propose?

[Comrade Gwydion]

While I don't know about Spain or Chile, Germany's Fascists came into power off the back of a defeated revolution and a depression destroying the bourgeoisie. Italy, same case, only the workers hadn't tried a revolution, they were weakened in the wake of the backlash from the Russian Revolution.


The fact that there was a defeated revolution, implies there was an attempted workers revolution in the first place, which implies worker's consience. As for Spain and Chile, do you really question the workers movement there at those times?

A saying about Spain: "The Spanish civil war started on the 17th july 1936. The Revolution started on the 18th." There was a moderately left (though in comparisson to the world, radically) government there, which was the very reason why Franco & Co started the civil war anyway. As soon as the war was open, the Spanish Populace grew more and more radically left (or right, in some cases obviously).

[9]

Yes. Look at how gleeful a segment of the American public was over how Bush ran roughshod over the law and Constitution. These are people who don't care about democracy as they care about their side winning. There is a very strong authoritarian streak in the American people, and the other side doesn't have the cahones to fight a civil war against them.

Keep in mind that in Italy, Germany, and Spain, the fascists never had a majority. Even in Germany, when they won 44% of the vote, the Nazis own analysis was that half of those votes were protest votes. In other words, in Nazi Germany, the Nazis had less than a quarter of the population in favor. Look what they were able to do with less than one out of four people.

The danger of fascism in America is very real. It's time for socialists, communists, anarchists, and even social democrats to stop fucking around with each other and fight this threat. If we don't unite against the fascists, they will unite us ... in a common grave.

Yes, the American “Left” - with all its middle class muscle and might - should arm itself to the teeth and go mow down all the workers who aren’t revolutionaries yet (i.e. most of the working class). This is one of the most insane comments I’ve ever seen from someone on this website, and that’s really saying something.

[Devrim]

I can't really say I agree very much with this. I wouldn't say that Italy, Spain, Germany and Chile had weaker workers movement than normal when the fascists. Quite the opposite in fact.

It was the same here when Fædrelandspartiet gained power as the then-too-progressive Arbeiderpartiet and the half-syndicalist tendencies within it gained power.

A part of a fascistic movement road to power is defeating the militant parts of the working class and as such you end with a weak proletariat.

In Germany the revolution was certainly over by 1923 at the very latest. The fascists came to power in 1933. The revolution was put down by the SPD and the Freikorps.

In Italy the 'Biennio Rosso' was the period 1919-20. Again the working class were defeated by the left. Mussolini came to power two years later.

In Spain the working class was defeated in July 1937 by the Stalinists with the complicity of the leadership of the anarchist CNT. Franco came to power in 1939.

I don't think that Chile was fascist.

I have no idea about Norway.

Fascism historically came to power on the back of a defeated working class.


While I don't know about Spain or Chile, Germany's Fascists came into power off the back of a defeated revolution and a depression destroying the bourgeoisie. Italy, same case, only the workers hadn't tried a revolution, they were weakened in the wake of the backlash from the Russian Revolution.

Yet there was a massive factory council and occupation movement in Italy in 1919-20. The CGIL (Italian General Confederation of Labour), the biggest union at the time actually had a vote on whether to have a revolution. It lost by a narrow majority.

Devrim

[Dermezel]

Yes! See my thread, I didn't even realize someone else was thinking along the same lines. I don't think a lot of people here realize the immense role of religion in the rise of fascism, but if you think about it, that makes a lot of sense.

As Trotsky notes, the actual bourgeoisie exist in far too few numbers to take political power on their own. Especially in the face of mass socialism.

They need a mass movement. They need the fascists. And the fascists are generally petty bourgeoisie.

But what kind of ideology will they use? The petty bourgeoisie will not move en masse around a secular movement in all probability. They will not, go as a large multi-million group in favor of anarchism, and very rarely will accept socialism, and even if they do it will not help the fascists at all.

The best tool for this is religion. Religion is the wedge that opens the door to the fascist. Most people will not embark on a quest for pure hatred, or racism.

You need religion as a catalyst. That is why the modern day Aryan Movement calls itself a Church. That is exactly what the fascists will do.

They will not go out and call themselves fascist and raise swastikas and announce their hatred of Jews. They will, at least in the US, call themselves Christians, or True Christians, and put down illegal immigrants and "criminals" (i.e. minorities, mostly black people) and drug users (again they imply minorities even though middle class white people have higher rates of drug use, though lower rates of drug abuse). They will not call for a march to end democracy directly, but will bemoan the existence of democratic government with its "liberal institutions" and conjure up the newest Bogeyman of the bourgeoisie: taxes.

Anyone who thinks any real fascist (ones who have a chance of taking power) will actually call themselves fascist, or present themselves as fascist is naive. Fascism is like a poisonous snake.

[chegitz guevara]

Yes, the American “Left” - with all its middle class muscle and might - should arm itself to the teeth and go mow down all the workers who aren’t revolutionaries yet (i.e. most of the working class). This is one of the most insane comments I’ve ever seen from someone on this website, and that’s really saying something.

Hmmm, please quote where I said any of that. If not, I expect a retraction and an apology for lying about what I wrote.

[Dermezel]

Also, at the risk of sounding extreme, I'm going to say straight out: It's much, MUCH better to over-react to fascism then to react too weakly.

If you are uncertain whether or not a right-wing movement is fascist, trust your instincts. Likely your subconscious mind has put together a series of clues that your conscious mind hasn't fully become aware of yet, something you know but cannot articulate. If it looks fascist, acts fascist, sounds fascist, but you can't quite prove it 100%, prepare yourself and plan accordingly. The modern day fascist will not work directly, to quote one fundamentalist Christian:


"[S]tealth was a big factor in San Diego's success," he said. "But that's just good strategy. It's like guerrilla warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night." Continuing, "I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night."

Don't get too hung up on the word fascist. It's technically a word with Italian roots, not all fascists will appear that way. It's more an attitude, a mentality, rarely do fascists even have a cohesive ideology, more often it's a collection of barely articulated beliefs and sentiments usually involving a disdain for minorities, liberalism, "corrupt politicians" and various other buzzwords which provide easy scapegoats for the uneducated segments of the population facing real challenges due to capitalism.

Do not get bogged down with whether or not a movement is "technically fascism" according to some weird academic standard. Keep in mind- we don't really have a lot of examples of fascism historically to analyze. The closest we have are maybe three-four examples in advanced industrialized nations: Japan, Italy, Germany and Spain.

And all occurred at the same time, and were the first of the fascist movements. There is no way of telling what a second generation of fascism will look like. It could look just like it's predecessors, though that is unlikely in the extreme. But more likely, it will this time do everything it can to disguise itself and launch a stealth campaign.

[chegitz guevara]

While they certainly do this, they do it to a weak working class movement. If the movement was strong, the workers wouldn't allow fascists to destroy their movement by voting for them.

Actually, the opposite is true. Historically, fascism is used (but not created) by the ruling layers of the capitalist class in order to crush a powerful workers movement. In Italy, the workers had seized the factories in Northern Italy. In Germany, the workers were organized in powerful unions and the Socialist and Communist Parties. In Spain, the workers had the powerful CNT union. In each case, the capitalists were unable to use their usual methods of dealing with an economic crisis, by making the workers pay. The workers wouldn't allow it.

What is interesting about the current fascist movement in the United States is that the worker class is at an historic low point. The workers do not need to be smashed in order to restore profitability. The "danger" to profitability comes, not from the workers, but from the state, ironically enough.

The current crisis, threatening to take down the whole system, has required state intervention. In as much as state intervention makes the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) more profitable, they support it (bank bailouts, health care reform which requires every American to buy in, subsidized by the government, etc).

In as much as regulation threatens even a couple of percentage points of profitability, FIRE vigorously opposes it, and have found in the 9/12-Tea Party movement, the means of preventing this from occurring. They have poured money and resources into building this movement to stop the state from enacting measures that would help the whole capitalist class, and keeping those measures which would aid their ruling strata of that class.

Of course, the Tea Party membership is unaware of its role, and even hostile to many of these same interests, much in the same way that the Storm Troopers of the Nazis Party wanted to crush the capitalists. What is important is not their own wishes, but the role they play. Fascism itself is a mass movement of the enraged middle classes and backwards workers.


so what do you propose?

My proposal is some sort of inter-party organization.The various socialist and anarchist groups need to create an umbrella group to do common, anti-fascist work. The era of socialist sectarianism must come to an end.

[RadioRaheem84]

Of course, the Tea Party membership is unaware of its role, and even hostile to many of these same interests, much in the same way that the Storm Troopers of the Nazis Party wanted to crush the capitalists. What is important is not their own wishes, but the role they play. Fascism itself is a mass movement of the enraged middle classes and backwards workers.

Very good analysis! Yes, you're right. The people funding these organizations are using the populist outrage to stop reform in the government. The members of the Tea Party movement are fervently anti-finance capitalism and dislike the big banks as much as any other popular movement but the interests supporting them are obviously pro-neo-liberalism and pro-finance and they're just duping the masses at these rallies to help halt any reform Obama might push through.

Still though do they really need to fund such a mass movement of hysterical misfits? Obama is pretty much bought up by Goldman Sachs and is a friend to Wall Street. Any reforms he enacts would be quite mild. I mean there is nothing the man can really do. Reforming the system would actually hurt the economy minus an actual real productive economy to fall back on.

[Dermezel]

My proposal is some sort of inter-party organization.The various socialist and anarchist groups need to create an umbrella group to do common, anti-fascist work. The era of socialist sectarianism must come to an end.

I would say a popular front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front) against the fascists, and a united front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_front) against capitalism in parallel.

The legacy of Divide and conquer bourgeoisie tactics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO) must come to an end. Especially at this time in history.

[chegitz guevara]

Still though do they really need to fund such a mass movement of hysterical misfits? Obama is pretty much bought up by Goldman Sachs and is a friend to Wall Street. Any reforms he enacts would be quite mild. I mean there is nothing the man can really do. Reforming the system would actually hurt the economy minus an actual real productive economy to fall back on.

Why settle for 98% of the pie when you can have 100%.

Keep in mind that classes are not homogeneous masses, but stratified every bit as much as society itself. Within the worker class, there are different layers, from rural, illegal immigrant, migrant workers doing stoop labor for $50 a day to machine operators at ports making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Among the capitalists, there are similar grades. Health insurance costs are literally killing some corporations. GM was once the biggest corporation in the world. Last year, the Federal government had to take it over in order to save it. What killed it? Health insurance for the workers and retirees. Capitalists don't just exploit the workers. They will exploit anyone, including other capitalists.

The following is an excellent short piece on the rule of the FIRE sector over the rest of the capitalist class: http://monthlyreview.org/100201foster.php

Obama understood his role as a servant to the whole capitalist class, and moved to enact reforms that would "save" (i.e., put off the inevitable just a little bit longer) capitalism. FIRE unleashed the Tea Baggers and stopped him.

The questions are, now that FIRE has what it wants, will it drop the Tea Party movement, and if so, will it collapse on its own or sustain itself?

[RadioRaheem84]

The following is an excellent short piece on the rule of the FIRE sector over the rest of the capitalist class: http://monthlyreview.org/100201foster.php (http://www.anonym.to/?http://monthlyreview.org/100201foster.php)

When it comes to MR, you can hardly go wrong. Good source, comrade.

But how do you know the FIRE sector bought out the tea party movements? I was under the assumption they were largely the creation of several middle sized firms and small business owners in the independent movements out in the rural and suburban areas? One of the biggest ones I've heard was started by an engineering firm.

Which ones were started by FIRE the sector and which companies?

[Dermezel]

And to answer the question directly, they already have (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0eL-WaD__g). It may have been short-lived, but they will be back. And next time, they will be playing for keeps.

[chegitz guevara]

Major funding for the tea party movement was funneled through Dick Armey's lobby group. The Insurance industries gave him money, he gave the tea parties money. Another major funder was the Coke group (not the soda but a privately owned holding corporation).

[RadioRaheem84]

Thanks. But how concerned should we be that these movements are moving beyond the phase of being propped up by corporations and into actual grassroots territory? The local tea bagger chapter in my hometown is sponsored by both grassroots financing and small business owners. Many teabaggers complained that the National Tea Party convention reeked of financial backing.

Can we say that its coming to a point that the corporations can no longer control their creation? Whats to stop an actual grassroots movement of right wing opposition that is not restrained by corporate capital?

[Dermezel]

Thanks. But how concerned should we be that these movements are moving beyond the phase of being propped up by corporations and into actual grassroots territory? The local tea bagger chapter in my hometown is sponsored by both grassroots financing and small business owners. Many teabaggers complained that the National Tea Party convention reeked of financial backing.

Can we say that its coming to a point that the corporations can no longer control their creation? Whats to stop an actual grassroots movement of right wing opposition that is not restrained by corporate capital?

The TEABaggers will not be taking the power with their own party. They will simply promote the Republicans who are now the front men for the Fundamentalists and Neo-Conservatives.

Again the difference between that and Italian style fascism is that they will try to disguise the fact that they are fascist. It's basically stealth fascism.

The Libs, the Dems and the ACLU may be weak, and ineffectual spineless dweebs when it comes to protecting real civil rights, but to not even be that far, to say the ACLU only "protects perverts" as the right-wing media states entails some serious curtailments of civil liberties on the way. People who hate the ACLU are not going to hesitate to arrest leftists once they get the power.

[RadioRaheem84]

I agree that coalition might be built between hardline right wingers and religious conservatives and they will both try to seize power and bring the full brunt of the law on leftists. I can see that but not in the way you're describing which includes a Nazi-like scenario. There is too much opposition to that here in the States and it would fought tooth and nail. Although I am not one to always bank on the cultural supremacy of the US. Many Liberal Democratic Republics have succumbed to military rule; Greece, Chile, Argentina, etc.

[Dermezel]

I agree that coalition might be built between hardline right wingers and religious conservatives and they will both try to seize power and bring the full brunt of the law on leftists. I can see that but not in the way you're describing which includes a Nazi-like scenario. There is too much opposition to that here in the States and it would fought tooth and nail. Although I am not one to always bank on the cultural supremacy of the US. Many Liberal Democratic Republics have succumbed to military rule; Greece, Chile, Argentina, etc.

Oh it's easy for me to see. Just replace Jews with illegal immigrants. We already put them in concentration camps (http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2008/12/29/americas-immigration-concentartion-camps-a-growing-prison-industrial-complex/) where some die due to a lack of medical care and abuse by the guards. Remember the Nazis didn't start by wanting to murder all the Jews, the original plan was to ship them all away. To do that they needed to contain them in ghettos, place them in one spot while preparations were made- but the plan was more expensive then they realized, and in the meantime Jews started dying off due to severe poverty. Then the war started going bad, the economy was collapsing, more prisoners died from lack of care, and then slave labor, and then they then decided to kill all of them. They had to do this because Hitler feared he would lose and it was his last chance to get rid of his enemies and cover up the evidence at the same time. It didn't start with Holocaust.

I can see that happening to the illegal immigrants or Muslims. First, round them up, we don't want to kill them just "send them home". War breaks out (say with Iran), things get worse, and you know, shit happens.

As for martial law, a lot depends on whether or not we are in a war. Say we attack Iran, and things start to go down hill. Maybe we even use nukes, who knows. At that point you can't really have dissent now can you? And we already keep the Mexicans somewhere, why not traitors?

Remember at this point society will need a scapegoat. Illegal aliens, leftists, Muslims.

And not as much oppression or propaganda will be needed as you think. Remember Hitler didn't really need to egg on the Germans too much to have them start boot-stomping:



Hitler: the Popular Oppressor

Apologists for Christian conduct during the Nazi era imagine that the regime suppressed dissent ruthlessly, no matter whom—or how many—it needed to slaughter to achieve its ends. Hitler’s regime is portrayed as Stalinesque in its response to dissent. This simplistic view reveals a failure to understand the complicated actuality of a popular terror state. The keyword is popular: Hitler was Europe’s most popular leader, and his goal was universal Aryan support. The Party obsessively tracked public opinion, something never seen in the USSR.37 Before the war, foreign tourism was encouraged; Hitler knew most Germans would speak well of the Reich to visitors, in sharp contrast to the USSR, whose leaders prudently feared interaction between foreigners and a citizenry of dubious loyalty. During most of the Reich, any unprovoked attempt to liberate Germany would have met fierce majority resistance.


Though there were assassination attempts, the top Nazis had little to fear from ordinary Germans.38 Hitler’s personal security was shockingly lax; Goering regularly drove his open convertible around Berlin.


If the apologists were right, we should expect the Gestapo to have been a massive organization, relentlessly searching out and crushing widespread dissent. Analysis of surviving Gestapo records reveals that in fact it was surprisingly small.39 Germany’s Christian population being largely satisfied, there was little resistance to suppress. Most cases the Gestapo handled were initiated by ordinary citizens looking to settle petty disputes and had no ideological content.


The Führer had been successful in buying off his Aryans with false egalitarian prosperity, stolen Jewish wealth, and his refusal to put Deutschland on a full war footing until well into the war. During the early war years civilians were under much tighter control in submarine-blockaded England than in Germany. Since nearly all Aryans were Protestant and Catholic, Hitler had to keep both sects reasonably happy, and he did. After all, the main focus of Nationalist Socialism was to make the divinely favored Aryan Volk, both Protestant and Catholic, thrive in order to transform the German population into a unified machine of domination over the lesser peoples. Contrary to Catholic apologists, the nominally Catholic Hitler had not the slightest desire to slaughter masses of the very Aryan people to whom he belonged, and whom he wanted to elevate to supreme power. Leaving aside the fact that doing so would have been ideological and racial suicide, the record makes clear that Hitler’s intention was to reform and standardize Aryans’ political, social, and ultimately their religious beliefs, not to purge them or to kill off groups of Aryans. Doing that would have grossly violated Nazi doctrine, undermined the myth of Aryan solidarity, grievously weakened the state, and risked religious civil war. Disloyalty of the Catholic third of the population would have been disastrous to a modest-sized nation trying to expand its resources in preparation for epic wars of conquest; it was this fact, not the Concordat, that would be the main constraint on Nazi actions. For that reason, apologist claims that thousands or millions of Catholics and Protestants would have joined the Jews had they protested Nazis policies are false. The proof is found in the historical record.http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html

What percentage of the US is leftist/socialist/communist anyways? Maybe 1% are Communist? In a time of war and economic severity will they really be missed?

[chegitz guevara]

There is no such thing as stealth fascism. Fascism is a movement of rage. They may not be aware that they are fascists, and many certainly deny it, but it is evident to most others, even many leading conservatives.

Yes, they will need the help of the GOP taking power, just as the Nazis needed the help of the Conservative Party in Germany, and the Fascists were handed power by the King in Italy. If that happens, though, the GOP will quickly find itself the junior partner in a reign of terror.

[Dermezel]

There is no such thing as stealth fascism. Fascism is a movement of rage. They may not be aware that they are fascists, and many certainly deny it, but it is evident to most others, even many leading conservatives.

Just say your fascism is something else. Say it is a "Clean Government Party" or a Constitutional Party, or anything you can use to disguise it. By Stealth I didn't literally mean it had no visible presence at all, I meant it was disguised in its actions. Sort of like a "stealth candidate" used by creationists to get onto school boards.

Such candidates do not directly say they are creationist, but as soon as they are on the board they implement a creationist agenda. Likewise many Right-Wingers in the GOP may not say they are fascist, but will implement a fascist agenda when and where able.


Yes, they will need the help of the GOP taking power, just as the Nazis needed the help of the Conservative Party in Germany, and the Fascists were handed power by the King in Italy. If that happens, though, the GOP will quickly find itself the junior partner in a reign of terror.

That is idealism. The GOP can just turn fascist. There was no reason the Conservative Party couldn't transform into a fascist party. There is no reason why the fascists cannot hijack a party instead of starting their own. In fact, in the US that sounds like the only possible way for them to get power seeing as we live in a two-party state that is almost impossible to break.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Everything is possible in America. That is, as long as you're a neoliberal, extreme-right, racist, agressive and imperialist capitalist thug.
With the US, you never know what you going to get, so perhaps these fascist creatures do have a chance there...

[Robocommie]

Everything is possible in America. That is, as long as you're a neoliberal, extreme-right, racist, agressive and imperialist capitalist thug.
With the US, you never know what you going to get, so perhaps these fascist creatures do have a chance there...

I presume then that Belgium is completely pure of racist right-wing capitalists?

[RadioRaheem84]

I presume then that Belgium is completely pure of racist right-wing capitalists?


We're lucky that for the most part conventional liberalism is the norm in the EU.

[ChrisK]

The fact that there was a defeated revolution, implies there was an attempted workers revolution in the first place, which implies worker's consience. As for Spain and Chile, do you really question the workers movement there at those times?

Defeated implies a lack of belief in ones self. After getting smacked down the movement was weakened. Unless defeats now strengthen movements, but if this were the case American workers would all be communists by now.


A saying about Spain: "The Spanish civil war started on the 17th july 1936. The Revolution started on the 18th." There was a moderately left (though in comparisson to the world, radically) government there, which was the very reason why Franco & Co started the civil war anyway. As soon as the war was open, the Spanish Populace grew more and more radically left (or right, in some cases obviously).

Well, considering that Bonapartism can be spread by war, I can assume (based on the premise that fascism is bonapartism) that Hitler's involvement in that war was the deciding factor.

[ChrisK]

Yet there was a massive factory council and occupation movement in Italy in 1919-20. The CGIL (Italian General Confederation of Labour), the biggest union at the time actually had a vote on whether to have a revolution. It lost by a narrow majority.

Devrim

Thanks for that!

[Weezer]

Hey Captain_Cuba, just so you know:

http://www.dixiecom.com/Falange/tombstone.jpg

They're gone. (http://www.falange.us/)

[ChrisK]

Actually, the opposite is true. Historically, fascism is used (but not created) by the ruling layers of the capitalist class in order to crush a powerful workers movement. In Italy, the workers had seized the factories in Northern Italy. In Germany, the workers were organized in powerful unions and the Socialist and Communist Parties. In Spain, the workers had the powerful CNT union. In each case, the capitalists were unable to use their usual methods of dealing with an economic crisis, by making the workers pay. The workers wouldn't allow it.

Even if they were making a comeback, they were no where near strong enough to take control of society. And fascism crushes the rest of the working class as a concession to the bougeosie, while helping out ordinary workers through social programs. Its a balancing act.


What is interesting about the current fascist movement in the United States is that the worker class is at an historic low point. The workers do not need to be smashed in order to restore profitability. The "danger" to profitability comes, not from the workers, but from the state, ironically enough.

What fascist movement? They have no power here.


In as much as state intervention makes the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) more profitable, they support it (bank bailouts, health care reform which requires every American to buy in, subsidized by the government, etc).

In as much as regulation threatens even a couple of percentage points of profitability, FIRE vigorously opposes it, and have found in the 9/12-Tea Party movement, the means of preventing this from occurring. They have poured money and resources into building this movement to stop the state from enacting measures that would help the whole capitalist class, and keeping those measures which would aid their ruling strata of that class.

Of course, the Tea Party membership is unaware of its role, and even hostile to many of these same interests, much in the same way that the Storm Troopers of the Nazis Party wanted to crush the capitalists. What is important is not their own wishes, but the role they play. Fascism itself is a mass movement of the enraged middle classes and backwards workers.

This doesn't make them fascist, or even make them powerful enough to do jackshit.

Especially if you consider that the bougeosie has plenty of power still. They're doing rather well.


My proposal is some sort of inter-party organization.The various socialist and anarchist groups need to create an umbrella group to do common, anti-fascist work. The era of socialist sectarianism must come to an end.

On a seperate issue I do mostly agree with this.

[9]

Oh it's easy for me to see. Just replace Jews with illegal immigrants. We already put them in concentration camps (http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2008/12/29/americas-immigration-concentartion-camps-a-growing-prison-industrial-complex/) where some die due to a lack of medical care and abuse by the guards. Remember the Nazis didn't start by wanting to murder all the Jews, the original plan was to ship them all away. To do that they needed to contain them in ghettos, place them in one spot while preparations were made- but the plan was more expensive then they realized, and in the meantime Jews started dying off due to severe poverty. Then the war started going bad, the economy was collapsing, more prisoners died from lack of care, and then slave labor, and then they then decided to kill all of them. They had to do this because Hitler feared he would lose and it was his last chance to get rid of his enemies and cover up the evidence at the same time. It didn't start with Holocaust.

I can see that happening to the illegal immigrants or Muslims. First, round them up, we don't want to kill them just "send them home". War breaks out (say with Iran), things get worse, and you know, shit happens.

As for martial law, a lot depends on whether or not we are in a war. Say we attack Iran, and things start to go down hill. Maybe we even use nukes, who knows. At that point you can't really have dissent now can you? And we already keep the Mexicans somewhere, why not traitors?

Remember at this point society will need a scapegoat. Illegal aliens, leftists, Muslims.

And not as much oppression or propaganda will be needed as you think. Remember Hitler didn't really need to egg on the Germans too much to have them start boot-stomping:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html

What percentage of the US is leftist/socialist/communist anyways? Maybe 1% are Communist? In a time of war and economic severity will they really be missed?

This thread reads like a middle class scaremongers’ orgy. I really think a lot of "leftists" have a fascist fetish, where they are just fiending for some other potential threat to go to war against, no matter how outlandish, so they don’t have to deal with the fact - or perhaps in order for them to obscure the fact - that capitalism itself is what breeds these right-populist movements in the first place and that capitalism itself is the greatest problem and the most dangerous threat.
I imagine you will propose a strategic vote for the Democratic Party at some point soon in this thread.

[Comrade Gwydion]

Hah!
I however like this cartoon on their website^^
http://www.dixiecom.com/Falange/neo-nazi2.gif

[Dermezel]

I presume then that Belgium is completely pure of racist right-wing capitalists?

Why are you defending American culture? I have talked to you twice, the first time you defended Christianity, now American culture in general.

In any case there are matters of degree. Modern day Belgium, and just about every country in advanced European states is way, way more modernistic then the United States.

You can even measure it: http://www.swt.org/share/modernity-sciam-1203high64.pdf

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q289/Dermezel/valuemap.gif

This was published in a peer reviewed sociological journal. Note how in the former Soviet states rates of scientific belief and secularism are so high compared to other developing countries. That means while hardly perfect, the Bolshevik education system did have some success with respect tp eradicating superstitions.

[ChrisK]

Why are you defending American culture? I have talked to you twice, the first time you defended Christianity, now American culture in general.

In any case there are matters of degree. Modern day Belgium, and just about every country in advanced European states is way, way more modernistic then the United States.

You can even measure it: http://www.swt.org/share/modernity-sciam-1203high64.pdf

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q289/Dermezel/valuemap.gif

This was published in a peer reviewed sociological journal. Note how in the former Soviet states rates of scientific belief and secularism are so high compared to other developing countries. That means while hardly perfect, the Bolshevik education system did have some success with respect tp eradicating superstitions.

He's not defending American culture. He's pointing out that all capitalist countries have these problems.

[Devrim]

Actually, the opposite is true. Historically, fascism is used (but not created) by the ruling layers of the capitalist class in order to crush a powerful workers movement. In Italy, the workers had seized the factories in Northern Italy. In Germany, the workers were organized in powerful unions and the Socialist and Communist Parties. In Spain, the workers had the powerful CNT union. In each case, the capitalists were unable to use their usual methods of dealing with an economic crisis, by making the workers pay. The workers wouldn't allow it.

This isn't at all true. In each case the working class had been decisivly defeated before the rise of fascism.

Devrim

[Dermezel]

He's not defending American culture. He's pointing out that all capitalist countries have these problems.

He's doing it in a way that implies a defense of American cultures. I've seen the same thing on ChinaDaily. Someone notes that Great Britain is imperialist, the response "Oh I love the stereotyping, like everyone in Great Britain is an imperialist."

It is clearly attacking a straw man argument. The argument concerns national policies, not the belief system of everyone in Great Britain. Likewise the argument on culture regards the general state of our culture in relative terms, not whether or not everyone in the US is a rabid right-winger, or everyone in Belgium is a progressive.

[ChrisK]

He's doing it in a way that implies a defense of American cultures. I've seen the same thing on ChinaDaily. Someone notes that Great Britain is imperialist, the response "Oh I love the stereotyping, like everyone in Great Britain is an imperialist."

It is clearly attacking a straw man argument. The argument concerns national policies, not the belief system of everyone in Great Britain. Likewise the argument on culture regards the general state of our culture in relative terms, not whether or not everyone in the US is a rabid right-winger, or everyone in Belgium is a progressive.

No, its simply showing that ALL capitalist countries have the problem. Not that America doesn't or that its okay.

[Dermezel]

No, its simply showing that ALL capitalist countries have the problem. Not that America doesn't or that its okay.

America has a far more severe problem with rabid, right-wing fundamentalists and racists.

Also it is clearly an implicit defense. If I note that someone is a racist, and you respond "Well everyone has problems. Have you never said anything racist before?" you are clearly defending that person.

[ChrisK]

America has a far more severe problem with rabid, right-wing fundamentalists and racists.

Also it is clearly an implicit defense. If I note that someone is a racist, and you respond "Well everyone has problems. Have you never said anything racist before?" you are clearly defending that person.

The only defense he provies is to prevent America from being singled out. Singling out like that is the equivelent of attacking wal-mart and not all supermarkets.

[Dermezel]

The only defense he provies is to prevent America from being singled out. Singling out like that is the equivelent of attacking wal-mart and not all supermarkets.

BS. His defense was way too vague, and he knows damn well that the problems in the US are far more severe. Again, if you criticize someone for using the "n-word" and the response is like "So are you saying you're perfect?!" that is a clear defense within that context.

In any case, sometimes it is effective to single out the worst examples. I don't see why that entails the person is saying every other example is perfect. The person did not say "The US has these problems, but Belgium is perfect. " The person simply criticized the right-wing nuts in the US. How you read "Belgium is perfect" into that is beyond me. To me it sounds more like someone was simply offended that the US was criticized.

[Robocommie]

BS. His defense was way too vague, and he knows damn well that the problems in the US are far more severe. Again, if you criticize someone for using the "n-word" and the response is like "So are you saying you're perfect?!" that is a clear defense within that context.

You know frankly, I don't think the problems in the US ARE way more severe. The number of anti-immigration politicians who have serious popular support in Europe right now does not exactly lead me to believe that racism is not a problem in Europe to the same extent in Europe. Frankly, I think the European support for multiculturalism often leaves a lot to be desired. The French treat the Senegalese and Algerians like garbage.



In any case, sometimes it is effective to single out the worst examples. I don't see why that entails the person is saying every other example is perfect. The person did not say "The US has these problems, but Belgium is perfect. " The person simply criticized the right-wing nuts in the US. How you read "Belgium is perfect" into that is beyond me. To me it sounds more like someone was simply offended that the US was criticized.I'm a socialist, I criticize the US every single day. What I objected to was the singling out of the US as a particularly vile case, which I don't think is fair at all. I've heard a lot of things said by right wing politicians in much of Europe and frankly, some of the things they've said, an American politician couldn't get away with. In some ways, the situation in continental Europe is worse, in others it's better. You're completely mischaracterizing what he said, he didn't just say, "America has a problem with racism and right wing politics." If that had been the case, your metaphor of someone being called racist might hold some water. But he was saying that anything is possible in the US, and that it's particularly likely to be a home to fascism. I completely reject the idea that America is in some way more fascist than nations in Europe. We have our Klansmen, Europe has it's own far rightists like the BNP or the Dansk Folkepartei, etc, etc.

And frankly, I'm not going to apologize for defending "American culture" which, I should say, is a wonderfully vague term. I'm an American, I was born and raised here. Perhaps you should suggest another culture that I should adopt if you find it problematic that I defend it.

One final note, on your comment about how I've already defended Christianity; I'm not going to apologize for that either. I'm not an anti-theist. I think you'll find I'm not the only one on these boards. A fair number of posters here are liberation theologists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, for example. You can say what you like but it might save you some time if you don't express shock and dismay everytime someone disagrees with your views on religious people.

[chegitz guevara]

This isn't at all true. In each case the working class had been decisivly defeated before the rise of fascism.

Devrim

Right, because the unions and communist and socialist parties had all been smashed by the government before the capitalists turned to fascism. Profitability had been restored. Yet, for some reason, the capitalist class thought, even though we have everything we need, let's turn over political power to a bunch of psychotic nut-jobs for shit's and giggles. :rolleyes:

If the worker class had been decisively defeated before fascism came to power, there would be no need for fascism. The capitalists funded the fascists precisely because they themselves could not defeat the workers. They needed another force to do so. That is the purpose of fascism.

[Frank Zapatista]

Fascism, if it comes to the US, won't come from a third-party - it would come from the Republican Party.
As I've pointed out before, Fascism is a specific political ideology not a branch term for all rightwingers. The Republican Party is definently right wing but its not even close to Fascism. Unless it came from a party advocating actual Fascist policies it isnt actually Fascism.

[chegitz guevara]

As I've pointed out before, Fascism is a specific political ideology not a branch term for all rightwingers. The Republican Party is definently right wing but its not even close to Fascism. Unless it came from a party advocating actual Fascist policies it isnt actually Fascism.

It's not even an ideology. Ideologically, fascism is all over the place, often contradicting itself in the same sentence. Tea Party fascism, for example, ideologically opposes the extreme statism of the Fascists of Italy and the Nazis. That doesn't mean that when the time comes, they won't try to seize the state and use it, along with extra-state forces, to crush all whom they identify as their enemies.

[Comrade Gwydion]

It's not even an ideology. Ideologically, fascism is all over the place, often contradicting itself in the same sentence. Tea Party fascism, for example, ideologically opposes the extreme statism of the Fascists of Italy and the Nazis. That doesn't mean that when the time comes, they won't try to seize the state and use it, along with extra-state forces, to crush all whom they identify as their enemies.

Tea party fascism in not fascism.
Although I sometimes use the term fascism loosely, the Tea Party ideology can not be defined as fascist at all.

[chegitz guevara]

I'm not using the term loosely, but very, very strictly. The tea party movement is the only fascist movement in the U.S. since the rise and fall of the second Klan, nearly ninety years ago.

It is a mass movement of the enraged middle class and declassé workers in the service of the ruling sectors of the bourgeoisie. They are the real deal.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's not even an ideology. Ideologically, fascism is all over the place, often contradicting itself in the same sentence. Tea Party fascism, for example, ideologically opposes the extreme statism of the Fascists of Italy and the Nazis. That doesn't mean that when the time comes, they won't try to seize the state and use it, along with extra-state forces, to crush all whom they identify as their enemies.

I agree. When I read the Doctrine of Fascism, I was thoroughly confused and appalled at the same time. It made no sense and read more like an emotional tirade than an actual principled political doctrine.

But the same can be said about the Tea Party Libertarian ideology. Theirs is confusing and utterly vile too. They rant about liberty, freedom and personal responsibility in the most confusing and ambiguous ways. They believe in some harmony of interests, class collaboration bullshit rather than class struggle. They scapegoat socialism without even understanding it as all they do is rant about state and social programs that rarely have anything to do with socialism at all. And the worst part is that they think that they're side is the side of reason and logic!

[Devrim]

Right, because the unions and communist and socialist parties had all been smashed by the government before the capitalists turned to fascism. Profitability had been restored. Yet, for some reason, the capitalist class thought, even though we have everything we need, let's turn over political power to a bunch of psychotic nut-jobs for shit's and giggles. :rolleyes:

If the worker class had been decisively defeated before fascism came to power, there would be no need for fascism. The capitalists funded the fascists precisely because they themselves could not defeat the workers. They needed another force to do so. That is the purpose of fascism.

It sounds very nice as a theory, but it doesn't at all fit the historical facts. Working class attempts at revolution had been smashed before fascism rose to power as I pointed out earlier in the thread.

Devrim

[chegitz guevara]

You are incorrectly assuming a dualism without basis, i.e., either they succeeded or they were smashed. There is a whole middle area between 100% and 0%.

The revolutions were defeated (or not attempted). The workers still had powerful unions and political parties which prevented the capitalist class from restoring profitability by slashing wages, increasing working hours, etc. It was not until the fascists took power that the capitalists were able to accomplish these feats. Only then was the working class smashed.

[Red Commissar]

Zilch really. Any possible attempt at doing so is the same reason why you won't see socialism taking root in the US- the political system in the US is designed to prevent a radical change in politics, good or bad.

[chegitz guevara]

If the capitalist class determines they need the fascists to take power, constitutionality won't be an issue.

[The Douche]

It sounds very nice as a theory, but it doesn't at all fit the historical facts. Working class attempts at revolution had been smashed before fascism rose to power as I pointed out earlier in the thread.

Devrim

I think this applies to Germany, as the state crushed the berlin revolution before fascism was a major player. (though the proto-fascist movements had a lot to do with it)

But how was the working class of Italy defeated prior to the rise of fascism? In my study of Italy it seems that it was the rise of fascism which crushed the revolutionary working class, and the power that was granted to the fascists by the state in doing so, is what allowed them to take power.

Also, the Spanish situation is clearly the defeat of socialism by fascism, and not a weakness created by the prior defeat of socialism.


If the capitalist class determines they need the fascists to take power, constitutionality won't be an issue.

I think the (clearly fascist) politics of the tea baggers are in line with the constitution of the United States.

[Red Commissar]

If we are to take the example of the Italian Fascist Party, which was supported by capitalists to save itself when it was a small party, then we might be able to work with that. However, we will also have to get the same situations there was at that time- the danger of an imminent socialist revolution. There was a lot of labor unrest breaking out all over the industrialized nations of Europe at the time, which is nonexistent in the US currently thanks to the low level of class consciousness.

The current political situation between the Democrats and Republicans have by and large benefited the capitalists, and will continue to do so. There's no reason for them to change the status quo so as long as the situation continues to keep them buoyed (bail outs, loans, etc...)

I dislike the Tea bagger's nonsense as much as any one else is, but we'd be giving them way too much credit if we think they're a powerful fascist movement. If anything the Tea Party is being used as a tool by the bourgeoisie to channel discontent into an ultimately harmless movement, to them at least.

[Revy]

I wouldn't put much stock in the idea that there will be an organized "Tea Party". The movement exists, yes, but there already exists a popular far-right third party for them to use, the Constitution Party, which aside from appealing to their base anti-tax ideals (the Constitution Party was founded as the US Taxpayers Party), also is Christian fundamentalist, nationalist, and xenophobic.

[chegitz guevara]

I think the (clearly fascist) politics of the tea baggers are in line with the constitution of the United States.

Again, the politics of a fascist organization is utterly and completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they say or what they believe. It matters what they do, and those are almost always very different things.

If capitalism needs the fascists to take power, I doubt they'd even bother with elections.

[Die Rote Fahne]

"when fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley." - George Carlin

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly. They will not call themselves fascists or refer to themselves as anything other than freedom loving patriots. They actually want to extend liberty to all except people of our political persuasion and others deemed subversive.

[The Douche]

Again, the politics of a fascist organization is utterly and completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they say or what they believe. It matters what they do, and those are almost always very different things.

If capitalism needs the fascists to take power, I doubt they'd even bother with elections.

I agree, I was just replying to the quoted portion where you make it a point to say that constitutionality doesn't matter in regards to fascism (and of course you are correct). I just wanted to point out that there is really nothing unconstitutional about the fascism of the tea baggers.

[Bitter Ashes]

This was a silly question to ask on a public forum tbh. Scumfront's going to have quotes from Revleft now saying "Look, even the crazy commies think we're on the winning side"

[Robocommie]

This was a silly question to ask on a public forum tbh. Scumfront's going to have quotes from Revleft now saying "Look, even the crazy commies think we're on the winning side"

What difference does it make?

[Salyut]

What's the chance that the economic crisis could leave people desperate enough to vote for an extreme right-wing party such as these?


Christian Falangist Party (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.falange.us/)
Falconist Party (http://www.anonym.to/?http://falconistparty.tripod.com/)

I know a guy who was involved in the Falangist party when he was younger. His grandad was in the Falange in Spain and he...yeah...

Hes also jewish which lead to hilarity when the other members found out. Now hes a libertarian.

Also you guys need to read Chris Hedges.

[RadioRaheem84]

Everyone on stormfront is libertarian.

Chris Hedges said it best, the Christian Right is pretty dangerous.

[Dermezel]

You know frankly, I don't think the problems in the US ARE way more severe.

Again I have talked to you twice, the first time you defended Christianity, now you are defending right-wing culture. The problems in the US are not just more severe, they are measurably more severe:

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q289/Dermezel/pewpollmedical-2.gif


It is well documented that Christianity has withered dramatically in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. The failure of the faith in the west is regularly denounced by Popes and Protestant leaders. Churches are being converted into libraries, laundromats and pubs. Those who disbelieve in deities typically make up large portions of the population, according to some surveys they make up the majority of citizens in Scandinavia, France and Japan. Evolution is accepted by the majority in all secular nations, up to four in five in some.

......

The result is plain to see. Not a single advanced democracy that enjoys benign, progressive socio-economic conditions retains a high level of popular religiosity. They all go material.

It is the great anomaly, the United States, that has long perplexed sociologists. America has a large, well educated middle class that lives in comfort—so why do they still believe in a supernatural creator? Because they are afraid and insecure. Arbitrary dismissal from a long held job, loss of health insurance followed by an extended illness, excessive debt due to the struggle to live like the wealthy; before you know it a typical American family can find itself financially ruined. Overwhelming medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcy.

In part to try to accumulate the wealth needed to try to prevent financial catastrophe, in part to compete in a culture of growing economic disparity with the super rich, the typical American is engaged in a Darwinian, keeping up with the Jones competition in which failure to perform to expectations further raises levels of psychological stress. It is not, therefore, surprising that most look to friendly forces from the beyond to protect them from the pitfalls of a risky American life, and if that fails compensate with a blissful eternal existence.



The effect can be more direct. For instance, the absence of universal health care encourages the utilization of faith-based medical charities. The latter, as well intentioned as they are, cannot provide the comprehensive health services that best suppress mortality at all ages. But charities extend the reach of the churches into the secular community, enhancing their ability to influence society and politics, and retain and recruit members.

Rather than religion being an integral part of the American character, the main reason the United States is the only prosperous democracy that retains a high level of religious belief and activity is because we have substandard socio-economic conditions and the highest level of disparity. The other factors widely thought to be driving forces behind mass faith—desire for the social links provided by churches, fear of societal amorality, fear of death, genetic predisposition towards religiosity, etc—are not critical simply because hundreds of millions have freely accepted being nonreligious mortals in a dozen and a half democracies. Such motives and factors can be operative only if socio-economic circumstances are sufficiently poor to sustain mass creationism and religion.
So much for the common belief that supernatural-based religiosity is the default mode inherent to the human condition. What about the hypothesis that has gained wide currency, that competition between the plethora of churches spawned by the separation of church and state is responsible for America's highly religious population? Australia and New Zealand copied the American separation between church and state in their constitutions, yet they are much more irreligious. Meanwhile the most religious advanced democracies in Europe are those where the Catholic church is, or was, dominant.

To put it starkly, the level of popular religion is not a spiritual matter, it is actually the result of social, political and especially economic conditions (please note we are discussing large scale, long term population trends, not individual cases). Mass rejection of the gods invariably blossoms in the context of the equally distributed prosperity and education found in almost all 1st world democracies. There are no exceptions on a national basis. That is why only disbelief has proven able to grow via democratic conversion in the benign environment of education and egalitarian prosperity. Mass faith prospers solely in the context of the comparatively primitive social, economic and educational disparities and poverty still characteristic of the 2nd and 3rd worlds and the US.
We can also explain why America has become increasingly at odds with itself. On one hand the growing level of socio-economic disparity that is leaving an increasing portion of the population behind in the socially Darwinian rat-race is boosting levels of hard-line religiosity in the lower classes. On the other hand freedom from belief in the supernatural is rising among the growing segment that enjoys higher incomes and sophisticated education. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, Richard Branson and Rupert Murdoch are typical upper crust disbelievers.

The practical implications are equally breath taking. Every time a nation becomes truly advanced in terms of democratic, egalitarian education and prosperity it loses the faith. It's guaranteed.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html

[Devrim]

You are incorrectly assuming a dualism without basis, i.e., either they succeeded or they were smashed. There is a whole middle area between 100% and 0%.

The revolutions were defeated (or not attempted). The workers still had powerful unions and political parties which prevented the capitalist class from restoring profitability by slashing wages, increasing working hours, etc. It was not until the fascists took power that the capitalists were able to accomplish these feats. Only then was the working class smashed.

So what you seem to be saying is that fascism was necessary for the borgoiesie because or though it was strong enough to decisivly defeat the working class during the revolutionary wave of 1917-21, it was incapable of slashing wages and increasing working hours.

All of the evidence from Germany points against this. The 1920s, before Hitler came to power, saw massive unemployment, reductions of real salaries, and increased working hours.


I think this applies to Germany, as the state crushed the berlin revolution before fascism was a major player. (though the proto-fascist movements had a lot to do with it)

I don't think so. That is only the case if you label every right wing movement as 'fascist' or 'proto-fascist'. The revolutionary movement in Germany was smashed by the social democrats.


But how was the working class of Italy defeated prior to the rise of fascism? In my study of Italy it seems that it was the rise of fascism which crushed the revolutionary working class, and the power that was granted to the fascists by the state in doing so, is what allowed them to take power.

The revolutionary movement in Italy was smashed in 1920. By the time that the fascists came to power in 1922, the movement had been decisivly defeated.


Also, the Spanish situation is clearly the defeat of socialism by fascism, and not a weakness created by the prior defeat of socialism.

I don't think so. I think the class movement was defeated in 1937 in the July days in Barcelona after which the Stalinists unleashed a wave of terror against working class militants. The class struggle was defeated by the left before the fascist victory.

Devrim

[Dermezel]

Also much of this reasoning is anti-Dialectical. The movement either is or is not fascist. The fact is a fascist movement is just as much in motion and with real, material contradictory elements as anything else.

[chegitz guevara]

So what you seem to be saying is that fascism was necessary for the borgoiesie because or though it was strong enough to decisivly defeat the working class during the revolutionary wave of 1917-21, it was incapable of slashing wages and increasing working hours.

The Germans saw five revolutions in the space of five years. The first revolution was successful, and ended the Hohenzollern dynasty and WWI. The revolution in Bavaria managed to hold power for some time, while the 1919, 1921, and 1923.

At which point was the worker class decisively defeated?

The revolution isn't the war. It's a battle in the war. You can lose battles, and still win the war. You can even win every battle and still lose the war, as the Greek tyrant Pyrrhus found out when he invaded Rome.

You're stuck in a dualism, either total victory or total defeat. That's just not reality. There's no middle ground for you.


All of the evidence from Germany points against this. The 1920s, before Hitler came to power, saw massive unemployment, reductions of real salaries, and increased working hours.

The capitalist crisis put a lot of companies out of work, hence the increase in unemployment. Also, massive inflation cut into salaries. At the same time, which you ignore, capitalist profits collapsed. German capitalism was dying, of course the worker class was hurting at the same time.

The point, which you wave off, is that the capitalists could not resort to their usual methods, of making th worker class pay to save themselves. The workers were too powerful to allow that to happen. That is why the capitalists, reluctantly, turned to the fascists. It was the only force capable of crushing the workers and restoring profitability. And once that was done, German capitalism recovered.

What makes the Tea Party movement different, is this time the capitalists have unleashed fascism, not to restore profitability, not to save the system, to save a few points of profitability.

[Robocommie]

Again I have talked to you twice, the first time you defended Christianity, now you are defending right-wing culture.

You said that already.

Neglecting the fact that I would hardly characterize American culture in general as synonymous with right wing culture, you keep saying this like this is in someway going to have an impact on our discussion. But as I tried to explain to you, I could hardly give a fuck whether you approve, nor am I willing to humor your morally presumptuous sense of outrage over what I say. "First you've defended Christianity, and now American culture? UNBELIEVABLE!" Yeah, well, get bent. In the short time you've been here, you've struck me as a total muppet that is convinced the Democrats are social democrats and that the Republicans are fascists because they've taken on a conservative Christian base since the '60s and '70s. Needless to say, that unsubtle and non-academic reading of the American political landscape does not encourage me to take you seriously.

I'm just telling you this so you don't get the impression I'm going to be paying attention to you and your charts anymore.

[The Douche]

The revolutionary movement in Italy was smashed in 1920. By the time that the fascists came to power in 1922, the movement had been decisivly defeated.

But it was defeated by the fascists! The fascisti de combatti (I may have butchered that, I don't feel like looking it up) were attacking socialists and trade unionists everywhere they had a public presence, the police/state allowed this in order to see the destruction of the militant working class. It was this movement (of fighting the socialists) that allowed the fascists to become such a strong social movement that it was impossible(ish) for the king not to abdicate to mussolinni.


I don't think so. I think the class movement was defeated in 1937 in the July days in Barcelona after which the Stalinists unleashed a wave of terror against working class militants. The class struggle was defeated by the left before the fascist victory.


Hmmmmm, you're right here. But the civil war was sill on before the defeat of the working class, so fascism was on the road to power prior to the destruction of the workers movement.

[Outinleftfield]

Just say your fascism is something else. Say it is a "Clean Government Party" or a Constitutional Party, or anything you can use to disguise it. By Stealth I didn't literally mean it had no visible presence at all, I meant it was disguised in its actions. Sort of like a "stealth candidate" used by creationists to get onto school boards.

Such candidates do not directly say they are creationist, but as soon as they are on the board they implement a creationist agenda. Likewise many Right-Wingers in the GOP may not say they are fascist, but will implement a fascist agenda when and where able.



That is idealism. The GOP can just turn fascist. There was no reason the Conservative Party couldn't transform into a fascist party. There is no reason why the fascists cannot hijack a party instead of starting their own. In fact, in the US that sounds like the only possible way for them to get power seeing as we live in a two-party state that is almost impossible to break.

There really aren't any "Democrat" or "Republican" Parties to hijack anymore, just platforms for rich people to run for office. The Democrat and Republican "Party elites" have no significant influence. What matters is how much a candidate can raise money so he can advertise and get votes. Even though there are some votes other than the primaries they wouldn't dare vote against the primary voters because that would be scandalous.

All it takes is for some rich, right-winger with a fascist agenda to run in the Republican primaries (both parties are basically the same in the way they govern but it will have to be the Republicans because the ideological base is better for fascism). So its actually easier, all they have to do is fool the people, there is no group that has to be won over for them to get the nomination.


This isn't at all true. In each case the working class had been decisivly defeated before the rise of fascism.

Devrim

Social Consciousness lags behind material conditions. That's why even though we have evolution to explain the "origins" of mankind many still insist Genesis is the true literal story of creation. Their consciousness comes from before that discovery.

Similarly, the bourgeoisie years after they are almost defeated in a revolution are still going to be in a "reactive" mindset even if the potential for a worker's revolution has died down.

Two parts of the bourgeoisie have two different reactions. One part see the demands of the masses as somewhat legitimate but doesn't embrace socialism because it would threaten their wealth and power. They react with appeasement and cooptation, that’s the liberals. Another part is angry and defensive at what they see as a threat to their power and traditional way of life. That's the conservatives. The more threatening the masses are the more intense and more conservative-leaning the reaction. The culture wars is ultimately a reaction by conservatives to the 60s and 70s. They are still reacting. Fascism could result if something threw them over the edge.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Similarly, the bourgeoisie years after they are almost defeated in a revolution are still going to be in a "reactive" mindset even if the potential for a worker's revolution has died down.I think more than that, with fascism, while the movements to my knowledge always arose directly from an attempt to defeat working class movements, they may not come to power until later because even if the working class movement is more or less defeated, the capitalists alone are unable to "fix" the conditions that led to the political crisis. So the German fascist movement came out of the friecorps and other far right-wing militants, the movement outlasted the revolutionary moment because the essential crisis remained.

One of the general signatures of fascism is a base among a petty bourgeois that is both feeling attacked from the working class and capitalism. So I think people are right to say that if a fascist movement developed here, the type of people in the tea-parties, right-wing Christians, Minutemen (already proto-fascist in my opinion) and so on would definitely be the slime that the social base of fascism comes from.


The problems in the US are not just more severe, they are measurably more severeProblems of what? Yes, there is a high level of Christianity and a large portion of them are right-wing, but it isn't as uniform as right-wing evangelical leaders insist. In fact, on most issues, the US population is to the left of the Democrats - the only issue in the US where the population has been steadily heading to the right on is abortion. On the death penalty, war, healthcare, gay rights, there has been a steady move leftward.

I agree with you and others who say that fascism in the US might cloak itself in Christianity (and definitely will not declare themselves as fascist). But the threat of fascism in the US is not far greater than in other places (at this point) - Eastern Europe would be the first place I would expect fascism to actually vie for power (and they might even wrap themselves around a nostalgia for the USSR and Russian Empire. India has petty bourgeois and nationalist Hindu parties and pogroms against Muslims and other groups. There's Le Pen in France and the BNP in the UK and Italy has a mainstream far-right party under Berlusconi that has actively legitimized the smaller neo-fascist parties in Italy (and immigrant Gypsies were attacked by fascist vigilantes with wide popular approval) - in comparison, the US fascist movement is disorganized still in diapers.

You are right about the forces that could POTENTIALLY develop into the base of a US fascist movement - you are also right that we need to be vigilant and watch the development of these groups (I think the Minutemen and Militia movements are much more of a threat than general right-wing christian groups though).

But you are wrong that the Republicans are run by these groups or is fascist itself; you are wrong that the christian right is fascist; you are wrong that the US is closer to fascism than other regions. If they were, things like the murder of immigrants, bombing of abortion clinics, attacks on mosques would be commonplace while cops looked the other way (and probably participate in out of uniform).

You only need to look back at US history to see that today things are not even as dire as they have been in the past. If you want to read about US fascism, look at the White Citizen Councils of the 50s, look at the vigilante strike-beakers that attacked migrant workers in California during the depression, look at the raids against Republicans and blacks by the KKK during reconstruction, look at abortion clinic bombings in the 1980s. In all of these examples, not only was the violence more organized and systematic - but they were all in response to workers and oppressed groups making advances in their own grassroots struggles.

[Devrim]

But it was defeated by the fascists! The fascisti de combatti (I may have butchered that, I don't feel like looking it up) were attacking socialists and trade unionists everywhere they had a public presence, the police/state allowed this in order to see the destruction of the militant working class. It was this movement (of fighting the socialists) that allowed the fascists to become such a strong social movement that it was impossible(ish) for the king not to abdicate to mussolinni.

The fascists started to rise towards power after the defeat of the factory occupation movement:


At first, the Fascists [PNF] were concentrated in Milan and a few other cities. They gained ground quite slowly, between 1919 and 1920; not until after the scare, brought about by the workers “occupation of the factories” in the late summer of 1920 did fascism become really widespread. The industrialists began to throw their financial support to it. Moreover, toward the end of 1920, fascism began to spread into the countryside, bidding for the support of large landowners, particularly in the area between Bologna and Ferrara, a traditional stronghold of the Left, and scene of frequent violence. Socialist and Catholic organizer of farm hands in that region, Venezia Giulia, Tuscany, and even distant Apulia, were soon attacked by [Black Shirt] squads of Fascists, armed with castor oil, blackjacks, and more lethal weapons. The era of Squadrismo, and nightly expeditions to burn Socialist and Catholic labor headquarters had begun.


Hmmmmm, you're right here. But the civil war was sill on before the defeat of the working class, so fascism was on the road to power prior to the destruction of the workers movement.

Yes, but it doesn't obscure the fact that the working class was first defeated by the left.

Devrim

[The Douche]

The fascists started to rise towards power after the defeat of the factory occupation movement:

But it was the fascists who defeated (intimidated) the factory occupation movement.


Yes, but it doesn't obscure the fact that the working class was first defeated by the left.

I'm sorry bro, aren't you arguing that fascsim does not exist as a serious threat until the left is defeated? Yes the "left" defeated the working class in Spain, but there was still a massively powerful fascist movement before that defeat.

[CartCollector]

They actually want to extend liberty to all except people of our political persuasion and others deemed subversive.
How is this any different from socialists who insist that after the revolution there has to be a clampdown on free speech to prevent counterrevolutionaries from regaining power?

[Devrim]

But it was the fascists who defeated (intimidated) the factory occupation movement.

I have never seen anybody claim this before. Would you like to provide some evidence.


I'm sorry bro, aren't you arguing that fascsim does not exist as a serious threat until the left is defeated? Yes the "left" defeated the working class in Spain, but there was still a massively powerful fascist movement before that defeat.

I am arguing that fascism is a specific phenomenon which rose to power after the working class had been defeated by the left.

This hasn't happened in the US

Nor if we were to believe the analysis of fascism given by 'chegitz guevara' does the ruling class in the US need to resort to fascism to crush a powerful workers' movement.

I don't think that the 'tea-party' is fascist at all. It is just another right-wing party.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

The tea party is just a right wing, anti-communist movement. There are plenty of those without the fascist label. Fascism also represented an appraisal of the state, my impression is that the tea party wants to dminish the state.

To add fuel to the fire, the "neoconservatives" were a much more dangerous phenomenon and it doesnt seem to have alarmed as much leftists as the tea party. I imagine this happened because the neocons were an abortion of the Left (even if they are considered right), so the rhetoric was lacking. The tea party seems to me more as a residual of old paleoconservative politics, which were extremely anticommunist due to the cold war.


I still stand by the idea that neoconservatives, including Obama, are the worst aspect of american capitalism. They represent one of the most brutal imperialist tendencies of democratic states.

[The Douche]

I have never seen anybody claim this before. Would you like to provide some evidence.

That is my understanding/recollection, but it is quite possible that I am mistaken, the book I need isn't here at my girlfriend's house, so I can't refer to it.


I am arguing that fascism is a specific phenomenon which rose to power after the working class had been defeated by the left.

Fascism was certainly rising to power in spain before the deat of the working class. And so it could be building its base anywhere, even before the defeat or in the non-existence of the left.


I don't think that the 'tea-party' is fascist at all. It is just another right-wing party.

I don't think its like anything we've ever seen before, but it is closest to fascism and the resultant society would look a lot like fascism. And I think its wrong be so dogmatic that we have to apply the 1930s definition of fascism in such a rigid manner.

[Robocommie]

The tea party is just a right wing, anti-communist movement. There are plenty of those without the fascist label. Fascism also represented an appraisal of the state, my impression is that the tea party wants to dminish the state.

To add fuel to the fire, the "neoconservatives" were a much more dangerous phenomenon and it doesnt seem to have alarmed as much leftists as the tea party. I imagine this happened because the neocons were an abortion of the Left (even if they are considered right), so the rhetoric was lacking. The tea party seems to me more as a residual of old paleoconservative politics, which were extremely anticommunist due to the cold war.


I still stand by the idea that neoconservatives, including Obama, are the worst aspect of american capitalism. They represent one of the most brutal imperialist tendencies of democratic states.

I think your analysis is pretty hard to argue against, you make good points. Certainly neo-conservatism presents itself as more of a problem, and a danger to the world because it has already proven itself attractive to the establishment.

What I'd like to ask though is if you really feel Obama is a neo-conservative? It would seem more accurate to label him a neo-liberal in the Clintonian tradition, to me at least.

[Devrim]

I don't think its like anything we've ever seen before, but it is closest to fascism and the resultant society would look a lot like fascism. And I think its wrong be so dogmatic that we have to apply the 1930s definition of fascism in such a rigid manner.

We stick to a specific definition of fascism because that is what fascism is. Otherwise we end up sounding like the boy who cried wolf shouting 'fascist' about every right-wing political group.

If you think though that one of the key components of fascism is its corpratism, and the overt integration of labour organisations into the state, it is exactly the opposite of what the America Libertarian right advocate. They always call for less state control whereas fascism called for the submission of the individual to the state.

It would be possible to go on explaining why this movement is in no way fascist, but to be honest I don't see the point, as I haven't seen anything reasonable to suggest that they are.

Devrim

[ZombieGrits]

As everybody here has already stated, its pretty safe to say that "classical" fascism is an impossibility in the US's near future. However I think there's definitely some dangerous potential for a further rightward shift in the parties' platforms.
Historically, whenever a third-party political movement in the US became relatively strong, its interests were adopted by one the parties. You see this kind of thing in how the Democratic Party absorbed the Populist Party in the late 1800s and the Progressive Party in the early 20th century.
So I think something like that may happen, but with the Republicans absorbing far-right groups, whose ranks would swell with misguided populists who dont know their interests

[Dermezel]

The tea party is just a right wing, anti-communist movement. There are plenty of those without the fascist label. Fascism also represented an appraisal of the state, my impression is that the tea party wants to dminish the state.


They don't want to diminish the Police State apparatus. They are perfectly fine with Homeland Security, Gitmo, Prayer in School, etc.

What they want is tax cuts for the super-rich.

[Dermezel]

You said that already.

Neglecting the fact that I would hardly characterize American culture in general as synonymous with right wing culture,

The differences are incidental.


But as I tried to explain to you, I could hardly give a fuck whether you approve,

Well I would hope so. Regardless this is a discussion forum, why did you come here if you are not interested in discussion?


"First you've defended Christianity, and now American culture? UNBELIEVABLE!"

Well an easy way to refute me is to simply state your overall opinions on Christianity and American Culture. I mean I showed you something like three major statistical/sociological/anthropological studies on it. These studies proved my point.


as a total muppet that is convinced the Democrats are social democrats and that the Republicans are fascists because

Yeah kinda. I think our two party system makes us a little different then Europe was in the 1920-30s, but essentially that is the case. Though the Democrats are a little more spineless then the Social Democrats were.



they've taken on a conservative Christian base since the '60s and '70s. Needless to say, that unsubtle and non-academic reading of the American political landscape does not encourage me to take you seriously.

Well what about the 50 year long academic study I linked to, do you take that seriously?


I'm just telling you this so you don't get the impression I'm going to be paying attention to you and your charts anymore.

Oh by charts you mean evidence. So don't confuse you with the facts.

It's not like I quoted the Weekly World News pal, I quoted Discovery Magazine, Scientific American, and sociologists. I mean okay, clearly you find my results inconvenient. That sucks man.