Tea Party fascist or not?

[Nolan]

What are they in your opinion?

[The Ben G]

I think they are fascist. They have all the makings of it.

[Dimentio]

It is hard to define fascism, since fascism takes different characteristics dependent on era, culture and conditions. But I would say that they share some key characteristics with fascist movements, both contemporary and historical in the fact that they are a mainly petty-bourgeoisie phenomenon which is attaching itself with the defense of the most reactionary elements of the big bourgeoisie, as well as the most reactionary values existing in society, while portraying themselves as a populist movement standing up for the small people against bankers and politicians.

[Robocommie]

Fascism can be hard to define, but I think the Tea Party is close enough to count. In other words I concur with Dimentio.

[Comrade B]

They are radical right wingers who take pride in their nationalism and do not hide their racism. They believe in introducing more religion into the state and removing secularism from the public. They advocate removal of the democratically elected president (like him or not, he is democratically elected and still popular) by any means, and they embrace ideas of market freedom, while still ragging on banks as a scapegoat. They support militarism and oppose attempts for creation of social equality. I think they work quite well into the definition of fascists.

Were there a fascist revolution, I have no doubt that the teabaggers would be a large portion of the fascist's ranks.

[Martin Blank]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=3359

This is being discussed publicly in advance of the League's next Central Committee meeting in order to spark a broader discussion on the issue. Please don't debate it in this thread; if you want to discuss it, join our RevLeft social group.

[The Douche]

Fascism is capitalism in crisis. Yes the tea party is fascism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Proto-fascist yes. Very much like the FrieKorps in Wiemar Germany.

[iskrabronstein]

There are two possibilities for the Tea Party, in my opinion - they will either field new Republican candidates in the '10 elections, or try to field their own. If they remain within the mainstream Republican movement, I think they will be little more than a radical opposition with sporadic terrorist outbursts. If, however, they attempt to go it alone and manage to split the political field they will hand elections to the Democrats.

If this occurs, I suspect many of them will abandon mainstream politics and file into the more radical organizations already profiting from this populist rage. Then they truly will be fascist, instead of just proto-fascist.

[Sam_b]

Too much labelling as usual. The Tea Party movement does not appear to be a homogenous entity so blanketly calling it 'fascist' is beyond me, even if it may have minority elements. So in short, no.

[iskrabronstein]

The coalescence of such ideologically disparate groups into a cohesive, nationalist political ideology is one of the preconditions of fascism.

It is also precisely the transition that this movement is entering into.

[Sam_b]

All to often leftists label such movements as 'fascist' simply because they are opposed to it. I've yet to see any real preconditions arise.

[chegitz guevara]

The essence of fascism is a mass movement of the enraged petty bourgeoisie and declasse workers in the service of the most powerful layers of the capitalist class.

That is the Tea Party. There may be superficial differences with traditional fascism: ideologically the Tea Party claims to favor small government, but it's more important to focus on what they do, not what they say.


All to often leftists label such movements as 'fascist' simply because they are opposed to it. I've yet to see any real preconditions arise.

And all to often leftists refuse to see something because it isn't absolutely identical to they way it was before.

I do agree that leftists have an awful habit of labeling something fascist when it is merely authoritarian, but I've been a commie for twenty years and I've never used the term to describe an existing social movement until the Tea Party. These guys are the real deal.

[MilitantWorker]

Comrades,

Please read more about fascism.

Thanks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There may be superficial differences with traditional fascism: ideologically the Tea Party claims to favor small government, but it's more important to focus on what they do, not what they say.

"But the Nazis were SOCIALISTS!" :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#German_Party_program

"Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery [...] We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts) [...] We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries."

Do a back-leaning Hitler salute while receiving money on your open palm.

[Weezer]

Well, according to this link, (http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm) there are 14 common characteristics of Fascism, let's go over them, shall we?

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. Check.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. Check.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. Like that isn't obvious.


4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. Check.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
Pretty much.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. Maybe...

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. Check.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
CHECK.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

CHECK.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
DOUBLE CHECK.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
Well, Glenn Beck doesn't really like college protesters or intelligence.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
Pretty Much.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. Sounds like it.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. inb4 2000

So what, the Tea Party maybe a 12 or 13 out of 14 characteristics of Fascism. I'd say they're pretty fash.

[GPDP]

So because they're not sieg-heiling or yelling "White Power!" that disqualifies them from being fascists?

As chegitz said, what's important is the essence, that is, the social composition and role of the movement, not the ideological or rhetorical trappings. In this way, they are more fascist than any of the fash listed here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1297527&postcount=4).

Where the Tea Party movement lacks in adherence to traditional fascist doctrines, they more than make up for in the fact that unlike the traditional fash groups in the link above, they are actually entering the mainstream, and becoming a mass movement. They represent the new face of fascism in unique American clothing.

[Robocommie]

So because they're not sieg-heiling or yelling "White Power!" that disqualifies them from being fascists?

As chegitz said, what's important is the essence, that is, the social composition and role of the movement, not the ideological or rhetorical trappings. In this way, they are more fascist than any of the fash listed here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1297527&postcount=4).

Where the Tea Party movement lacks in adherence to traditional fascist doctrines, they more than make up for in the fact that unlike the traditional fash groups in the link above, they are actually entering the mainstream, and becoming a mass movement. They represent the new face of fascism in unique American clothing.

Frankly, in the US, I think a lot of the more blatant Nazis disarm themselves by making themselves extremely obvious and totally unapproachable to the majority culture. They can do real damage when they commit some kind of hate crime or burn down a black church, but they can never get mainstream authority. But the Tea Party represents a far friendlier face to the same mentality that gave rise to the NSDAP.

[GPDP]

Frankly, in the US, I think a lot of the more blatant Nazis disarm themselves by making themselves extremely obvious and totally unapproachable to the majority culture. They can do real damage when they commit some kind of hate crime or burn down a black church, but they can never get mainstream authority. But the Tea Party represents a far friendlier face to the same mentality that gave rise to the NSDAP.

Exactly. Tea Party fascism is uniquely tailored to the U.S., and is completely in line with mainstream American political culture. That is one of its greatest strengths, and it's part of why they present a far, far greater threat than the KKK and the Neo-Nazis and all those other old tinpot fash groups combined.

In fact, I'm actually somewhat disturbed that there is no talk of them in the Anti-Fascism board. The fact that traditional fash (at least on Stormfront) actually look on the Tea Party movement positively, and talk of working within its ranks, says something about the urgency to do so.

[~Spectre]

Since there is still disagreement over an easily applicable definition of fascism in this context, let's just exam their structure/social role.


The teaparty movement is essentially composed of lumpenproles that are riled up by corporate backed media, and corporate sponsored politicians. They have gotten direct funding from corporations and generally use professional republican organizers to set up events.

They are used to shout down (literally) any sort of "progressive item", and in turn, when this is applied to the policies of democrats, it pushes the debate even more to the right, by making the democrats' right wing policy seem left wing, or even extreme left wing to the uninformed apathetic American.

They are tools of corporate power meant to maintain the status quo (all the craziness of the tea party movement will get completely ignored by even their republican masters once they are no longer needed), often through near mob like coercion at public forums.

Just decide for yourselves, is that fascist? And even if it's not- is that a problem that needs to be dealt with?

Furthermore, putting ourselves in the shoes of corporate power, what implications does this reality have on what they would do next with the tea party movement?

[ChrisK]

Well, according to this link, (http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm) there are 14 common characteristics of Fascism, let's go over them, shall we?

...

So what, the Tea Party maybe a 12 or 13 out of 14 characteristics of Fascism. I'd say they're pretty fash.

The fourteen characteristics of fascism are bullshit. They apply to most, if not all, dictatorships. We don't need to read some cappies ideas of where fascism came from.

What we do know about fascism is that it is a petty-bourgeosisie movement that results in a form of Bonapartism.

I've written about this before here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1681207&postcount=12).



Fascism is a form of Bonapartism. Bonapartism is a form of government in which the state is held by a third class, due to the main competing classes being too weak to maintain power. This first happened with Napoleon Bonaparte, when the newly forming capitalist class was too weak to maintain power and the monarchists were too weak to take power back. Napoleon took over and gave various liberal concessions to the Republicans while maintaing dictorial power. Such a form of government necessarily cannot hold itself up, it eventually falls and one of the other classes takes control. With Napoleon the monarchists took power.

The most famous example of Bonapartism is that of Louis Napoleon taking France when the capitalists didn't have the ability to maintain power against the working class, but the working class wasn't powerful enough to take over. Louis Napoleon's rise and fall is written about in detail by Marx in The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/index.htm). (Another example explored by Engles is the rise of Otto von Bismark in various articles).


Using Nazi Germany as an example:

Two classes too weak to hold power. This was certainly the case in Germany when the Nazi's took power. The capitalists were destroyed by WWI and the working class was weakened by a failed revolution.
Concessions made to the other two classes. The demands of employment were given to the workers (and the use of socialist rhetoric). The capitalists were given greater industry.
Fell to one of the other classes. Much like after wars the two Bonapartes fell to the other classes, Germany fell to the control of capitalists.
Ergo, it was a Bonapartist state.


Also, something interesting I found tonight about the nature of Nazi Germany.
http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1932/321030.htm

[CChocobo]

They're just a bunch of nationalist right-wingers. Most expressing homophobic, and racist rhetoric. I wouldn't say fascists in the sense but very close to leaning towards fascism, they do have all the makings of a fascist movement, being very nationalist and right wing and all.

[Devrim]

All to often leftists label such movements as 'fascist' simply because they are opposed to it. I've yet to see any real preconditions arise.

Absolutely right. It is the boy crying 'wolf' again.

Devrim

[AK]

So because they're not sieg-heiling or yelling "White Power!" that disqualifies them from being fascists?
They're shouting "USA! USA!"; it's the same thing :lol:

[Martin Blank]

Absolutely right. It is the boy crying 'wolf' again.

Hic Rhodes! Hic Salta!

[Angry Young Man]

I voted yes, but only because there wasn't a 'sort of' option. I'll agree with Radio Raheeb and call them proto-fascists. The problem is the emphasis they place on freedom (their conception of). Hitler was explicitly opposed to freedom and (I presume) wouldn't use it in oratory. Also worthy of note is that fascists in Germany and Italy often had social-democratic economic plans.

[Wanted Man]

Well, according to this link, (http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm) there are 14 common characteristics of Fascism, let's go over them, shall we?

Oh God, not that fucking link again. You can apply these 14 points to both the Bush and Obama administrations, to Nazi Germany, to the Soviet Union at various points in time... They must all be fascist as well. :rolleyes:

[Dimentio]

I voted yes, but only because there wasn't a 'sort of' option. I'll agree with Radio Raheeb and call them proto-fascists. The problem is the emphasis they place on freedom (their conception of). Hitler was explicitly opposed to freedom and (I presume) wouldn't use it in oratory. Also worthy of note is that fascists in Germany and Italy often had social-democratic economic plans.

Germany in the 1920's and the 1930's was an authoritarian society (despite that it since 1919 had been a bourgeois republic which was probably one of the more democratic of that era) where the people expected the state to drill them and organise them. What the Germans were triggered by was the economic and social hardships as well as the prestige loss suffered by the defeat in world war one.

In the USA, since the Civil War, the federal state has routinely placed itself as a progressive engine visavi reactionary federal subjects (a certain grouping of more agrarian and rural states). That, as well as the anti-etatist American culture, has directed reactionary movements - from the Ku Klux Klan, to the John Birch Society to contemporary Tea Party nativists - against the state and for the decentralisation of patriarchal power, preferably down to the level of the nuclear family but at least down to the level of the state.

A fascist takeover in America would not lead to a consolidation of capitalist power, but on the contrary to the beginning of the dissolution of the American empire. Provincial isolationists cannot govern a world empire, especially not as they see that world empire as "the world oppressing the United States". Seriously, US fascists are believing that NAFTA would mean that Mexico and Canada would take over the USA.

Hitler had bizarre world-views, but no one could accuse him for not attending to the interests of German big capital in a state expansionist sense. Alex Jones (who share certain hitleresque qualities) and his views are consistently against the interests of American big capital, and consistently in line with the interests of regional bourgeois groupings which want to decrease the power of the federal state in order to enstrengthen local small-town oligarchies.

[Devrim]

Hic Rhodes! Hic Salta!

Quite impressive, not only do you manage to post a quotation with no relevance to the situation, but you manage to get it wrong. It should be of course "Hic Rhodus, hic saltus!" in the original saying, or where Marx used it " Hic Rhodus, hic salta!".

Devrim

[Martin Blank]

Quite impressive, not only do you manage to post a quotation with no relevance to the situation, but you manage to get it wrong. It should be of course "Hic Rhodus, hic saltus!" in the original saying, or where Marx used it " Hic Rhodus, hic salta!".

Whatever. I was exhausted when I typed that in quickly. But you know what I'm saying. You've made this shamefully dismissive argument several times before, but you never bother to substantiate or justify it. You simply repeat this "boy crying 'wolf'" line like a mantra. So, either put up or shut up -- explain your position or admit you cannot. Here is Rhodes! Here, dance!

[zimmerwald1915]

Whatever. I was exhausted when I typed that in quickly. But you know what I'm saying. You've made this shamefully dismissive argument several times before, but you never bother to substantiate or justify it. You simply repeat this "boy crying 'wolf'" line like a mantra. So, either put up or shut up -- explain your position or admit you cannot. Here is Rhodes! Here, dance!
Devrim's a big boy and can speak for himself, but I'm bored as hell and responding takes up at least a few minutes that would otherwise be spent staring into space. For him, it's not terribly relevant whether or not the Tea Party is fascist. The American state as it exists is the vile enemy of the working class, and it won't be made much worse if the Tea Partyers manage to capture it.

[Dimentio]

Devrim's a big boy and can speak for himself, but I'm bored as hell and responding takes up at least a few minutes that would otherwise be spent staring into space. For him, it's not terribly relevant whether or not the Tea Party is fascist. The American state as it exists is the vile enemy of the working class, and it won't be made much worse if the Tea Partyers manage to capture it.

In fact, if the Tea Party managed to take over the state, they would most likely bring more power to the states at the expense of the federal level, meaning a much weakened central government.

[The Douche]

I think it is interesting to note that those most vocal in the non-fascsim of the tea party are not from the US. I wonder if this has anything to do with the way they see them on youtube/in the media, always talking about "freedom" and viewing them as libertarians/free market types.

The reality is most of them are not politically intelligent enough to hold any coherent ideology. Many of them love George Bush, and Ronald Reagan, they claim to be traditional conservatives but support the war on terror and the patriot act.

This movement may have started in the ranks of the libertarians (whose politics may not be fascist, but whose society may as well be) but the rank and file of this movement are authoritarian social conservatives. They will break the unions with the force of the state, they will strip rights away from "terrorists" (which includes all muslims, and their "radical left wing allies"), and they will unilaterally invade any country which represents a "threat to the american way of life".

[Audeamus]

Part of the problem with pinning down the ideology of the Tea Party types is that the movement doesn't quite have a coherent ideological basis yet. All I have seen is vague rantings about socialism and whatever Beck has fed them that week. I think it would be fair, though, to call them proto-fascist. It is fast becoming a radicalized right wing, nativist, petty-bourgeois movement whose "libertarian" streak only goes as far as their taxes are concerned.

[Martin Blank]

I think it is interesting to note that those most vocal in the non-fascism of the tea party are not from the US. I wonder if this has anything to do with the way they see them on youtube/in the media, always talking about "freedom" and viewing them as libertarians/free market types.

I was hesitating to "go there", but I think it's a valid point. The experience of European fascism has been rather narrow, in terms of its origins and development. That has colored the discussion over the character of fascism in many political circles throughout the 20th century. It took years for a consensus to emerge on whether or not the Ku Klux Klan was a fascist movement; in fact, until the 1950s, large sections of the left did not see it as such. Quite simply, those leftists were wrong.

Yes, the Nativists and those around Ron Paul use that kind of "libertarian" and "populist" language. So did the KKK. The Nazis used "socialist" language because socialism was more relevant to the societies they were operating in than populism. But when you dig deeper, you find that all the talk about "states rights" and the X Amendment is all for consumption, not implementation. Where it matters most -- the role and reach of the state -- the Nativists and others are obscenely authoritarian and totalitarian.

Dimentio mentioned the Civil War. I'm reminded of Marx's view on the slaveholders when they initially formed the Confederacy in 1861. At the time, most bourgeois and petty-bourgeois commentators were agreed that the growth and success of the Confederacy, either in diplomacy or war, would signal the ultimate break-up of the United States. Marx disagreed. It was his view that the Confederacy did not represent the break-up of the United States, but rather its reorganization on a more reactionary basis. That was the initial impetus for his support for the Union. It was quickly confirmed by the actions of the Davis regime, which ended up being more centralized and more repressive than Lincoln's administration in Washington.

Similarly today, the Nativists, if they were to be successful, would not usher in a new period of dominant "states rights" and devolution away from the federal government. Rather, slogans like "states rights" and "personal freedom" would be a cover for the further reorganization of the U.S. on a more reactionary basis. Whatever fetter remained on the powers of the police and military would be removed. Not only would habeas corpus remain a dead letter (as it has been in the U.S. since 2005), but the practice of issuing bills of attainder would become a standard, as the Nativists use the power of the state to "protect life" and "insure personal liberty" (translation: eliminate a woman's right to privacy and choice, and wipe away the few rights workers have to organize).

[RadioRaheem84]

Was the Confederacy fascist? Because the Tea Party movement reminds a bit of the former Confederate States of America. Free Markets, States rights, racism, christian extremism, and strong sense of America's destiny in the world. Minus the slavery, many Libertarians praise the former CSA as a model to follow and blame the Union for dissolving a great nation. The Civil War Revisionism is rampant here in the South and tied to the Tea Party movements at the local levels.

[The Douche]

Was the Confederacy fascist? Because the Tea Party movement reminds a bit of the former Confederate States of America. Free Markets, States rights, racism, christian extremism, and strong sense of America's destiny in the world. Minus the slavery, many Libertarians praise the former CSA as a model to follow and blame the Union for dissolving a great nation. The Civil War Revisionism is rampant here in the South and tied to the Tea Party movements at the local levels.

Well the southern US was not industrialized so you couldn't really call the CSA fascist. It was bonapartist though.


The way the CSA is seen in modern america is laughable, the CSA was every bit as federalist and authoritarian as the USA. There is this ideal version based on what the CSA said it was fighting for, and people ignore the actual history for that notion. I don't think most people who fly confederate flags really understand what the governmental operation of the CSA was like, they think it means "small government and states rights", but the reality is that those things did not exist in the CSA. (How could they, a technologically backwards agricultural nation was at war with a much more populous industrial nation.)

[Dimentio]

Was the Confederacy fascist? Because the Tea Party movement reminds a bit of the former Confederate States of America. Free Markets, States rights, racism, christian extremism, and strong sense of America's destiny in the world. Minus the slavery, many Libertarians praise the former CSA as a model to follow and blame the Union for dissolving a great nation. The Civil War Revisionism is rampant here in the South and tied to the Tea Party movements at the local levels.

No, the confederacy wasn't fascist. A fascist state is characterised by its attempts to include the population through demonstrations, flag-waving, large celebrations and propaganda. The Confederacy was more of a traditional oligarchic republic supported by large land-owners. If the confederacy would be defined as fascist, wouldn't Mexico under Santa Anna be even more fascist? The Confederacy was racist though.

[RadioRaheem84]

Then the tea party movement isn't really fascist then if they're looking for a CSA type of nation. But the question is does it have the potential to become fascist? Could the movement ever take a militarist line and demand for a Pinochet or even a Park from South Korea to dismantle what the "progressives" did to the country?

[Raúl Duke]

I guess it depends on what social function the Tea Party will take.

I'm just getting the feeling that at this point the Tea Party moved away from its libertarian origins and is being more and more like an "auxiliary movement" for the right-wing of the GOP (which is already a right-wing party). They may talk about state-rights and what not but in reality they'll be selective about it. They'll probably enforce state-rights on social conservative issues and such yet on war/foreign policy/security they'll probably expand the federal government's role. I wouldn't say they're fascist per se...but perhaps proto-fascist could be right? perhaps neither. it depends.

I also been hearing about this "coffee party" movement. While it's too early to tell, I bet they'll become the "auxiliaries" for the democrats. Perhaps, but too early to tell, the social role of both movements will be to be a distraction for the masses so that their energy is spent on these party-tied movements instead of "wandering" into some movement that the status-quo might consider actually dangerous to their interests.


Could the movement ever take a militarist line and demand for a Pinochet or even a Park from South Korea to dismantle what the "progressives" did to the country?

I read something that claims that Glenn Beck argues a similar line (i.e. "we should dismantle everything progressives have done to the country!") but not sure if he would support a dictator (it's possible, I think I heard him praise Chile under Pinochet, etc)

[Dimentio]

Then the tea party movement isn't really fascist then if they're looking for a CSA type of nation. But the question is does it have the potential to become fascist? Could the movement ever take a militarist line and demand for a Pinochet or even a Park from South Korea to dismantle what the "progressives" did to the country?

Fascism is not inherent in the goals only, but in the form as well. Fascism is reactionary ideology mimicking leftist and liberal forms of mass-organisation. That is the one thing that sets fascism apart from ordinary right-wing extremism. I would classify the Tea Party movement as fascist in the extent that they are building up a grassroot movement to support reactionary garbage.

[RadioRaheem84]

Fascism is not inherent in the goals only, but in the form as well. Fascism is reactionary ideology mimicking leftist and liberal forms of mass-organisation. That is the one thing that sets fascism apart from ordinary right-wing extremism. I would classify the Tea Party movement as fascist in the extent that they are building up a grassroot movement to support reactionary garbage.

The right wing in this country has been using populist garbage for years now. They wouldn't have a base unless they stole the grassroots mantra from the left. That's all they do is try to build up a right wing populist base against the "elite", when the leaders of these movements are really another segment of the elite.

All they do is call their electoral victories "revolutions" and they depict their leaders in Che-like photos and appeal to the emotions of working class people. The Tea Party is largely an anti-intellectual, right wing populist base for right wing elites to use as a weapon against liberal elites in some sort of sick political game.

Exhibit A:

http://rlv.zcache.com/reagan_revolution_pop_art_design_print-p228888510838619878tdcp_400.jpg

[Devrim]

Whatever. I was exhausted when I typed that in quickly. But you know what I'm saying. You've made this shamefully dismissive argument several times before, but you never bother to substantiate or justify it. You simply repeat this "boy crying 'wolf'" line like a mantra. So, either put up or shut up -- explain your position or admit you cannot. Here is Rhodes! Here, dance!

Well no I don't understand what you are saying, and by the sound of it neither do you. The phrase doesn't say "Here is Rhodes. Here dance!. It either means in the first version I gave here is Rhodes jump, or in the version gave used by Marx in 18th Brumaire, not the time in volume one of capital where he use the jump version, "Here is the Rose. Here dance". In neither case does the idea fit what you seem to be suggesting above.

To answer exactly what you do say above, I have explained on numerous occasions here that fascism is a word overused by the left to the point that it has lost meaning, but the discussion here is completely bizarre. I really can't imagine why anybody at all would think the tea party were fascist unless they were using the word in a particular meaningless way like it is used by much of the left.


The experience of European fascism has been rather narrow, in terms of its origins and development. That has colored the discussion over the character of fascism in many political circles throughout the 20th century.

This is a truly impressive argument. What it basically says is that the historic meaning of the term fascism doesn't stretch wide enough to cover all of the things I want to call fascist. Fascism is a term, which describes a particular, historical form. It does not mean anything that you want it to, and you are not Humpty Dumpty.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I think it is interesting to note that those most vocal in the non-fascsim of the tea party are not from the US. I wonder if this has anything to do with the way they see them on youtube/in the media, always talking about "freedom" and viewing them as libertarians/free market types.

I think that 'Zimmerwald' is from the US anyway. For me,i It is certainly not to do with how I see them on Youtube, which is banned in this country*.

I would suggest that there are many possible reasons for this though. The first one that comes to mind is that America leftists are more prone to using the term 'fascist' in a completely meaningless way.

Devrim

*Oh my God, do you think we might have been taken over by 'fascists'? ;)

[chegitz guevara]

This is a truly impressive argument. What it basically says is that the historic meaning of the term fascism doesn't stretch wide enough to cover all of the things I want to call fascist. Fascism is a term, which describes a particular, historical form. It does not mean anything that you want it to, and you are not Humpty Dumpty.

Devrim

Fascism does describe a particular, historical form. What if, however, something in all other ways identical to fascism appears in another context. Should we simply refuse to believe it's fascism or should we look at the essence?

The working class may not need to be repressed atm, as it is provides no resistance to capital, but fascism can be wielded against other classes threatening capitalist profits, even against other capitalists. The social role of the Tea Party is to prevent a threat to the dominance of FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) over the rest of the capitalist class and all of society.

As a mass movement of the enraged petty bourgeoisie and declasse workers in the service of capital, it fits the definition of fascism to a T. It would be blind dogmatism to insist that fascism can only appear in specific forms and specific conditions. One might as well say that since fascism has never been seen outside Italy and Germany, that it can never exist outside Italy and Germany.

Stop mistaking form for essence.

[MilitantWorker]

Isn't fascism, along with bourgeois "democracy", just another form of capitalist dictatorship?

Consider this..even if there were degrees, or some sort of sliding scale of fascism, how would you define it? Beyond that, where would the governments of the various states fit?

Is fascism just a shitty out-dated historical term?..I don't feel it really fits our period anymore. It has a million different every day meanings and it just seems to confuse people.

Every time I have a discussion about "fascism" with people at school or work, I always end up talking about state capitalism. A lot of times people will talk about the militia movement or the Bush administration in the same thought, but they are completely different. In that way I think it is also important to consider the meaning and history of right-wing (sometimes called "grassroots") populism, especially in the US..

[Martin Blank]

Was the Confederacy fascist? Because the Tea Party movement reminds a bit of the former Confederate States of America. Free Markets, States rights, racism, christian extremism, and strong sense of America's destiny in the world. Minus the slavery, many Libertarians praise the former CSA as a model to follow and blame the Union for dissolving a great nation. The Civil War Revisionism is rampant here in the South and tied to the Tea Party movements at the local levels.

No, the Confederate rebels were not fascist. Fascism is primarily a movement, not a form of state power. When in power, fascism parallels very closely a Bonapartist police state, similar to what we have here now; the main difference between a state headed by the fascists and a state headed by the Bonapartists is how it came into being, not how it rules. And while both fascism and Bonapartism develop in response to the failure of the working class to take advantage of an objectively revolutionary situation, they emerge from different areas: fascism from the disaffected petty bourgeoisie; Bonapartism from within elements of the capitalist state.


Then the tea party movement isn't really fascist then if they're looking for a CSA type of nation. But the question is does it have the potential to become fascist? Could the movement ever take a militarist line and demand for a Pinochet or even a Park from South Korea to dismantle what the "progressives" did to the country?

While neo-Confederates and other proponents of the "Lost Cause" may participate in the Tea Party movement (as do the neo-Nazis, KKK and other classical fascist formations), a wholesale revival of the Confederate system is not being advocated. What the Tea Party Nativists want is to graft the radically reactionary elements that are popular among those forces (e.g., enshrinement of the "Judeo-Christian" character, rollback of the democratic amendments, etc.) on to the existing American capitalist political system -- i.e., a reactionary reorganization. Part and parcel of that process is defeating and "scattering" the so-called "socialists" -- the Democratic Party, the business unions and other organizations that represent (ostensibly or in reality) working people -- and "taking back America" by ousting the "alien" elements from the government and state.

As for dismantling the liberal reforms of the last century, Republicans are already openly talking about that. In addition to the latest pledge to repeal the recent health insurance "reform" if they win in November, numerous Republicans are now talking again about privatizing the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs, as well as ending the paltry federal subsidies given to states to shore up unemployment insurance. As well, some GOP officials are raising the specter of repealing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts passed in the mid-1960s, calling them "divisive" and a "failure".


To answer exactly what you do say above, I have explained on numerous occasions here that fascism is a word overused by the left to the point that it has lost meaning, but the discussion here is completely bizarre. I really can't imagine why anybody at all would think the tea party were fascist unless they were using the word in a particular meaningless way like it is used by much of the left.

Y'know, Dev, when I saw you replied to the thread, I was actually gearing up for a serious discussion. I half expected you would respect this audience enough to put aside your snide condescension for a moment and actually engage in a discussion. I guess the other half, the one that constantly reminds me that your politics aren't really worth the paper they're printed on, was again correct.

Yes, many leftists do overuse the term fascist. But that's no excuse to avoid analyzing the situation and seeing if, in fact, this or that movement really is fascist -- to see if it meets a particular characterization in part or in whole; to examine its contradictions, motion and development; to understand where such a movement came from and where it is going. Cowering behind the mistakes of others is (or should be) beneath any self-respecting self-described communist. In the end, it really says a lot about your own poverty of philosophy and theory.

The level of condescending snobbery you show in these discussions may fly in the ICC, and it may even fly here, but it doesn't make it right. Every time you duck and dodge the argument, every time you ignore the issue and try to pick on my rusty Latin, every time you casually dismiss the political issue that has taken center stage in the most powerful of the Great Power imperialist countries, you demonstrate why you fail. Personally, I'm glad to see you expose your own failings and inability to analyze when it's needed most. It shows exactly how irrelevant and meaningless you've become, and reinforces my belief that, in the end, you have nothing to say to me or to other working people. But I would think you would, at the very least, give it a try for the sake of comrades here.


This is a truly impressive argument. What it basically says is that the historic meaning of the term fascism doesn't stretch wide enough to cover all of the things I want to call fascist. Fascism is a term, which describes a particular, historical form. It does not mean anything that you want it to, and you are not Humpty Dumpty.

Thanks for proving my point above once again. Chegitz rightly called this one when he said, "Stop mistaking form for essence" (I would have personally used the terms form and content, but the meaning is the same). The problem with the Euroleft's narrowness is not in the fundamentals; it is in the forms. You are only willing to see fascism (as well as other political questions) from a European perspective, and will not even condescend to the realization that material conditions are going to alter the forms fascism takes outside of Europe.

Fascism does not describe a "particular, historical form". If it did, then the term would be meaningless. Indeed, it would be completely worthless as an historical characterization, since it would be confined to a specific movement in early 20th-century Italian history and any potential carbon copies that might have arisen. It would not apply to Pilsudski, Hitler, Franco, Vlasov or a number of other movements we would call fascist. Mosely might qualify under your schematic definition, but just barely. Certainly, the modern neo-Nazi movements wouldn't, since they are definitely outside of your "particular, historical form" because of time and historical development.

Fascism is a particular social movement, arising in the wake of an initial failure of the working class to take advantage of an objectively revolutionary situation (and fearful of a future success) among disaffected petty-bourgeois and some working-class elements, mobilized by a section of the exploiting and oppressing classes to defend and preserve capitalist rule on a radically reactionary basis. It may utilize populist and even "socialist" rhetoric against "Big Capital", but only as a means of defending the interests of those elements of "Big Capital" that mobilized them. Its target is the working class, and its perceived political and economic organizations; the goal is to drive out and atomize ("scatter") these forces as a means of "saving" capitalism.

When it attains power, fascism rules in the form of a Bonapartist police state, resting on the armed enforcers of "law and order" to maintain their rule. It uses the state to enforce and push to the extreme those institutional and social relations that divide working people and keep them from reorganizing: racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, homophobia, national chauvinism, etc. Out of power, fascism relies on its own muscle to attain its goals; in power, fascism has the state (which, at this point, is usually the product of a merger between the old armed bodies and those of the fascist movement -- but not necessarily) to call upon to continually "save" capitalist rule.

However, fascism is not a permanent state of affairs. It is, generally speaking, a movement of emergency. Eventually, once capitalist rule has stabilized and the "threat" of the working class sufficiently neutralized, the exploiting and oppressing classes will grow weary of fascism and seek to replace it. It may choose to remove fascism through ostensibly "democratic" means (a sudden call for elections; a complete breakdown of the fascists in the context of what had been perfunctory electoral charades hitherto), or through a extralegal measures (coup d'état; tacit acceptance of foreign military intervention). As with all of the above, the forms will vary, but the underlying fundamental content will be the same.

You are welcome to use all of the nursery rhyme analogies you want, I suppose. It only demonstrates the level of political sophistication you bring to this discussion ... and the extent of your own snobbery in dealing with others on this question.

[RadioRaheem84]

This is such a gray area. I mean when you have a Nativist like Michael Savage calling for the return of the FrieKorps in America, you have the beginnings of a proto-fascist movement. As much as they claim to be about liberty they really just want to roll back everything the progressive left did in this country for the better of the country. They want total obidience from workers, to smash the unions, to abolish social welfare, a boot on minorities necks. etc.

Shouldn't fascism be defined as fundamentally incorporating a general myth about the greatness of a nation's past into a reactionary populist movement? I mean all of the fascist nations of the early 30s were different and incorporated their own national past into their movements.

In the US, the national past is one of nationalism, judeo-christian values and free enterprise; God and Country (and Capitalism). The right wing bourgeoisie are using populist and leftish rhetoric to mobilize a base that wants a return to when America was great; a golden age. This base is becoming more fanatical, militant and extremely emotionally driven.

These movements dislike the notion of class struggle and adopt one of national struggle through 'class harmony' or unity. Free Enterprise to them doesn't mean, a few capitalists benefit, it means we all benefit because worker, manager, owner all contribute in a harmony of interests, not class struggle.

[chegitz guevara]

No, the Confederate rebels were not fascist. Fascism is primarily a movement, not a form of state power. When in power, fascism parallels very closely a Bonapartist police state, similar to what we have here now; the main difference between a state headed by the fascists and a state headed by the Bonapartists is how it came into being, not how it rules. And while both fascism and Bonapartism develop in response to the failure of the working class to take advantage of an objectively revolutionary situation, they emerge from different areas: fascism from the disaffected petty bourgeoisie; Bonapartism from within elements of the capitalist state.



While neo-Confederates and other proponents of the "Lost Cause" may participate in the Tea Party movement (as do the neo-Nazis, KKK and other classical fascist formations), a wholesale revival of the Confederate system is not being advocated. What the Tea Party Nativists want is to graft the radically reactionary elements that are popular among those forces (e.g., enshrinement of the "Judeo-Christian" character, rollback of the democratic amendments, etc.) on to the existing American capitalist political system -- i.e., a reactionary reorganization. Part and parcel of that process is defeating and "scattering" the so-called "socialists" -- the Democratic Party, the business unions and other organizations that represent (ostensibly or in reality) working people -- and "taking back America" by ousting the "alien" elements from the government and state.

As for dismantling the liberal reforms of the last century, Republicans are already openly talking about that. In addition to the latest pledge to repeal the recent health insurance "reform" if they win in November, numerous Republicans are now talking again about privatizing the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs, as well as ending the paltry federal subsidies given to states to shore up unemployment insurance. As well, some GOP officials are raising the specter of repealing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts passed in the mid-1960s, calling them "divisive" and a "failure".



Y'know, Dev, when I saw you replied to the thread, I was actually gearing up for a serious discussion. I half expected you would respect this audience enough to put aside your snide condescension for a moment and actually engage in a discussion. I guess the other half, the one that constantly reminds me that your politics aren't really worth the paper they're printed on, was again correct.

Yes, many leftists do overuse the term fascist. But that's no excuse to avoid analyzing the situation and seeing if, in fact, this or that movement really is fascist -- to see if it meets a particular characterization in part or in whole; to examine its contradictions, motion and development; to understand where such a movement came from and where it is going. Cowering behind the mistakes of others is (or should be) beneath any self-respecting self-described communist. In the end, it really says a lot about your own poverty of philosophy and theory.

The level of condescending snobbery you show in these discussions may fly in the ICC, and it may even fly here, but it doesn't make it right. Every time you duck and dodge the argument, every time you ignore the issue and try to pick on my rusty Latin, every time you casually dismiss the political issue that has taken center stage in the most powerful of the Great Power imperialist countries, you demonstrate why you fail. Personally, I'm glad to see you expose your own failings and inability to analyze when it's needed most. It shows exactly how irrelevant and meaningless you've become, and reinforces my belief that, in the end, you have nothing to say to me or to other working people. But I would think you would, at the very least, give it a try for the sake of comrades here.



Thanks for proving my point above once again. Chegitz rightly called this one when he said, "Stop mistaking form for essence" (I would have personally used the terms form and content, but the meaning is the same). The problem with the Euroleft's narrowness is not in the fundamentals; it is in the forms. You are only willing to see fascism (as well as other political questions) from a European perspective, and will not even condescend to the realization that material conditions are going to alter the forms fascism takes outside of Europe.

Fascism does not describe a "particular, historical form". If it did, then the term would be meaningless. Indeed, it would be completely worthless as an historical characterization, since it would be confined to a specific movement in early 20th-century Italian history and any potential carbon copies that might have arisen. It would not apply to Pilsudski, Hitler, Franco, Vlasov or a number of other movements we would call fascist. Mosely might qualify under your schematic definition, but just barely. Certainly, the modern neo-Nazi movements wouldn't, since they are definitely outside of your "particular, historical form" because of time and historical development.

Fascism is a particular social movement, arising in the wake of an initial failure of the working class to take advantage of an objectively revolutionary situation (and fearful of a future success) among disaffected petty-bourgeois and some working-class elements, mobilized by a section of the exploiting and oppressing classes to defend and preserve capitalist rule on a radically reactionary basis. It may utilize populist and even "socialist" rhetoric against "Big Capital", but only as a means of defending the interests of those elements of "Big Capital" that mobilized them. Its target is the working class, and its perceived political and economic organizations; the goal is to drive out and atomize ("scatter") these forces as a means of "saving" capitalism.

When it attains power, fascism rules in the form of a Bonapartist police state, resting on the armed enforcers of "law and order" to maintain their rule. It uses the state to enforce and push to the extreme those institutional and social relations that divide working people and keep them from reorganizing: racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, homophobia, national chauvinism, etc. Out of power, fascism relies on its own muscle to attain its goals; in power, fascism has the state (which, at this point, is usually the product of a merger between the old armed bodies and those of the fascist movement -- but not necessarily) to call upon to continually "save" capitalist rule.

However, fascism is not a permanent state of affairs. It is, generally speaking, a movement of emergency. Eventually, once capitalist rule has stabilized and the "threat" of the working class sufficiently neutralized, the exploiting and oppressing classes will grow weary of fascism and seek to replace it. It may choose to remove fascism through ostensibly "democratic" means (a sudden call for elections; a complete breakdown of the fascists in the context of what had been perfunctory electoral charades hitherto), or through a extralegal measures (coup d'état; tacit acceptance of foreign military intervention). As with all of the above, the forms will vary, but the underlying fundamental content will be the same.

You are welcome to use all of the nursery rhyme analogies you want, I suppose. It only demonstrates the level of political sophistication you bring to this discussion ... and the extent of your own snobbery in dealing with others on this question.

http://static.apolyton.net/forums/images/smilies/bowdown.gif

[Devrim]

Y'know, Dev, when I saw you replied to the thread, I was actually gearing up for a serious discussion.

Miles, you don't do serious discussion. When people disagree with you, you just go on about how they are wrong and insult them personally.

I get involved with discussion that I think are important to our politics, and engaging people with them, and occasionally things that personally interest me. I don't think that you insulting me while ranting on about the latest fascist threat serves either purpose.


every time you ignore the issue and try to pick on my rusty Latin,

I am not picking on your 'rusty Latin' at all. I myself have no Latin whatsoever, and in fact had never seen the phrase before. However, when you used it I looked it up, and found out what it meant and how it was used.

Even worse than pretentiously using Latin phrases that others don't know or understand in the middle of a discussion on the internet is to use Latin phrases that you don't even know or understand personally.

Devrim

[Qayin]

I say let them get power so the Left in this country can get fucking together for once! Under Bush we had some sort of thing going almost. Bring it on. Dems are only getting in the way.

[Martin Blank]

I get involved with discussion that I think are important to our politics, and engaging people with them, and occasionally things that personally interest me. I don't think that you insulting me while ranting on about the latest fascist threat serves either purpose.

OK, so, none of this matters to you. Got it. Perhaps there's a thread about Bordiga in the History forum that you can write 20 "contributions" in, since the current political situation in the U.S. doesn't "personally interest" you and isn't "important to [your] politics". Maybe I can send you my meatloaf recipe and you can polemicize against that?

[chegitz guevara]

I say let them get power so the Left in this country can get fucking together for once! Under Bush we had some sort of thing going almost. Bring it on. Dems are only getting in the way.

As the Communist Party of Germany said, "After Hitler, us!"

That worked out well. :thumbup1:

[zimmerwald1915]

As the Communist Party of Germany said, "After Hitler, us!"

That worked out well. :thumbup1:
Well, they were right, weren't they? It just took the blood sacrifice of tens of millions of Soviet and German workers to make their prediction true.

[Invader Zim]

The Tea party Movement may certainly contain fascists and racists within its ranks. But that does not imply that the majority of its members are fascists. in my opinion the bulk of those individuals are poorly educated individuals brought up on a diet of conservative/libertarian nonsense espousing that government=evil.

[chegitz guevara]

How does that not make them fascist?

[Zanthorus]

I don't know if anyone has pointed it out yet, but they are based at lest partly in the american militia movement. Blackshirts american style here we come!

[A.R.Amistad]

I would say the Tea Party is more of a movement than it is a Party or an Organization, so i wouldn't label it fascist just yet. Fascism embodies a militaristic spirit tht needs a highly disciplined cadre organization through which to seize power. The Tea Party is not the next NSDAP because it has almost no discipline to it, and they seem to be proud of that fact. The many individuals who decide to join this movement are proto-fascists. There's a good article called "Ur-Fascism" which outlines some of the steps t look for in a fascist movement. But the total lack of internal discipline makes it very improbable that it is as a whole fascist. Really, it is a very good recrutiting grounds for fascists. Blatant fascists like NSM88, KKK and AN attend these Tea Party rallys to distribute literature as do groups like Borderwatch, Laurouchites, Minutemen, Patriotists, Dominionists, etc. These various organizations each have a better chance of becoming a greater political threat to American politics because of what the Tea Party represents. The good thing is that the Tea Party is too loosely organized and undisciplined that i don't think they could ever dream of taking power like a fascist government would have to. As far as I can see, its a motley assortment of libertarians, fascists, misinformed-lumpens and militia enthusiasts who would have a very difficult time getting along if this were a real organization.

[Tablo]

Fascism has an actual ideology behind it. While many dictatorships share characteristics with Fascism we do not characterize them all as Fascist. As much as I would love to throw the word Fascism at every single radical right-wing movement it is just not accurate and is just like red-baiting liberals.... only kinda the opposite cause you are calling conservatives Fascists. While it is true that many Fascists have joined the Tea Party movement, most are still not Fascist in their ideology.

I know wikipedia is not the best place to read about this stuff, but you can get a basic idea of what this worthless ideology is all about. Knowing your enemy makes it easier to combat them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[GPDP]

Fascism has an actual ideology behind it. While many dictatorships share characteristics with Fascism we do not characterize them all as Fascist. As much as I would love to throw the word Fascism at every single radical right-wing movement it is just not accurate and is just like red-baiting liberals.... only kinda the opposite cause you are calling conservatives Fascists. While it is true that many Fascists have joined the Tea Party movement, most are still not Fascist in their ideology.

I know wikipedia is not the best place to read about this stuff, but you can get a basic idea of what this worthless ideology is all about. Knowing your enemy makes it easier to combat them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

And I say when it comes to fascism, ideology is not as important as the role the movement in question is playing and the class composition it is made up of. As Parenti said:


When you strip fascism of all its organizational and ideological crap then it is nothing more than a definitive solution for class struggle; the total destruction and exploitation of democratic forces in the interests of the highest financial circles.

That is the role of the Tea Party when you get down to the nuts and bolts of the matter. Who cares if they don't advocate a corporatist economy per traditional fascist doctrine?

[Tablo]

That is the role of the Tea Party when you get down to the nuts and bolts of the matter. Who cares if they don't advocate a corporatist economy per traditional fascist doctrine?
It is still inaccurate to call them Fascists. That is like calling liberals Socialists because they want to regulate businesses a little bit.

The tea-baggers are certainly right-wing and crazy, but Fascism is not the right term to identify them.

[Zanthorus]

Fascism has an actual ideology behind it.

It is generally agreed that Fascism has no really consistent ideology behind it and takes various forms according to which particular nation it springs up in. While bourgeois scholars take up pages arguing about wether or not regimes like Franco's in Spain were really fascist or not, communists should be smart enough to see behind surface appearances and understand the common threads that run through fascism.

Even ideologically speaking the tea partiers are not that far from fascism. They present the idea of a return to an idealised national past which has become corrupted by socialists/communists/liberals. Since it is america and not Italy, and their national past and it's idealised version that appears in their rhetoric, the surface appearance is that large parts of their ideology are seperate. But we should be focusing on the bigger picture and not necessarily the details.


It is still inaccurate to call them Fascists. That is like calling liberals Socialists because they want to regulate businesses a little bit.

We aren't calling them fascists because they're slightly right-wing though. We're calling them fascist because they play the same historical role as fascist movements did in europe. For the same reasons underpinning the analysis of the tea party as fascist it would be innacurate to call liberals socialists because they don't constitute a movement of the proletarian class towards the emancipation of humanity.

[Tablo]

It is generally agreed that Fascism has no really consistent ideology behind it and takes various forms according to which particular nation it springs up in. While bourgeois scholars take up pages arguing about wether or not regimes like Franco's in Spain were really fascist or not, communists should be smart enough to see behind surface appearances and understand the common threads that run through fascism.

Even ideologically speaking the tea partiers are not that far from fascism. They present the idea of a return to an idealised national past which has become corrupted by socialists/communists/liberals. Since it is america and not Italy, and their national past and it's idealised version that appears in their rhetoric, the surface appearance is that large parts of their ideology are seperate. But we should be focusing on the bigger picture and not necessarily the details.



We aren't calling them fascists because they're slightly right-wing though. We're calling them fascist because they play the same historical role as fascist movements did in europe. For the same reasons underpinning the analysis of the tea party as fascist it would be innacurate to call liberals socialists because they don't constitute a movement of the proletarian class towards the emancipation of humanity.
I still do not think Fascist is the best way to identify the movement. Proto-Fascist would apply, but Fascist would not in my opinion.

[The Douche]

I still do not think Fascist is the best way to identify the movement. Proto-Fascist would apply, but Fascist would not in my opinion.

Why in the fuck do we need to debate the semantics of whether a movement is proto-fasicst or fascist, if it is in fact proto-fascist then we need to oppose it in the same way we oppose fascist movements!

The friekorps wasn't a fascist movement. But does that really matter? Proto-fascism means that it is developing into fascism, its pretty much an unnecessary and scholarly designation that has little to no importance on the real world.

[Tablo]

Why in the fuck do we need to debate the semantics of whether a movement is proto-fasicst or fascist, if it is in fact proto-fascist then we need to oppose it in the same way we oppose fascist movements!

The friekorps wasn't a fascist movement. But does that really matter? Proto-fascism means that it is developing into fascism, its pretty much an unnecessary and scholarly designation that has little to no importance on the real world.
I understand what you are saying and I am not in any way objecting to fighting against them. I simply like to have neat little labels to identify a group's political perspective, even though this is near impossible as most things like this are quite fluid. They do not have any concrete perspective and are made up primarily of conservatives. Fascism is not concrete, but they do not really fit into any Fascist school of thought so I refuse to identify them as such. Proto-Fascist would work though. Sorry if you are too busy with fighting on the front lines against the Capitalists to bother with such trifling labels, but I like to keep things as clearly defined as possible on a forum for political discussion.

[The Douche]

I understand what you are saying and I am not in any way objecting to fighting against them. I simply like to have neat little labels to identify a group's political perspective, even though this is near impossible as most things like this are quite fluid. They do not have any concrete perspective and are made up primarily of conservatives. Fascism is not concrete, but they do not really fit into any Fascist school of thought so I refuse to identify them as such. Proto-Fascist would work though. Sorry if you are too busy with fighting on the front lines against the Capitalists to bother with such trifling labels, but I like to keep things as clearly defined as possible on a forum for political discussion.

Fascism is a reaction the middle class to capitalist crises (this could mean an organized working class, but doesn't have to), the tea party is that. The tea partiers are authoritarians, they want to remove "socialists" from power, and keep them out of power. They believe (and essentially are correct) that a socialist government in the US is illegal. And if they get their hands on the state they will ensure that not only is a socialist government illegal, but socialist movements (to include, the pro-choice movement, feminist movement, civil rights movement, labor movement, and GLBT movement) are illegal as well.

This is fascism american style, sorry if it doesn't fit into neat little 20th century european boxes, but it is what it is. And fascism in the US has always looked different from its Euro counterparts. (KKK, father Coughlin etc)

[chegitz guevara]

The difference between a proto-fascist movement and a fascist movement is whether or not capital has decided to start using it as a club against other classes (or even other strata of its own class). The ruling layer of the capitalist class has been funding the Tea Party and using them as a weapon to stop threats to their pre-eminent position from other sectors of capital, such as manufacturing capital.

[un_person]

I would say that they are close enough to count.

[RadioRaheem84]

The friekorps wasn't a fascist movement. But does that really matter? Proto-fascism means that it is developing into fascism, its pretty much an unnecessary and scholarly designation that has little to no importance on the real world.The Friekorps were a roving band of right wing proto-fascist extremists.

What are we talking about here? The Tea Party movement or the right wing interests pulling the strings, or both? The Tea Party by itself is not fascist, but it could have the potential to become fascist if it grows out of hand for the right wing financiers to control and then political collusion will have to restrain it and direct it through state power. That would be Fascism.

It's no different than what happens to the left whenever social democratic or liberal politicians use us as political base to win elections and beat the right wing bourgeoisie. Then when we get out of hand and start demanding action from the liberal politicians, they dub as "far left" and dismiss us. The only difference is that liberal politicians aren't afraid of us and feel no need to even win us over again once they're in office. They just expect us to follow along for fear of a right wing reprisal.



And fascism in the US has always looked different from its Euro counterparts. (KKK, father Coughlin etc)

Well this is obvious.

[chegitz guevara]

The Friekorps were a roving band of right wing proto-fascist extremists.
There were some communist Freikorps. Most of the Freikorps ended up joining the fascist movement, but not all. Basically, Freikorps = militia

[RadioRaheem84]

There were some communist Freikorps. Most of the Freikorps ended up joining the fascist movement, but not all. Basically, Freikorps = militia

Commie Friekorps crushing communist movements in Wiemar Germany? That's interesting. I know that that were some Nazis who were Communists(Stalinists) at heart and quickly switched sides after the war. I believe they were called beefsteaks; brown on the outside, but red on the inside.

[chegitz guevara]

Commie Friekorps crushing communist movements in Wiemar Germany?

The Freikorps (plural, there were at least 60 different groups) were a number of many different groups. Not all of them participated in the suppression of the workers, just most of them.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Freikorps (plural, there were at least 60 different groups) were a number of many different groups. Not all of them participated in the suppression of the workers, just most of them.

Strange how a Social Democrat used the angry Friekorps to crush the Marxist rebellion in Germany and kill Rosa Luxembourg.

[chegitz guevara]

Strange how a Social Democrat used the angry Friekorps to crush the Marxist rebellion in Germany and kill Rosa Luxembourg.

Not that strange. Social democrats are terrified of the masses. Not only did they use the Freikorps (you've got your ei backwards) to crush the Sparticust Uprising, but they used them to overthrow the Bavarian Soviet Republic a year later.

Some Freikorps members weren't commies, but nonetheless weren't fascist. The officer who recieved the order from Minister Noske to execute Luxemburg and Liebknecht hated the Nazis. After WWII told all about the SPD role in their assassinations, which is how we know what went down.

[Zanthorus]

Fascism is not concrete, but they do not really fit into any Fascist school of thought

Obviously you aren't familiar with american fascism.

The Black Legion for example, which was founded as a security force for the higher ups in the Klan, made it's members swear to uphold God and the Constitution during their inauguration ceremonies and saw welfare workers/recipients and labour organisers and trade unions as being part of the enemy.

During the last few copies of "Liberation", which was a paper set up by the founder of the Silver Legion of America (Also known as the Silver Shirts) William Dudley Perry, the following two headlines appeared - "Facts you should know about the Gold Standard" and "Roosevelt Gold Bill attempts to Legalize Robbery" (Source on page three of this (http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/THR-SS3.PDF)). The headlines of course were referring to FDR's abandoning of the gold standard, the gold standard being a major tenet (http://mises.org/daily/4153) of Free Market/Misesean economics.

Associating themselves with the Republican party isn't uncommon among American fascists. The Black Legion's political front was the Wolverine Republican club. Don Black (Founder and Webmaster of Stormfront) donated to Ron Paul's presidential campaign. David Duke (Former KKK Grand Wizard) ran as a candidate for the senate and for nomination by the republican party for the presidency in '92. Chomsky mentions links between the republicans and neo-nazi's in "Understanding Power" although I don't have the book to hand at the moment and my memories a bit fuzzy. Because the republicans present themselves as the party of american values against the liberal/socialist democrats (even though in reality the differences between the two parties are superficial) they tend to attract support from traditionalist/nationalist type movements.

[Zeus the Moose]

Associating themselves with the Republican party isn't uncommon among American fascists. The Black Legion's political front was the Wolverine Republican club. Don Black (Founder and Webmaster of Stormfront) donated to Ron Paul's presidential campaign. David Duke (Former KKK Grand Wizard) ran as a candidate for the senate and for nomination by the republican party for the presidency in '92.

Fascists have also associated with the Democratic Party in many cases as well. Probably the best example of this is the Klan in US South, where the Democratic Party was the party of establishment racism. More recently, neo-Nazi Tom Metzger ended up being nominated as the Democratic candidate for a congressional seat in California, and David Duke began his political career as a Democrat (though the only office he actually won, a state house position in Louisiana, he was elected to as a Republican.)

This isn't to undermine your point, but rather to point out that individual fascists are not exclusively associated around the Republican Party. As a modern-day movement, however, the association with the Republican Party is fairly clear (for reasons that Miles and others have laid out.)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I put fascist because they are, if not fascists, of extreme fascistic tendencies.

Look at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, need I say more?

[zimmerwald1915]

Look at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, need I say more?
Please do.

[InuyashaKnight]

Obviously fascist!

[Martin Blank]

Fascists have also associated with the Democratic Party in many cases as well. Probably the best example of this is the Klan in US South, where the Democratic Party was the party of establishment racism. More recently, neo-Nazi Tom Metzger ended up being nominated as the Democratic candidate for a congressional seat in California, and David Duke began his political career as a Democrat (though the only office he actually won, a state house position in Louisiana, he was elected to as a Republican.)

This isn't to undermine your point, but rather to point out that individual fascists are not exclusively associated around the Republican Party. As a modern-day movement, however, the association with the Republican Party is fairly clear (for reasons that Miles and others have laid out.)

Right. You find various fascistic elements in both parties. These days, the most common fascists you find in and around the Democratic Party are the LaRoucheites. In fact, a "former" leading member has managed to find his way into the editorial board of The Nation, which is their main liberal print journal.

[RadioRaheem84]

Right. You find various fascistic elements in both parties. These days, the most common fascists you find in and around the Democratic Party are the LaRoucheites. In fact, a "former" leading member has managed to find his way into the editorial board of The Nation, which is their main liberal print journal.

Now that I find hard to believe. A LaRouchie at The Nation? He must've converted after he was hired.

[RadioRaheem84]

OK, it's hard to pin the Tea Party movement down as fascist because there are so many different groups that make up the movement. From young Libertarians to Paleo-Cons to Neo-Cons to downright bat shit crazy New World Order freaks to even plain old union old school racist Democrats.

But while the movement is diverse I tend to look at the situation less from a Wiemar Germany perspective these days to more of one closer resembling the days before the Spanish Civil War. There was a coalition of Carlists, Falangists and religious conservatives that made up Franco's base. It was really only the Falangists that believed in the nut bag crazy anti-Semitic conspiracy theories while the rest of the group were pretty stable in their politics but were vehemently anti-communist. All of them were united in bringing down socialism and restoring the glory of Spain back again.

So we're looking too much at the bat shit crazy side which forms the radical base of the movement, there is also a whole level of financiers, petit-bourgeoisie and politicians that are all motivated by anti-socialism.

[Raúl Duke]

OK, it's hard to pin the Tea Party movement down as fascist because there are so many different groups that make up the movement. From young Libertarians to Paleo-Cons to Neo-Cons to downright bat shit crazy New World Order freaks to even plain old union old school racist Democrats.

When you mentioned that I was going to mention about Spain...but you already did yourself:


But while the movement is diverse I tend to look at the situation less from a Wiemar Germany perspective these days to more of one closer resembling the days before the Spanish Civil War. There was a coalition of Carlists, Falangists and religious conservatives that made up Franco's base. It was really only the Falangists that believed in the nut bag crazy anti-Semitic conspiracy theories while the rest of the group were pretty stable in their politics but were vehemently anti-communist. All of them were united in bringing down socialism and restoring the glory of Spain back again.

I thought that the falangists were more like the italian fascists than nazis...but for the moment that's not important.

The issue is that if we focus on the content of the Tea Party movement than yes in a way it does not resemble fascism...
but what of its purpose? This is what's really important.

Although it's perhaps too soon to tell but I think it has some potential in being a fascist movement.

Although, at this point concerning the different factions in the tea party movement it seems the crazies who would be inclined to support Sarah Palin have won over the libertarians and to me the movement is being co-opted by elements in the GOP while also moving the GOP further to the right and/or giving the most right-wing elements in the party more power.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

What Sam b said. This isnt a single party, to say it is fascist is like saying Europe is socialist.

[RadioRaheem84]

Although, at this point concerning the different factions in the tea party movement it seems the crazies who would be inclined to support Sarah Palin have won over the libertarians and to me the movement is being co-opted by elements in the GOP while also moving the GOP further to the right and/or giving the most right-wing elements in the party more power.



Very true. I mean this is spilling over into the liberal camp as they too develop a "get a job you bum" attitude, they question the validitiy of social services, and they also are starting to believe that government should not"force" someone to pay for another's well being. They're developing a more centre-right approach and incorporating libertarian views into their doctrine.

It's funny but I remember when Sec. of Agricultural Tom Vilisack visited my campus and sat down with us for an "intimate" chat, I was expecting a liberal democrat but he sounded a lot like a Republican, going on about "personal responsibility", and how we "have to do our part", etc. I was shocked and it changed my view of the political spectrum forever.

[CartCollector]

I think the point of the Tea Party is to pour cement in the US radical left movement's grave.

[Jacobinist]

They're only a couple steps away from becoming a fascist instrument. They all ready adovate hate and scapegoats, violence and racial superiority.

What are they missing?

1) Centralized organization
2) A charismatic leader. I dont think Palin cuts it, she's too stupid. Make that, an intelligent charismatic leader away.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well Ron Paul came close but he's no Barry Goldwater. Then there is William Buckley.

I don't know if a charasmatic leader can lead a coalition of such diverse interests. It would just have to be a rather fiery, anti-communist populist that is at least smarter than Palin or Beck.

[Jacobinist]

Well Ron Paul came close but he's no Barry Goldwater. Then there is William Buckley.

I don't know if a charasmatic leader can lead a coalition of such diverse interests. It would just have to be a rather fiery, anti-communist populist that is at least smarter than Palin or Beck.


EXACTLY. Ron paul is a douche.

[VILemon]

Does anyone think that the Tea Partiers will be relevant to anything or anyone in two years time? They don't have any coherent platform, which they have wedded with an "anti-corporate" and "anti-government" attitude which is equally incoherent.

They don't even know what they want. No one will care about them in time.

[Jacobinist]

Actually, if you ask me, what you said about them is what the media says. Small govt, anti-tax, and anti-socialism. That said, where were they when Bush handed out billions in tax cuts to the rich? What about when he invaded 2 foreign countries under false pretenses? What about FISA and the Patriot Act? What about the Wall St. bailout? Where were they?

But of all of a sudden, we have a president who's a conservatives' dream come true. No fortitude, insists on bi-partisanship bull shit, afraid to push through any meaningful legislation. And the teabaggers are mobilized? It ALL HAS TO DO WITH OBAMA BEING BLACK. Im fully convinced that is what has mobilized those American Idol watching idiots known as the teabaggers.

Oh, and yea. I give them til' Obama is out of office. Then they'll go back to their god-fearing lives.

[Alaric]

Their obsession with the military, religiosity, virulent anti-progressiveness, the fact that they attract racists and nativists and Nazis, all point to this foaming at the mouth movement having all the makings of homebrew fascism.

[Jacobinist]

Their obsession with the military, religiosity, virulent anti-progressiveness, the fact that they attract racists and nativists and Nazis, all point to this foaming at the mouth movement having all the makings of homebrew fascism.

Given enough time, support and money, they could easily morph into an out right fascist movement. The fundamentals are all there; bad economic situation, weak liberal central government, 15 million scapegoats to blame, etc. Also, if the tea party added to their repetoir anti-kapitalism, I honestly think theyd be worth a look into.

But not currently.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

The tactic being used by the right is great psychology. you give a twisted ,reverse discription on fascism, ie government control, regulation of business, working closely with unions, government programs etc.And you have the people stand up and fight for a reversal of the above. And by doing this, they think they are fighting against fascism, but by fighting for the opposite, they are fighting for fascism.AMAZING!!!!!

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Their obsession with the military, religiosity, virulent anti-progressiveness, the fact that they attract racists and nativists and Nazis, all point to this foaming at the mouth movement having all the makings of homebrew fascism.


I agree with 99.99% with what you said.as far as theology goes, liberation theology is radical. they say that what god put here was not put here for private ownership. but was put here for man to comsume, collectively.it is very anti capialisim.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Fascism is a particular social movement, arising in the wake of an initial failure of the working class to take advantage of an objectively revolutionary situation (and fearful of a future success) among disaffected petty-bourgeois and some working-class elements, mobilized by a section of the exploiting and oppressing classes to defend and preserve capitalist rule on a radically reactionary basis. It may utilize populist and even "socialist" rhetoric against "Big Capital", but only as a means of defending the interests of those elements of "Big Capital" that mobilized them. Its target is the working class, and its perceived political and economic organizations; the goal is to drive out and atomize ("scatter") these forces as a means of "saving" capitalism.

Everything in your post is good, except for the word "revolutionary."

This particular form of fascism has emerged without any preceding revolutionary period. It is comparable to Spain in that Spain had no revolutionary period. Despite the myths abound on the left about the Spanish Civil War, there is a reason why the "republican" government continued to command more support.

The Comintern definition of fascism seems to be more accurate than the Trotskyist one, since it is ties in with the role of finance capital.

[Ztrain]

I see the tea party as a return to fascism...Numberone they say they are anti communist just like the early fascists and they are all old authoritarian white people.:scared:

[Crux]

In fact, a "former" leading member has managed to find his way into the editorial board of The Nation, which is their main liberal print journal.Do you have any more info on this?

[Martin Blank]

Do you have any more info on this?

Here are a couple links about Robert Dreyfuss, "former" leader in the Larouche organization and now the chief foreign policy and national security correspondent (and de facto associate editor) for The Nation.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/drey-j22.shtml

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/robert-dreyfuss-lyndon-larouche-and-the-nation

There are other links. If you Google Dreyfuss and Larouche together, you'll get a lot of hits.

[JacobVardy]

As chegitz said, what's important is the essence, that is, the social composition and role of the movement, not the ideological or rhetorical trappings. In this way, they are more fascist than any of the fash listed here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1297527&postcount=4).

Thanks for that link, the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party just made my day.

[VILemon]

It's really surprising to me that the overwhelming majority of those polled here would call the Tea Party fascist.

My concern is just that fascism, as grotty as it is, is a far more coherent ideology than anything that I have seen coming out of the Tea Party people. This is not to say that the Tea Party isn't dangerous - I think it's either dangerous or doomed to irrelevancy - it's just that to call them "fascist" is almost to ascribe to them a coherent program which they lack. It might be more dangerous for the left to ignore the context of their disjointed and idiotic movement by attempting to understand them in terms of what in this case looks like a use of the term fascist as a code-word for "dangerous reactionary movement." Fascist movements are dangerous reactionary movements, but the converse does not always hold. There might be fascist elements among them, still.

But, call them whatever you want...they're reactionary douche-bags. I guess what I'm saying is that the movement is too stupid to be called fascist (and that's saying a lot!). And, fascist or not, the country they "want back" is a scary proposition.

[Uppercut]

I would say that they're close enough to fascism to be labelled fascist. Considering Barney Frank and a few others were screamed at a while back, it's no surprise that the movement attracts a certain type of people, particularly racists and homophobes. Plus, considering there are a good amount of libertarians in the movement, I wouldn't hestitate to call them fascists, seeing as how libertarianism and fascism have a lot more in common than most of them realize (denial of external disabilities, natural hierarchy in intelligence in opportunity, clinging to tradition, the idea that private ownership can fix all our problems, etc.). The list just goes on and on.

[Sendo]

I would say that they're close enough to fascism to be labelled fascist. Considering Barney Frank and a few others were screamed at a while back, it's no surprise that the movement attracts a certain type of people, particularly racists and homophobes. Plus, considering there are a good amount of libertarians in the movement, I wouldn't hestitate to call them fascists, seeing as how libertarianism and fascism have a lot more in common than most of them realize (denial of external disabilities, natural hierarchy in intelligence in opportunity, clinging to tradition, the idea that private ownership can fix all our problems, etc.). The list just goes on and on.

It is exactly the same ideology, disregards class divisions and advocates rule of law based on property and (bourgeois) merit.

They differ in their wordings and promises, but they coincide perfectly in practice (and in appearance....look for homophobia, racism, and social darwinism!). How many libertarians that you know supported anti-war candidates who weren't Ron Paul? Oh, yeah, none. Before Ron Paul, they quietly went with blatant Republican war-mongering for the tax-cuts. Barry Deutsch has a good cartoon of it somewhere on Leftycartoons.com

[chegitz guevara]

My concern is just that fascism, as grotty as it is, is a far more coherent ideology than anything that I have seen coming out of the Tea Party people.

Fascism is NOT an ideology!

[Nolan]

Fascism is NOT an ideology!

Yes it is. A family of ideologies actually.

[chegitz guevara]

If you limit your "analysis" of fascism to some bad thoughts, you will miss real fascist movements and mistake non-fascist phenomenon as fascist.

As Marxists, our analysis of phenomena starts with the material reality, not ideology. As Marx wrote, it's not what a man (or movement) thinks of himself that determines his being. Any Marxist analysis of fascism must start from its class composition and its social role.

[Nolan]

If you limit your "analysis" of fascism to some bad thoughts, you will miss real fascist movements and mistake non-fascist phenomenon as fascist.

As Marxists, our analysis of phenomena starts with the material reality, not ideology. As Marx wrote, it's not what a man (or movement) thinks of himself that determines his being. Any Marxist analysis of fascism must start from its class composition and its social role.

Ok. But other things can fulfill the same function can they not? Fascism is only one. Fascism IS an ideology. If it doesn't originate from the thoughts of Mussolini, Hitler, etc it isn't fascist but something else that fulfills the same role.

[chegitz guevara]

The point is, the "ideology" of fascism is utterly irrelevant to fascism. Fascism makes a lot of different claims to win people over, but, it does not carry them out. Despite being, ideologically, anti-capitalist, it is a very pro-capitalist movement. Despite being ideologically corporativist, it doesn't create a corporative society. It claims to be against corruption, but their governments are among the most corrupt. Just about the only thing it does follow is the subordination of society to the leader and attacks on suspect segments of society. It is the ultimate opportunist movement.

The social role of fascism is to carry out the suppression of classes that, for whatever reason, the state is unable to carry out. If the state could carry it out, then the ruling layers of the bourgeoisie would not turn to the fascists, whom they do not trust. So while it plays the same role as the state, it only is allowed to when the state is unable or unwilling to do so.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Please do.

Michelle Bachman wants to bring back the redscare.

Sarah Palin's pastor was literally a witch-hunter in Africa.

They both have serious bigotry problems.

They are both really authoritarian.

Both pander to corporations/big business even more than the other poliicians. (Even more, yeah, scary!)

[InTheSystem]

I have to disagree with most of the voters here when we label the Tea Partiers fascist. Fascism seems to have a rigid, well-defined platform of policies and beliefs it uses to achieve its agenda. The Tea Party's credo is too discursive; however, its ability to appeal to a wide range of right-wing supporters such as the Religious Right, libertarians, and so-called Randian anarcho-capitalists is its strength. I think that's largely what is causing this movement to gain such a hold among grassroots organizers. I tend to disassociate them from the Neo-conservatives, mainly because the the Tea Party is small-government, anti-foreign intervention, and unequivocally pro-business; the wealthier Republicans usually believed the opposite. I've read about how there are grumblings about the Iraq War and discontent over the loss of "conservatism" of the GOP. In my opinion, the veteran Republicans were elected on the Neo-con Bush platform; they're only recently catering to these guys because they are advantageous as a voting demographic. They will have a high turnout. While it's true they advocate the free market, I don't see all the qualities of fascism here. Theocracy? Maybe.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I have to disagree with most of the voters here when we label the Tea Partiers fascist. Fascism seems to have a rigid, well-defined platform of policies and beliefs it uses to achieve its agenda.

No, it does not. Is there a central "well defined platform" that I have not heard about? As far as I know, fascist movements often differ in their ideological or political composition.


The Tea Party's credo is too discursive; however, its ability to appeal to a wide range of right-wing supporters such as the Religious Right, libertarians, and so-called Randian anarcho-capitalists is its strength.OK now take these labels and attribute them to what class these ideological trends represent: the petit-bourgeoisie, which is the primary class base for fascist movements. It's important to understand what chegitz mentioned earlier in the thread about fascism being ideologically opportunist. The social role of fascists is to attract anyone against a perceived enemy, usually the working class but in many cases other sections of the capitalist class, when the state is incapable of attacking them or cannot for some other reason combat an enemy openly.



I think that's largely what is causing this movement to gain such a hold among grassroots organizers.So a corporate lobbyist funded movement is your idea of "grassroots"?


I tend to disassociate them from the Neo-conservatives, mainly because the the Tea Party is small-government, anti-foreign intervention, and unequivocally pro-business; the wealthier Republicans usually believed the opposite.So you actually listen to what they have to say? It's all a bunch of rhetoric that makes no sense.



As Marx wrote, it's not what a man (or movement) thinks of himself that determines his being. Any Marxist analysis of fascism must start from its class composition and its social role.


I've read about how there are grumblings about the Iraq War and discontent over the loss of "conservatism" of the GOP. In my opinion, the veteran Republicans were elected on the Neo-con Bush platform; they're only recently catering to these guys because they are advantageous as a voting demographic. Well yeah, they are all opportunists.



They will have a high turnout. While it's true they advocate the free market, I don't see all the qualities of fascism here. Theocracy? Maybe.Theocracy? But not fascism? For the love of science, do some reading.

http://marxists.org/subject/fascism/index.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

What on earth makes the teabaggers a theocratic movement? Just because they're all christians doesn't mean they are actually even want to make the church or clergy head of the government.

[9]

I haven't been following this thread consistently, so I apologize if this has already been said, but



The social role of fascism is to carry out the suppression of classes that, for whatever reason, the state is unable to carry out. If the state could carry it out, then the ruling layers of the bourgeoisie would not turn to the fascists, whom they do not trust. So while it plays the same role as the state, it only is allowed to when the state is unable or unwilling to do so.

So as it stands, in the US, not only is the state perfectly able (and surely it would be willing) to deal with the workers itself, there is no coherent worker movement right now in the US to even make such a scenario (i.e. the state being incapable of suppressing workers and turning to fascists) remotely practical. In light of that, the classification of the Tea Party movement by some as 'fascist' seems pretty meaningless, and all the calls for 'civil war' against them and what essentially come across as appeals to unite with liberal capitalists in order to oppose some ultimately impotent middle class right wing populists seem very misguided at best.

[InTheSystem]

Looking back on my original I found that I made blanket statements and omitted reasons for my assumptions. Hopefully I can explain a little better.


No, it does not. Is there a central "well defined platform" that I have not heard about? As far as I know, fascist movements often differ in their ideological or political composition.



OK now take these labels and attribute them to what class these ideological trends represent: the petit-bourgeoisie, which is the primary class base for fascist movements. It's important to understand what chegitz mentioned earlier in the thread about fascism being ideologically opportunist. The social role of fascists is to attract anyone against a perceived enemy, usually the working class but in many cases other sections of the capitalist class, when the state is incapable of attacking them or cannot for some other reason combat an enemy openly.



I still tend to think of a fascist party as having a strict program to follow (probably because of preconceived notions of Nazism), while attracting a significant segment of the population with its rhetoric. I didn't take into account how the Tea Party is able to do this and gathers a variety of followers, the petty bourgeoisie you mentioned and some of the lumpenprolatariat. They each have different reasons for joining, and I ignored this in my OP.



So a corporate lobbyist funded movement is your idea of "grassroots"?


No. I don't personally consider it grassroots, and was using it in their sense of the term. Large parts of their demographic seem to perceive them as such, so of course corporations would want to maintain good relations.



So you actually listen to what they have to say? It's all a bunch of rhetoric that makes no sense.


I don't really know how I should word this. I do listen to what they say, but I surely don't agree with it and don't look to Beck or O'Reilly to gain inspiration. It doesn't mesh with the proletariat's interests.



Theocracy? But not fascism? For the love of science, do some reading.

What on earth makes the teabaggers a theocratic movement? Just because they're all christians doesn't mean they are actually even want to make the church or clergy head of the government.

I digress; using theocracy was excessive of me, even if they do seek to overturn much of what they view as "secular America eroding morality."

On a side note, thank you for the links and I have begun reading "What It is and How to Fight It." I'll try to make use of these texts before I choose to post.

[CartCollector]

As far as theocracy goes, Glenn Beck has said on his show that believing in God is part of being an American- it's part of the 9/12 project. He has also blamed a murder (I think) on the fact that the US stopped printing "In God We Trust" on some paper money. Bill O'Reilly has made numerous derogatory comments about "secular progressives," not to mention his yearly "culture war" (can you say "Antonio Gramsci?") to stop the "War on Christmas."

There's probably many more examples that I could dig up if I wanted to.

[Martin Blank]

A Call for Anti-Nativist Unity

Editorial from the April 12, 2010, issue of Working People's Advocate, weekly newspaper of the Central Committee of the Workers Party in America. Please feel free to reprint and circulate as you see fit.

BROTHERS AND SISTERS: Over the last year we have all watched as the Tea Party Nativist movement has grown from a scattered and amorphous collection of rightwing anti-tax protesters into a mass movement against what they perceive as “socialism” — i.e., every gain wrenched from the capitalist class by poor and working people over the course of the 20th century.

The responses by working people and self-described workers’ organizations have been lackluster, at best. Counterprotests have been organized haphazardly or along sectarian lines; few people are adequately informed or mobilized to attend; no effort is made to get working people from the cities to the semi-rural and far-flung suburban areas where the Tea Party rallies often take place.

As a result, counterprotesters are often vastly outnumbered by the Tea Party Nativists. At recent events, the Nativists have often outnumbered their critics by more than 50 to one. This has established a dangerous precedent that only emboldens the Nativists and leaves them with the belief that their racist, chauvinist, anti-worker platform is shared by the majority of society.

As participants in many of these counterprotests, members of the Workers Party have seen what the lack of organization and political perspective have done to these events. We have seen counterprotest organizers, sensing their own failure to adequately build and draw large enough numbers, fold up their events and retreat quickly, fearing a possible confrontation with Nativists.

We have seen counterprotests originally billed as an opportunity to speak out against both capitalist parties become swamped by supporters of the corporatist Obama White House and Congressional Democrats, with signs reading, “Thank God for Obama,” outnumbering all others present.

Many of these disarming and disorganizing liberal elements are inspired by the so-called “Coffee Party,” which is yet another example of “middle class” liberalism attempting to get out ahead of any potential militant organizing against the Nativists and turn it back toward the Democrats.

IN OUR VIEW, the Tea Party Nativists represent a growing and immediate threat to working people.. While the corporatists, with Obama at their head, continue their “death by 1,000 cuts” attacks on our class, the Nativists look to destroy our organizations and gains in one fell swoop.

And the more the Nativists go unchallenged and unchecked, the more they are able to push the corporatists to concede to their demands ... and the more working people suffer at their hands.

For these reasons, the Central Committee of the Workers Party is raising the call for the building of a working people’s united front against the Tea Party Nativists. We appeal to all working people and self-described workers’ organizations to come together under their own slogans and banners for a single purpose: to out-organize, out-mobilize and defeat the Tea Party Nativists.

Within this context, we would suggest four points of reference for those joining the proposed united front: 1) commitment to supporting same time, same place counterprotests, as well as pro-active anti-Nativist protests when and where possible; 2) commitment to opposing oppression against working people based on race, nationality, gender, sexuality, religion, age and ability; 3) commitment to non-sectarian defense of any member of the united front in the event of an attack by Nativists or the state; 4) commitment to relying on our own abilities and resources as working people to defeat the Nativists, and no reliance on the capitalist state, its agents or its politicians.

Tentatively, until we are able to meet and decide as a group, we would propose calling this united front: Workers Against Nativist Terror. Constituent groups and individuals in WANT would be welcome to present their own opinions on actions organized by local manifestations of the united front, even if they are sharply critical, as long as they are toward a constructive end.

We look forward to hearing from any and all working people on this important issue. The longer we as working people delay, the more dangerous the Nativist movement becomes.

ON EDIT: A variant on the name has been proposed: WARRANT - Workers Against Radical Rightwing and Nativist Terror

[cska]

The teabaggers are clearly crazy. Fascism is a term that is thrown around a lot to refer to something you don't like. However, the term really has a very narrow meaning. I don't think the tea party people satisfy this narrow meaning.

[Martin Blank]

The teabaggers are clearly crazy. Fascism is a term that is thrown around a lot to refer to something you don't like. However, the term really has a very narrow meaning. I don't think the tea party people satisfy this narrow meaning.

And what is that narrow meaning?

It's sort of amusing the way this is shaking out: Those who don't see the Tea Party Nativists as fascists and claim a "narrow" definition never seem to be willing to actually share their definition with anyone. On the other hand, those who do, for one reason or another, see these Nativists as fascists, fascistic or proto-fascist are willing to put their definitions out there and subject them to criticism and debate.

Devrim already did a faceplant in this debate. Perhaps you'll do better.

[chegitz guevara]

So as it stands, in the US, not only is the state perfectly able (and surely it would be willing) to deal with the workers itself, there is no coherent worker movement right now in the US to even make such a scenario (i.e. the state being incapable of suppressing workers and turning to fascists) remotely practical.

That's why I mentioned other classes as well. In this case, the Tea Party is being used as a weapon in an intra-capitalist struggle. In other words, several sectors of the capitalist class are struggling for control, and the Tea Party movement was nurtured, funded, and unleashed by and for one particular wing of the capitalist class, the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) against the manufacturing and service (non-Fire) sectors of the capitalist class.

Why the change? Read John Bellemy Foster's "The Age of Monopoly-Finance Capital." (http://www.monthlyreview.org/100201foster.php) This will give you a background on the rise of the FIRE sector over the rest of the capitalist class.

The current economic crisis damaged the FIRE sector's hold on politics. There were, for the first time in generations, open calls to re-regulate, to break up the big capitals, and even single payer government sponsored health insurance, not just by dirty reds like us, but most importantly, by other, subordinated sectors of the capitalist class. The Tea Party is not aimed at the workers. It's aimed at these capitalists, struggling to break free from FIRE's domination.

As far as intra-capitalist struggles go, why should we care? That's another discussion, but fascism is a like a hyperactive six year old with a chain gun. It's uncontrollable and wildly inaccurate. The Tea Party may be aimed at the bourgeoisie, but it's gonna hit us as well.

For our own self-defense, we have to smash the Tea Party. Not in alliance with the bourgeoisie, but self-mobilized, on our own terms. Those who might be tempted to enter into an alliance with the liberal bourgeoisie would do well to remember that if we are able to build a movement capable of defeating the Tea Party, the bourgeoisie will fear it more, and switch sides.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i think i said somewhere before in either this thread or some other tea party thread that i thought LaRouche movement was fascist. i had no idea who they were when i ran into them and them calling "going green" a fascistic phenomenon made Larouche movement seem even more fascistic. i just looked them up and apparently they are leftist:confused::scared::ohmy:

[Nolan]

i think i said somewhere before in either this thread or some other tea party thread that i thought LaRouche movement was fascist. i had no idea who they were when i ran into them and them calling "going green" a fascistic phenomenon made Larouche movement seem even more fascistic. i just looked them up and apparently they are leftist:confused::scared::ohmy:

They're a strange movement, and hard to categorize. But not leftist.

[cska]

And what is that narrow meaning?

It's sort of amusing the way this is shaking out: Those who don't see the Tea Party Nativists as fascists and claim a "narrow" definition never seem to be willing to actually share their definition with anyone. On the other hand, those who do, for one reason or another, see these Nativists as fascists, fascistic or proto-fascist are willing to put their definitions out there and subject them to criticism and debate.

Devrim already did a faceplant in this debate. Perhaps you'll do better.

According to my dictionary, fascism is "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."

Aren't the teabaggers complaining about the government becoming too big? I think that is in contradiction to advocating an authoritarian system of government.

[RadioRaheem84]

Aren't the teabaggers complaining about the government becoming too big? I think that is in contradiction to advocating an authoritarian system of government.

They're like the Confederacy of old. Smaller government, states rights and absolute free reign of capitalism. In their quest for such a system they became highly centralized and authoritarian. Imperialist bound too.

I wouldn't call them fascist per se in the old Italian or German sense, but they do have a lot of fascist like tendencies.

[Martin Blank]

According to my dictionary, fascism is "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."

By this definition, the Nazis weren't fascist until 1933.


Aren't the teabaggers complaining about the government becoming too big? I think that is in contradiction to advocating an authoritarian system of government.

I believe it was CartCollector that rightly pointed out in another thread that all their talk about "big government" is a lie. For the Nativists, even an overarching corporatist police state is considered "small government", as long as it is "limited" to enforcing "law and order", and to preserving private property. It's only "big government" when it begins to administer social welfare programs for poor and working people.

[BeerShaman]

Come on! This is hilarious! Tea parties can take whatever form... They don't need to be fascist! FFS!:blink:

[RadioRaheem84]

I believe it was CartCollector that rightly pointed out in another thread that all their talk about "big government" is a lie. For the Nativists, even an overarching corporatist police state is considered "small government", as long as it is "limited" to enforcing "law and order", and to preserving private property. It's only "big government" when it begins to administer social welfare programs for poor and working people.

Credited.

[chegitz guevara]

According to my dictionary,

Yes, when trying to understand complex social phenomena, we should always consider the dictionary the last word. :rolleyes:

[9]

Come on! This is hilarious! Tea parties can take whatever form... They don't need to be fascist! FFS!:blink:

Haha, what's being discussed are not tea parties; it is the "Tea Party" movement(s) in the US. Basically a bunch of old white (primarily) middle class patriots letting off steam over there being a black president.

[cska]

By this definition, the Nazis weren't fascist until 1933.

I don't know that much history about the Nazis, but you're probably right.


I believe it was CartCollector that rightly pointed out in another thread that all their talk about "big government" is a lie. For the Nativists, even an overarching corporatist police state is considered "small government", as long as it is "limited" to enforcing "law and order", and to preserving private property. It's only "big government" when it begins to administer social welfare programs for poor and working people.

I'm sorry but I must have missed the word nativist in the thread title.


Yes, when trying to understand complex social phenomena, we should always consider the dictionary the last word. :rolleyes:

How else are we supposed to come into agreement about a term? Some people say the Soviet Union was fascist. The teabaggers call the current government fascist. Everyone can use the word "fascist" to suit their needs, and if you want to define it however you like, then this whole thread is pointless and the answer to the OP is "they are if you want them to be".

[Martin Blank]

I'm sorry but I must have missed the word nativist in the thread title.

Have you read any of this thread? Or did you just parachute in at the end?


How else are we supposed to come into agreement about a term? Some people say the Soviet Union was fascist. The teabaggers call the current government fascist. Everyone can use the word "fascist" to suit their needs, and if you want to define it however you like, then this whole thread is pointless and the answer to the OP is "they are if you want them to be".

You shouldn't expect to find a universal agreement on a definition across the wide spectrum, but we should be able among ourselves to come to an agreement on this. I offered a definition a few pages back. Maybe we can start there.

[chegitz guevara]

cska, I must echo Miles question, did you even bother to read this thread?

I believe this is where I'm going to echo Mao. "No investigation, no right to speak."

[cska]

Have you read any of this thread? Or did you just parachute in at the end?

I responded to the OP. Is that not allowed? If you are going to change the topic of the discussion, please change the title to reflect that new topic. If you are asking if the nativists are fascists, I would be inclined to say pretty much yes.


You shouldn't expect to find a universal agreement on a definition across the wide spectrum, but we should be able among ourselves to come to an agreement on this. I offered a definition a few pages back. Maybe we can start there.

I disagree with your definition of fascism. :p

[Die Neue Zeit]

WARRANT sounds better. There's a crime drama edge to it, while WANT sounds wanting. ;)

[Decommissioner]

According to my dictionary, fascism is "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."

Aren't the teabaggers complaining about the government becoming too big? I think that is in contradiction to advocating an authoritarian system of government.

I think the issue here, as some have already pointed out, that it isn't the ideology behind a fascist movement that makes it fascist, it's the social role the movement plays out.

For instance, we all know the nazi's weren't actually socialist, however the word socialist was use to appeal to a mass worker base. I am pretty sure in the beginnings of the nazi movement itself, there were confused self ascribed socialists. No different here. The tea party movement is conglomeration of right wing ideologies, libertarianism being one of them. Libertarianism itself is such a loose and theoretically bankrupt ideology, that I dont even thing libertarians would flinch once their movement turns into a reactionary fascist party.

The standard for leftists to judge what is fascism and what isn't is Fascism: What it is and how to fight it by Leon Trotsky.

[Sendo]

I think the issue here, as some have already pointed out, that it isn't the ideology behind a fascist movement that makes it fascist, it's the social role the movement plays out.

One of my favorite Parenti pieces on youtube is The Functions of Fascism. The role is very important. The Nazis are made out to be totalitarian brothers of Stalinism and other nonsense. Their ideology doesn't matter as much as their actions. Likewise, Right-wing libs can say whatever they want, for example, but when faced with anti-war leftist vs. tax-cutting warmonger...the make the same choice every time. There is no right lib movement or practical application of it so in practice they become Milton Friedman's applauding the failed--er, brilliant--economic policies carried out by Pinochet and Suharto while making awkward apologies when grilled on the atrocities.

[Martin Blank]

I responded to the OP. Is that not allowed? If you are going to change the topic of the discussion, please change the title to reflect that new topic. If you are asking if the nativists are fascists, I would be inclined to say pretty much yes.

If you want to only respond to the OP, that's fine. But if you had read the entire thread, then you would have seen that I and others repeatedly used the term "Nativist" to describe the Tea Party movement.


I disagree with your definition of fascism. :p

Like I care. :D


WARRANT sounds better. There's a crime drama edge to it, while WANT sounds wanting. ;)

Actually, one member suggested WARN - Workers Against Rightwing Nativism. I'm personally leaning toward that name right now.

[Zeus the Moose]

I think WARN sounds a bit better than WANT, though it might throw up questions such as "is there a such thing as left-wing Nativism?" Just something to be ready for, but I don't think that warrants not using WARN.

[Martin Blank]

I think WARN sounds a bit better than WANT, though it might throw up questions such as "is there a such thing as left-wing Nativism?" Just something to be ready for, but I don't think that warrants not using WARN.

I tend to think there is such a thing as leftwing Nativism, though it has multiple forms. Folks normally call them protectionism or "pure and simple" trade unionism, or even anti-globalism, but, as political agendas, they are forms of leftwing Nativism. And one phenomenon we're seeing now is that elements who traditionally adhered to one or another of these leftwing Nativist trends are tending to drift toward the right -- not necessarily the workers themselves; more their former "middle class allies".

[Crux]

Haha, what's being discussed are not tea parties; it is the "Tea Party" movement(s) in the US. Basically a bunch of old white (primarily) middle class patriots letting off steam over there being a black president.
Well, at least we know one thing for sure, a tea party is not a revolution.

[Crux]

I tend to think there is such a thing as leftwing Nativism, though it has multiple forms. Folks normally call them protectionism or "pure and simple" trade unionism, or even anti-globalism, but, as political agendas, they are forms of leftwing Nativism. And one phenomenon we're seeing now is that elements who traditionally adhered to one or another of these leftwing Nativist trends are tending to drift toward the right -- not necessarily the workers themselves; more their former "middle class allies".
I am not sure if there is a value in designating xenophioic protectionist sentiments an ideological label in itself. I prefer calling it just being uninformed. Or are you saying there is a "Strasser"-like wing of the teaparty?

[Martin Blank]

I am not sure if there is a value in designating xenophobic protectionist sentiments an ideological label in itself. I prefer calling it just being uninformed. Or are you saying there is a "Strasser"-like wing of the teaparty?

Leftwing Nativism has, in this country, played a traditionally subordinate role within left-populist movements. Nevertheless, like the religious fundamentalist movements that emerged in the 1970s, it is important to recognize that their entry into political life makes them something we will have to deal with. At the moment, leftwing Nativism is not much of a concern because it remains subordinate to liberalism and left-populism. However, the rightwing Nativists in the Tea Party movement are targeting these elements because they represent the weak link in the chain that binds the base of the Democratic Party together. Ultimately, for the Tea Party to become something more than a "coalition partner" within the Republican Party, it has to draw in these leftwing Nativists and win them to their reactionary platform ... which is not as difficult as it might seem at first glance.

At the moment, there does not appear to be any kind of Strasserist-Black Front element within the Tea Party. An article in today's New York Times shows that the Tea Party movement is still overwhelmingly petty-bourgeois and rightwing in its composition. While it holds many of arch-reactionary views that we've come to expect from the far-right wing of the GOP, they are consciously putting those elements aside in order to win over "American workers", by concentrating on economic issues. That dynamic could spark a Strasserian reaction among elements that come around the Tea Party Nativists looking for common cause around the economic questions, but being repelled by the corporatist and reactionary character of its "other" politics. At the moment, though, while the conditions exist to make that a possibility, it is not yet guaranteed to be a reality.

[chegitz guevara]

Well, at least we know one thing for sure, a tea party is not a revolution.

You suck! :laugh:

[Psy]

They're a strange movement, and hard to categorize. But not leftist.
They are actually very easy to categorize they are reactionaries. Of course they can be easily pulled into a strong fascist movement but since there is no strong fascist movement in the USA they are directionless and simply a opposition to both the reforms the ruling class views as necessarily to save capitalism and labor's opposition to capitalism.

[BeerShaman]

So! Tea parties are not just parties where people drink tea... Right?:blink::p:D:confused::)

[RadioRaheem84]

So! Tea parties are not just parties where people drink tea... Right?:blink::p:D:confused::)

They wouldn't be caught drinking tea! That's a Euro-Commie drink. :lol:

Pabst Blue Ribbon, man!

[S.Artesian]

The answer to the question: Are the tea-partyers fascist?

Is: Not yet.

[chegitz guevara]

When will they be fascist? When they have state power and are riding tanks over our skulls?

[S.Artesian]

No, when the bourgeoisie need them to be fascist; when the economy breaks down more, and the "normal" police mechanisms don't work; when there is an organized movement opposed to capitalism-- that's when the "angry white people," will become an open, organized fascist movement.

[RadioRaheem84]

True. For now they're just pawns for financial backers to use in order to block reform.

If Obama really were a Social Democrat then we would be seeing their use as a fascist bloc to mobilize an attack like what happened in Venezuela '02.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm not sure if NYT is seen as the newsource for white bourgeoise and petite-bourgeoise around here (it is for the most part), but they had an amazing demographic profile of the Tea Party a couple of weeks back.

The Tea Party is:

- Rich (less affected by the recession/depression of 2008 than any other group, even on a self-reporting basis)
- White (duh)
- College Educated (so all the "they're just uneducated" stuff doesn't fly)

So. An organization of rich white men devoted to calling the first black president (hate him or not, guys, he's still black) a nigger openly. An organization that presents itself as populist, while essentially just moving public political discourse further right at the hands of the dudes who've been moving it further right since at least the 1980s.

If they aren't fascist, they sure as fuck are disgusting.

[S.Artesian]

Yes, they are disgusting; no they are not fascist. Not yet. They're not out in the streets functioning as death squads; recruiting poor and marginalized into gangs to pulverize labor unions. As I said, not yet.

And where some might say, "Just give them time," I say "Let's not." Let's not give them time; let's organize and stop them right here, right now.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

Pabst Blue Ribbon, man!

The hipsters have joined forces with the Tea Party? They may be invincible.

Seriously though, I don't think the Tea Party (as a whole) is fascistic. There's definitely a proto-fascist component, but I think it's just a lot of people channeling their anger into what they see as a viable outlet.

[Psy]

When will they be fascist? When they have state power and are riding tanks over our skulls?
When they have the equivalent of brown shirts going around beating up factions of the proletariat.

[RadioRaheem84]

They're akin to the proto-fascist group that tried to instigate violence in Allende's Chile. I forgot the name of the group.

[~Spectre]

I posted this in another thread, but I figure it fits in here too. It's not specifically about the tea party, but I think at this point the entire far right climate is starting to blur together:

A U.S. congressman calls for the deportation of American citizens should they be born to illegals:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/28/rep-hunter-deport-us-born-children-illegal-aliens/



“Congressman, would you support the deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens?” the questioner asked.
“I would have to, yes,” Hunter responded. “And I’ll tell you why. You know, this is a, it’s a complex issue and it’s, you know, you can look and say, ‘You’re a mean guy. You know, that’s a mean thing to do. That’s not humanitarian.’
“We simply can not afford what we’re doing now. We just can’t afford to do it. California’s going under. How much in debt are we, $20 billion? ...We just can’t afford it. That’s it.
“And we’re not being mean. We’re just saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen. It’s what’s in our souls, not just walking across the border.”
A U.S. congressmen saying that "we" need to deport the American Citizen children of illegal aliens, presumably because they are part of the reason that we are in so much debt, and because their parents didn't have "what's in our souls".

In review:
- He wants to expel citizens.
- He is blaming national problems on a mostly defenseless minority.
- He is dehumanizing them on a "soul" level.
- He is claiming to do all this in the interest of "we".


Ugly stuff.

[Uppercut]

I hate the teabaggers with a passion; Nationalism, capitalism, racism, etc...
These Glenn Beck worshippers are disgraceful.

[RadioRaheem84]

Their crap is bubbling in pockets in every state and it's giving white America an excuse to vent their most racist hidden feelings they've kept bottled up for years.

I don't know what it is like in other nations but I don't think that I can really raise a child in this country anymore.

[RadioRaheem84]

You know how effective right wing propaganda is in the US? People actually think that Obama was appointing Czars; as in with actual dictatorial powers. A lot of their responses toward the mention of Czars is "This is America, we don't have Czars" !

Even though Nixon first appointed a Czar and Reagan appointed the most.

This isn't about logic and rationality anymore. It's all about emotion and racism, period. They want to be angry and want someone to feed them anger.

These people do not care about the fact that Sarah Palin and their other favored heroes like Hannity, Beck, and Limbgaugh are beyond illogical, irrational and pathological liars. They just want someone to support their irrational hatred for non-whites, poor people and foreigners.

The GOP doesn't even care about reporting all the facts anymore because they know that they have a grounded base that doesn't care about the facts, because they know that they've can convince them of anything as long as they scapegoat liberals, blacks, poor people and illegals.

This movement has ventured off into proto-fascism, plain and simple.

[chegitz guevara]

When they have the equivalent of brown shirts going around beating up factions of the proletariat.

So, violent Tea Party attacks in St. Louis, Fort Lauderdale, etc. are what then? Ten thousand of them showing up armed in the capital is what?

[Nolan]

So, violent Tea Party attacks in St. Louis, Fort Lauderdale, etc. are what then? Ten thousand of them showing up armed in the capital is what?

They are never all armed. And simply attacking your opponents doesn't make you a fascist.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Teabaggers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcIVOc49Hfg&feature=autofb

Enough said.

[chegitz guevara]

They are never all armed. And simply attacking your opponents doesn't make you a fascist.

The brownshirts and blackshirts were not always armed, especially in the beginning.

[chegitz guevara]

Well, Miles and I have laid out a wealth of facts, logic, and theory in this thread showing that the Tea Party movement is indeed a fascist movement. In response, we get, "they're not fascist." Nothing more than that.

If you're going to argue they aren't fascist, then deal with the substantial posts Miles and I made.

[S.Artesian]

Well, Miles and I have laid out a wealth of facts, logic, and theory in this thread showing that the Tea Party movement is indeed a fascist movement. In response, we get, "they're not fascist." Nothing more than that.

If you're going to argue they aren't fascist, then deal with the substantial posts Miles and I made.

OK, they're not a fascist movement because they are not organized around any definite program yet... other than their racism and their own comfort.

They're not fascist because they are not yet articulating a petit-bourgeois ideology of incorporating the big business into a government controlled economy run for the benefit of the "little person."

They're not fascist because they are not yet organized into groups directly attacking working class organizations.

They're not yet fascist because they are not yet proposing "recapturing" the "glory" that was the US by "reclaiming" lost "territory."

Look at the "classic" fascist movements of Germany, Italy, and the Spanish falange. They come on the scene with an organized para-military component.

So again... the answer is not yet.

Now the militias out there-- they are definitely fascist; the Aryan Brotherhood--, fascist. The tea-baggers, not yet.

[CartCollector]

They're not yet fascist because they are not yet proposing "recapturing" the "glory" that was the US

Well, in a sense, they are. Note how they use imagery from the formation of the USA like the phrase "Tea Party," claim to represent the One True Interpretation of the Founding Gods' Holy Constitution and claim to be "real Americans." They routinely say they want to take the country back, and they offer almost no criticism of the US's politics before the 20th century. Criticism of the US is focused on the very late 19th and 20th century, which had developments that were awful from a far right perspective, such as the federal income tax, the creation of the Federal Reserve, the New Deal, and the removal of the gold standard. Late 18th/early 19th century America is held up as an example of a utopian paradise of freedom and democracy, which the evil "progressives" and "socialists" later took away with their "big government." Sarah Palin even went so far as to say that there should be a "second American Revolution." How close to wanting to "recapture the glory that was the US" can you get?

[zimmerwald1915]

Sarah Palin even went so far as to say that there should be a "second American Revolution." How close to wanting to "recapture the glory that was the US" can you get?
So they've disowned the Confederacy now? I would think that right-wing loonies would call whatever coup d'etat plans they masturbate too the "Third American Revolution".

[~Spectre]

They're not yet fascist because they are not yet proposing "recapturing" the "glory" that was the US by "reclaiming" lost "territory."




One of their favorite slogans is "we want our country back". As for reclaiming lost territory, the U.S. is the most powerful empire in the history of the world so obviously a fascist movement would manifest itself differently in that respect. They are however very militaristic though.

[Martin Blank]

Look at the "classic" fascist movements of Germany, Italy, and the Spanish falange. They come on the scene with an organized para-military component.

Bzzzzzzt!

Awww, we're sorry. In order to move on to the next round of this discussion, you had to be able to apply a method of analysis, not mechanically graft the present onto the past without regard for material conditions. Thanks for playing, though.

[chegitz guevara]

OK, they're not a fascist movement because they are not organized around any definite program yet... other than their racism and their own comfort.

They're not fascist because they are not yet articulating a petit-bourgeois ideology of incorporating the big business into a government controlled economy run for the benefit of the "little person."

This is mistaking ideology for reality. Fascism is not defined by what it says (which, historically, has been all over the place, but by its class composition and its social role. That is, if you're a materialist.


They're not fascist because they are not yet organized into groups directly attacking working class organizations.

This aspect of fascism isn't necessary because the worker class was smashed in the 1980s.


They're not yet fascist because they are not yet proposing "recapturing" the "glory" that was the US by "reclaiming" lost "territory."

Again, this is idealism, not materialism. You are defining fascism by what it says (or not) instead of who it is and what it does.


Look at the "classic" fascist movements of Germany, Italy, and the Spanish falange. They come on the scene with an organized para-military component.

Right, there are no organized paramilitaries in the United States linked with the Tea Party movement. Maybe if you used the word "militia" it would ring a bell.



Now the militias out there-- they are definitely fascist; the Aryan Brotherhood--, fascist. The tea-baggers, not yet.

The Aryan Brotherhood are just a bunch of losers. They will never be fascist, as they have no capacity to be a mass movement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Bzzzzzzt!

Awww, we're sorry. In order to move on to the next round of this discussion, you had to be able to apply a method of analysis, not mechanically graft the present onto the past without regard for material conditions. Thanks for playing, though.

Interestingly, I watched a CPGB video on the BNP this week.

Jack Conrad said the BNP wasn't fascist precisely because of the role it plays. He says one of the features of fascism is "street action" (not necessarily armed with guns) and brought up the EDL and the fact that it's hostile to the BNP.

I think I said this in another forum, but the EDL qualifies more as a fascist group than the BNP.

[S.Artesian]

If we're arguing materially, then materially the origin and purpose of fascism is to break the resistance of the working class, and allow for intensified accumulation. If the working class was "smashed" in the 1980s, rather than just being in retreat, then materially there is no need for fascism.

So which is it?

As for "ideology," I am not arguing that the tea-party doesn't exist, that it isn't fueled and populated by the upper petit-bourgeoisie, that it won't become even more belligerent. I'm arguing that it does not exhibit the characteristics of a fascist movement-- some of those characteristics are ideological; some of them are class composition-- when the rank and file of the tea party movement gets a lot less well-off, a lot more "lumpen" then we'll see all those characteristics emerging that you characterize now as ideological.

The problem with your characterization is that it will not be able to account for, or comprehend the changes that must take place for a real fascist movement to arise.

Oh.. late addition. Working class smashed? Not yet, the immigrant workers in this country have not yet been smashed, and have in fact been quite active. So if you're looking for fascists-- then I'd say the "Minutemen" groups harassing immigrants, "patrolling" the border are fascist. And the law in Arizona is one of the initial signs of "corporatization"-- with the state incorporating public and private forces of repression to intimidate and harass workers in order to set the table for brutally intensified accumulation.



As I said before, doesn't mean we don't militantly oppose the tea-partiers; doesn't mean we don't point out who their heroes are, the loathsome Lou Dobbs and the crackpot Sarah Palin come to mind; doesn't mean we don't physically confront them when they attempt physical confrontation.

Does mean we recognize them for not being what they are not yet-- a fascist movement, aiming at corporatization of government and economy in order to pulverize any resistance to draconian austerity and intensified exploitation.

[~Spectre]

If we're arguing materially, then materially the origin and purpose of fascism is to break the resistance of the working class, and allow for intensified accumulation. If the working class was "smashed" in the 1980s, rather than just being in retreat, then materially there is no need for fascism.

So which is it?



Fascism can often emerge upon the failure of a revolutionary situation. Chomsky has often pointed out how for years disparity in this country has grown, exploitation has grown, the strain on the working class and poor has grown. Yet, there has been no left wing alternative for this people. They instead listen to the radio reactionaries who turn their anger into hatred of illegals, minorities, gays, atheists, unions, "libruuls' etc. (FWIW he also goes on to add that the climate now is worse than what he remembers from the 30s, though that may be due to differences in expression technology).

Add in the crisis capitalism just went through, and you can see how a volatile group can organize into this fascist direction that seeks to smash those that they perceive are responsible. This of course serves a function of being good for corporate power, and was effective in destroying anything that resembled progressive healthcare reform.