Secret Service question 13-yr-old at school over Facebook post

[PhoenixAsh]

Not...really sure if serious...considering the source:
http://failbook.failblog.org/2011/05/18/funny-facebook-fails-secret-service-question-13-yr-old-at-school/

Anybody got any confirmation on this?



Yesterday, seventh grader Vito LaPinta was called to the principal’s office by US Secret Service and was questioned, unbeknownst to his mother, over one of the boy’s recent Facebook statuses that Vito said he was told “indicated a threat to the President.”
http://cheezfailbooking.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/funny-facebook-fails-vito.jpeg?w=500&h=306 (http://cheezfailbooking.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/funny-facebook-fails-vito.jpeg)
“I was saying how Osama is dead and for Obama to be careful because there might be suicide bombers,” Vito said.
Tacoma, WA schools said a security guard called Vito’s mom because the principal was on the other line, and that they didn’t wait for her to arrive because they felt that she didn’t take the phone call seriously.
Vito’s mother disagrees.
She said she rushed to Truman Middle School immediately, and arrived to discover her boy had already been questioned for half an hour.
“I just about lost it. My son, my 13-year-old son, who is a minor, who is supposed to be safe and secure in his classroom at school is being interrogated, without my knowledge or consent, privately, by the Secret Service,” Robertson said.
Once mom was on the scene, the agent finished the interview and told Vito he wasn’t in any trouble.
This incident also happend on the same day a New Hampshire middle school suspended a 13-yr-old girl for five days (http://www.wmur.com/r/27931726/detail.html) after posting she wished Osama bin Laden killed her math teacher.
Which Side Are You On?

[PhoenixAsh]

Aha...its serious:

http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2011/05/18/6667233-secret-service-interrogates-13-year-old-over-facebook-post


WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOUR COUNTRY????

A 13 year old makes a FB post and the SS comes around to interrogate him....without his mother or lawyer present???

Fascism...sometimes its THAT obvious....

[Tablo]

Aha...its serious:

http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2011/05/18/6667233-secret-service-interrogates-13-year-old-over-facebook-post


WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOUR COUNTRY????

A 13 year old makes a FB post and the SS comes around to interrogate him....without his mother or lawyer present???

Fascism...sometimes its THAT obvious....
Holy shit. I never noticed Secret Service makes an SS. Quite appropriate I think. Yeah, our country is fucked.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Holy shit. I never noticed Secret Service makes an SS. Quite appropriate I think. Yeah, our country is fucked.

Yeah I just noticed that too haha. Our country? The worker has no country :)

[Catillina]

More like Gestapo.

[Sam_b]

Fascism...sometimes its THAT obvious....

So obvious you don't know what fascism is?


More like Gestapo.

Get a grip.

[jake williams]

This is a lot less crazy if the kid were like "I'm gonna kill the President". But he made a pretty logical point. That's aside from the question of interrogating a minor without parental notification/a lawyer etc.

[Delenda Carthago]

They must have many available resources sitting around to spent money, time, men to this.

[PhoenixAsh]

So obvious you don't know what fascism is?

Get a grip.

Its an expression Sam...you would know it if you would get out on the interwebs more.

But...if you desperately want to degenerate in ad hominems...:

haven't you noticed how you end up on the wrond side of the debating line when it comes to cops and secret services...is that personal or is it nature? :rolleyes:

[Obs]

inb4 sam wrecks hindsight's shit

[PhoenixAsh]

inb4 sam wrecks hindsight's shit

O...Sam is not going to wreck anything...he hasn't been able to yet and he will never be able to.
Neither have you.

Anyways... want to deny the expression part?

[PhoenixAsh]

This is a lot less crazy if the kid were like "I'm gonna kill the President". But he made a pretty logical point. That's aside from the question of interrogating a minor without parental notification/a lawyer etc.

Yes...because some thirteen year old kid really has the power to do so...



They must have many available resources sitting around to spent money, time, men to this.

Well...they are about to up the debt ceiling ;-) And since the do not have to pay the price on Osama's head...well...they have a few million to spare to violate some more rights.

[Thirsty Crow]

Anyways... want to deny the expression part?
Such superficial, ahistorical comparisons shouldn't be tossed around here since we all know how capitalist states can easily acquire (more or less of) the characteristics of a police state, but that does not automatically translate into Fascism.
Another thing, for the sake of historical and theoretical clarity, no one here should engage in such comparisons and defend the conclusions drawn from them. These conclusions are faulty at best.
If we wish to fight fascist groups and crypto-fascist groups, we shouldn't forget how to identify the historical moment of their ascendancy and the inherent characteristics of such movements. Your comparison, or expression, isn't helpful in that respect.

Now, on topic. Can parents sue these bastards? Can they act on this disgrace of an "event", and where there any precedents?

[Sam_b]

Its an expression Sam...you would know it if you would get out on the interwebs more.

I couldn't care less whether or not it's an expression or not. I would have thought an anarchist of all people wouldn't be using this sorry and almost non-existant argumental line to try and cover themselves when they get called out. When people use phrases such as this, and call any thing vaguely authoritarian (to be honest for some people here this extends to anything not regarded as classical liberal democracy) as 'fascist' the term gets watered down to the point that it loses all of its political impetus. This is a pretty dangerous thing to do considering the threat that organised fascism as a concept has on the working class.

The point of an expression is that it is supposed to fit into the general point surrounding events. The fact that this doesn't eliminates the validity of the 'just an expression' argument.



But...if you desperately want to degenerate in ad hominems...:

Its not an ad hominem in the slightest, it's a serious political point and you think too highly of yourself if you believe I was merely targeting it because it was you.


aven't you noticed how you end up on the wrond side of the debating line when it comes to cops and secret services...is that personal or is it nature?

You obviously have never read the majority of my posts on the police, first off. Secondly arguing against the characterisation of authoritarianism as being 'fascism' does not at all signify support for practices or the secret service. There is not an ideological 'line' being drawn in this thread dividing posters between tacit support and rejection of the secret services. We don't support capitalist secret services. However, if you believe them to be 'fascist' then there is a serious lack of political education going on.

[PhoenixAsh]

I couldn't care less whether or not it's an expression or not. I would have thought an anarchist of all people wouldn't be using this sorry and almost non-existant argumental line to try and cover themselves when they get called out.

O sam, sam...you have not called me out. You have made an assumption....a wrong one and now you are looking for an out to cover your own ass. The reference was obvious....you just didn't get it.

But the point I made can be very well defended.


When people use phrases such as this, and call any thing vaguely authoritarian (to be honest for some people here this extends to anything not regarded as classical liberal democracy) as 'fascist' the term gets watered down to the point that it loses all of its political impetus. This is a pretty dangerous thing to do considering the threat that organised fascism as a concept has on the working class.

And not recognizing political development into its next logical step accoding to Marxism and not calling the development for what it is is Ostrich politics just for arguments sake...

Its the refusal to see how the American political system is developing. And the stages are: capitalism ---> fascism

You know this...yet you seem unwilling to accept it.

The US is moving into that direction rapidly...


Authoritarian state, not allowing political dissent on the left while protecting it on the right. Increased controll of social life, increased control of organisational life, opposition to traditional political theory on left and the right, celebration of migght and power, extreem nationalism, creating enemies and constant state of conflict and war, leader to whom charismatic influences are described, dependency on the loyalty of the middle class, arguing class colaboration...and the continued battle for political dominance and dictatorship.

I'd say they are pretty much there...



The point of an expression is that it is supposed to fit into the general point surrounding events. The fact that this doesn't eliminates the validity of the 'just an expression' argument.

Yes it does sammy. You just are unwilling to see it.


Its not an ad hominem in the slightest, it's a serious political point and you think too highly of yourself if you believe I was merely targeting it because it was you.

Then you should adress it as a political point and not just stop at the insult part. Which you chose to do. Not making your point...at all.


You obviously have never read the majority of my posts on the police, first off. Secondly arguing against the characterisation of authoritarianism as being 'fascism' does not at all signify support for practices or the secret service. There is not an ideological 'line' being drawn in this thread dividing posters between tacit support and rejection of the secret services.

Have I said that or are you just assuming again? That is exactly the point I was making. You read something and assume you know what was ment.


We don't support capitalist secret services. However, if you believe them to be 'fascist' then there is a serious lack of political education going on.

If you do not believe them to be fascist I absolutely agree with your analysis that there is alack of political education an wareness going on here...

[PhoenixAsh]

Such superficial, ahistorical comparisons shouldn't be tossed around here since we all know how capitalist states can easily acquire (more or less of) the characteristics of a police state, but that does not automatically translate into Fascism.
Another thing, for the sake of historical and theoretical clarity, no one here should engage in such comparisons and defend the conclusions drawn from them. These conclusions are faulty at best.
If we wish to fight fascist groups and crypto-fascist groups, we shouldn't forget how to identify the historical moment of their ascendancy and the inherent characteristics of such movements. Your comparison, or expression, isn't helpful in that respect.

The political scales of development go from capitalism to fascism. Its the natural developmental end stage for capitalism if there is no revolution to stop them. Authoritarianism is a stop along the way. The US is passing that station.

There are more faces to fascism than the Italian or German fascism.


Now, on topic. Can parents sue these bastards? Can they act on this disgrace of an "event", and where there any precedents?That is a very good question. I do not know the legal status of the SS involved.

Either way...what effect would it have? Probably none. The fact that parents or people need to sue after their rights are violated pretty much indicate that the state operates outside the scope of the law and thagt induvidual cases will have little or no effect anymore on their conduct...if they eve had any effect on it in the first place.

[Sam_b]

The reference was obvious....you just didn't get it.

This will be why i'm not the only one who has raised objections here then?


Its the refusal to see how the American political system is developing. And the stages are: capitalism ---> fascism

You know this...yet you seem unwilling to accept it.

This is a horrible definition and a very simplistic analysis. The highest stage of capitalism as defined by Lenin is imperialism and not fascism. Fascism itself is not a post-capitalist idea, but rather one which has capitalism and corporatism absolutely entrenched in it.


Authoritarian state, not allowing political dissent on the left while protecting it on the right. Increased controll of social life, increased control of organisational life, opposition to traditional political theory on left and the right, celebration of migght and power, extreem nationalism, creating enemies and constant state of conflict and war, leader to whom charismatic influences are described, dependency on the loyalty of the middle class, arguing class colaboration...and the continued battle for political dominance and dictatorship.


This isn't what fascism is.


Yes it does sammy. You just are unwilling to see it.

This is a non-comeback and non-argument.


Then you should adress it as a political point and not just stop at the insult part. Which you chose to do. Not making your point...at all.


This truly is bizarre. The post itself is not particularly insulting. You'll see that I excplained exactly why your usage of this 'phrase', which I still believe because of your arguments that you do think is legitimate in ideas of so-called 'fascism', is both simplistic and politically damaging.


Have I said that or are you just assuming again? That is exactly the point I was making. You read something and assume you know what was ment.


Again a non-comeback. If you think I am on the 'wrong' side of debates about the police you should actually look at my posts, that is what i'm saying - instead of what was said in one thread where you got raging over so called 'collaborationism'.


If you do not believe them to be fascist I absolutely agree with your analysis that there is alack of political education an wareness going on here...

I like how you're saying that I am not making any political point yet you just made the classic 'no u' argument.

[Sam_b]

The political scales of development go from capitalism to fascism. Its the natural developmental end stage for capitalism if there is no revolution to stop them. Authoritarianism is a stop along the way. The US is passing that station.

This is completely and utterly untrue, and it is telling that you have not posted any statistics, examples or theoretical writings to back it up.

[PhoenixAsh]

This will be why i'm not the only one who has raised objections here then?

You were however the first to adress it in a one liner with little more than an insult. Also: bandwagon fallacy.



This is a horrible definition and a very simplistic analysis. The highest stage of capitalism as defined by Lenin is imperialism and not fascism. Fascism itself is not a post-capitalist idea, but rather one which has capitalism and corporatism absolutely entrenched in it.

And your conclusion thus is that I argue its the highest form of capitalism? Now THAT is a horrible analysis.


This isn't what fascism is.

Yes it is Sam. These are the markers which characterise fascism. You can not argue with them...you can however argue with their application.


This is a non-comeback and non-argument.

It wasn't meant as a come-back. The fact that you would deduce that and think in terms of come-back says something about you. That does however not mean it is not true.


This truly is bizarre. The post itself is not particularly insulting. You'll see that I excplained exactly why your usage of this 'phrase', which I still believe because of your arguments that you do think is legitimate in ideas of so-called 'fascism', is both simplistic and politically damaging.

I think exactly te opposite. The fact that you have not deliverd a counter definition of fascism weakens your position. The fact is that fascism is not a singularly defined ideology. Its a catch all term. There are however ten distinctive markers to fascism which are unique and distinguish it from other political ideologies.,..most of which I mentioned. Now if you want to argue and claim you are right you have to adres either your own definition of fascism or attack my application of the markmers.

Since you have yet to produce anything which constitues a contentual argument instead of an argument for arguments sake...there is no debate here....but an attack from your side.


Again a non-comeback. If you think I am on the 'wrong' side of debates about the police you should actually look at my posts, that is what i'm saying

Lets use a grab of your own tools then...because obviously you think these arguments as valid: how come there are more who are thinking what you are claiming here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-fascists-paintbomb-t154944/index.html)

I think you are on the wrong side of debates when the police is involved because we have debated and went head to head most often in such threads....I was actually infering a personal dislike against me.


- instead of what was said in one thread where you got raging over so called 'collaborationism'.

No...I was not actually raging. Again...an unfounded assumption. I was however implying you have a personal distaste for me. Which you have. That much is clear by the whole range of argument void of any contentual menaing on the topic: wether or not American society is rapidly developing into a fascist state.



I like how you're saying that I am not making any political point yet you just made the classic 'no u' argument.

Did I say I was above such methods? No. However...unlike your first post...my post actually also contained substance of argument instead of ad hokminem one liners and application of theory to it....insteda of mere dismissal.

[PhoenixAsh]

This is completely and utterly untrue, and it is telling that you have not posted any statistics, examples or theoretical writings to back it up.

O..you mean the application of Bordiga, Zibordi, Zetkin, Silone, Trotsky?
Pff...yeah...what they hell did they know :rolleyes:

[caramelpence]

hindsight20/20, my concern (and I think this is the one that Sam_b would share) is this: there's not much point in having debates about the intrinsic meaning of the word "fascism", because one can easily argue that words do not have intrinsic meanings and are defined by their common usage and their position in individual sentences, but if you insist on saying that the United States is currently a "fascist" society, then the consequence of that is that you deprive Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy of their historical specificity, including the historical causes that led to the victory of fascist regimes in those countries, and you ignore the crucial ways in which those societies were different from the contemporary United States, during their respective periods of fascist government. That is the impact of applying fascism to all or almost all contemporary capitalist societies - you inflate the term in such a way that it loses any determinate meaning and no longer captures the specific structures and above all the unique crimes against morality that were present in Germany and Italy in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. This is not to say that there is not a general trend for governments to become more authoritarian under capitalism, but it is still necessary to reserve fascism for particular kinds of authoritarian government, namely those which have their roots in petty-bourgeois political movements and arise in conditions of capitalist crisis and in the face of imminent working-class revolution, in order to consolidate the rule of a bourgeoisie that is divided within itself and facing a crisis of credibility. If you do not take care in the way you apply fascism as a category, you merge together societies and systems of government that deserve to be analyzed separately and from the viewpoint of historical specificity.

[Sam_b]

And your conclusion thus is that I argue its the highest form of capitalism? Now THAT is a horrible analysis.

I see 'no u' comes back here again. Well, it's pretty hard to guage what "capitalism ---> fascism" means. Either it means that capitalism leads to fascism, which of course is incorrect; or it means that fascism is a higher form of capitalism. Both are untrue.


Yes it is Sam. These are the markers which characterise fascism. You can not argue with them...you can however argue with their application.


Yes I can. All you've done is illustrate what authoritarianism is.


The fact that you would deduce that and think in terms of come-back says something about you. That does however not mean it is not true.


So where's the politics here? It's not a comeback, you say, so then where is the analysis?


The fact that you have not deliverd a counter definition of fascism weakens your position.

The impotus of this argument is not on me to say what fascism is, but rather on you to prove that your assertion is correct. You haven't. Rather In think this (http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=255&issue=112) is a pretty good starting block.


The fact is that fascism is not a singularly defined ideology

I roughly agree, seeing as there are many distinctions and characteristics of particular fascist movements. However, they are linked on multiple levels, especially in their relationship to ruling and middle-class elements, the corporatist approach and rerlationship to the market and economic crises etc.


Its a catch all term

No, it isn't.


There are however ten distinctive markers to fascism which are unique and distinguish it from other political ideologies.,..most of which I mentioned

You've given a liberal definition which all point to characteristics of authoritarianism, not fascism. Though fascism is authoritarian in nature, this is not merely the case you put forward.


Since you have yet to produce anything which constitues a contentual argument instead of an argument for arguments sake...there is no debate here....but an attack from your side.

I have consistently argued that the case above is not a signifier of fascism, and that you are weakening ther term by applying it here. You can disagree, but the fact that there is an argument here is not difficult to understand.


Lets use a grab of your own tools then...because obviously you think these arguments as valid: how come there are more who are thinking what you are claiming here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-fascists-paintbomb-t154944/index.html)

I think you are on the wrong side of debates when the police is involved because we have debated and went head to head most often in such threads....I was actually infering a personal dislike against me.

I have no idea what the link actually means here - it has nothing to do with definitions of fascism or its application. I have never deabted with you on the role of police in society or conveyed any tacit support for it at all. I responded in one thread where you were labelling everybody and nobody as a class traitor. There was no in-depth discussion about the role the police serves in upholding property rights or the system itself. It seems curious why you would put this here.


No...I was not actually raging. Again...an unfounded assumption

So unforunded you posted another thread in the Mmeber's Area specifically mentioning it and calling out people who disagreed with you?


my post actually also contained substance of argument instead of ad hokminem one liners and application of theory to it....insteda of mere dismissal.

I have no idea what this actually means. I cannot understand your grammar.

[Sam_b]

O..you mean the application of Bordiga, Zibordi, Zetkin, Silone, Trotsky?
Pff...yeah...what they hell did they know

I'm sorry, but name-dropping does not cut the mustard here. There are no quotes and no argument.

You'll find in Trotsky's "Fascism - What it is and How to Fight it" there is an in-depth analysis of relation to capitalist processes. So why don't you quote them?

[jake williams]

Yes...because some thirteen year old kid really has the power to do so...
It's still surreally absurd. And of course there are adults making much more credible threats to Mr. Obama in public who aren't getting heat from the SS.

It's also disturbing that the SS is reading a chlid's Facebook page. Is it possible there was some sort of tip, or is there actually that much digital surveillance (of course the surveillance exists hypothetically, but in a form where it can be acted on).

[Thirsty Crow]

The political scales of development go from capitalism to fascism. Its the natural developmental end stage for capitalism if there is no revolution to stop them. Authoritarianism is a stop along the way. The US is passing that station. Capitalism is not a fact of political development. It is a mode of production, within which there might develop several models of political rule, but what is common to all of them is that they do not question the existence of capital as a social relation.

Further, I seriously doubt that it is desirable to speak of the "natural developmental end stage" for capitalism in the form of Fascism. I think that you are basing your conclusion on the history of existing Fascist regimes (the fact that Fascism as a movement developed against the revolutionary workers' movement and based itself on breaking its back), but the thing is that any kind of political movement/organization/party which would be reasonably called "Fascist" must exhibit some social and economic traits which are NOT found in contemporary US. One of them is strong corporatism. Compare that to the relationship to unions found in political practice in the last 50 years lasting to now, mainstream American center-right, and even the far right.

Another thing: "Fascism" must be a term that has a more or less clear definition, and clear lines of demarcation from similar terms which are used to refer to, again, similar phenomena in the social, economic, and political spheres. If you accept too many a factor, you'll end up with a useless term, which can ba applied to almost anything, ranging from pro-life positions to heavy corporatism, enhanced presidential powers and ethnic nationalism.


There are more faces to fascism than the Italian or German fascism.
Again, any kind of "Fascism" must have a clearly determined essential characteristics. In my opinion, I wouldn't dream of labelling a regime "Fascist" if it didn't insist on a class collaborationist perspective embodied in corporatist practice (bosses' and worker's unions, national unions controlled by the regime, suppression of independent political organizations, especially of the working class etc.).
And that is not to consider the fact that anything resembling a fascist regime tends to arise and take form in very specific historical conditions (working class fervour, a bluging revolutionary movement).

Another point: social control has a long history, and such blatant disregard for civil rights (this specific case) does not prove an especially repressive regime, by its qualities different from other similar regimes (do you think the French government is Fascist?).

I have a question for you: how would you differentiate (terms) "Fascism" from "police state"?

[brigadista]

the maths teacher thing made me laugh..

[Ele'ill]

So the secret service has access to facebook. I wonder what they think of me? I mean as a person. I'm not surprised here or anything that intelligence agencies have access to social networking and I'm aware of other examples such as this one in the OP. I wonder how often they're browsing their flagged okcupid accounts and think 'hey, this person here is fantastic'.

[jake williams]

So the secret service has access to facebook. I wonder what they think of me? I mean as a person. I'm not surprised here or anything that intelligence agencies have access to social networking and I'm aware of other examples such as this one in the OP. I wonder how often they're browsing their flagged okcupid accounts and think 'hey, this person here is fantastic'.
They absolutely have "access". Facebook may or may not have organizational links with US intelligence (like Google basically openly does), but even if they don't, it's trivially easy for intelligence or law enforcement to get access when they want it, legally or otherwise.

The really interesting questions are whether and what they're actually reading, if they knew beforehand that this was, in fact, a thirteen-year-old boy that they were going to an elementary school to see, and if they did, why they went.

[Ocean Seal]

They must have many available resources sitting around to spent money, time, men to this.
That's what I thought too. Seriously, and they say that they don't have the money to fund healthcare. I mean come on, why is there an SS squad interviewing a 13 year old as if he's part of some assassination plot why not something more productive honestly?

[PhoenixAsh]

hindsight20/20, my concern (and I think this is the one that Sam_b would share) is this: there's not much point in having debates about the intrinsic meaning of the word "fascism", because one can easily argue that words do not have intrinsic meanings and are defined by their common usage and their position in individual sentences

you do realise that in saying that words do not have intrinsic meaning...it pretty much voids any argument in any debate about anything? As much as I like to have philosophical debates about the placement of the words and their meaning Sam pretty much rejected my statement that it refered to common interweb saying...

However...it would be nice if somebody would offer a counter definition. Essentially saying: "no it does not"...is a meaningless argument.



, but if you insist on saying that the United States is currently a "fascist" society,

I think it is going there...its not there yet. But give it time.



then the consequence of that is that you deprive Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy of their historical specificity, including the historical causes that led to the victory of fascist regimes in those countries, and you ignore the crucial ways in which those societies were different from the contemporary United States,

No. Its the recognition that fascism does not come in two specific varieties which are defined by their historical context and existance. If that were not the case we would not have to worry about any form of fascims because the recreation of historical context and specificity can not be achieved. That however is not what fascism is. Its not limited in time, space and context....and it can very well surface through different ways.


during their respective periods of fascist government. That is the impact of applying fascism to all or almost all contemporary capitalist societies - you inflate the term in such a way that it loses any determinate meaning and no longer captures the specific structures and above all the unique crimes against morality that were present in Germany and Italy in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s.

This is a very curious line of reasoning. In the first place fascism is most definately not confined to the historical context of Germany, Italy and Spain (which you miss).

In the second place I do not apply this to all capitalist societies. I argue that all capitalist societies will inevitably develop into fascism.
As Zetkin... argued the decline of capitalism (according to Marxist theory capitalism will inevitably decline and collapse) will result in the rise of authoritarianism and eventually lead to fascism...and Trotsky added, if the working class is unwilling or unable to counter this movement with a socialist revolution.



This is not to say that there is not a general trend for governments to become more authoritarian under capitalism, but it is still necessary to reserve fascism for particular kinds of authoritarian government, namely those which have their roots in petty-bourgeois political movements and arise in conditions of capitalist crisis and in the face of imminent working-class revolution, in order to consolidate the rule of a bourgeoisie that is divided within itself and facing a crisis of credibility.

Yes...and now apply this to the US. Also Fascism does not in itself only develop in imminent working-class revolution....but...applying Zedtkin and Trotsky again...also in the inability of the working class to have a revolution.


If you do not take care in the way you apply fascism as a category, you merge together societies and systems of government that deserve to be analyzed separately and from the viewpoint of historical specificity.

I think I argued this above.

[PhoenixAsh]

I see 'no u' comes back here again. Well, it's pretty hard to guage what "capitalism ---> fascism" means. Either it means that capitalism leads to fascism, which of course is incorrect; or it means that fascism is a higher form of capitalism. Both are untrue.

Capitalism leads to fascism when the working class is unable or unwilling to have their revolution. Its inevitable since capitalism will in crisis collapse its core values and needs to develop increasing authoritarianism and corporatism to maintain its dominance.




Yes I can. All you've done is illustrate what authoritarianism is.

Well...start doing it. Because these are the markers which are used to define fascism. All you have done so far comes down to arguing: no it isn't. Which is not a valid position unless backed up by actual contentual arguments.

You have yet to offer your definition of fascism.

So whatever you are doing is comming down to you basically denying everything and offering no contentual arguments....which is void of any meaning.


So where's the politics here? It's not a comeback, you say, so then where is the analysis?

there does not have to be an analysis. Its an observation about your conduct...


The impotus of this argument is not on me to say what fascism is, but rather on you to prove that your assertion is correct. You haven't. Rather In think this (http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=255&issue=112) is a pretty good starting block.

It does not work that way Sam. I offer a widely accepted marker of fascism in political science. You counter that marker by attacking my knowledge about the topic. Its YOUR duty to base that attack on content.

You do realise this article expands on the markers I mentioned earlier and corresponds in big lines with what I argued. It even mentions Zetkins and Trotsky's analysis of fascism being the tool of capitalism.


I roughly agree, seeing as there are many distinctions and characteristics of particular fascist movements. However, they are linked on multiple levels, especially in their relationship to ruling and middle-class elements, the corporatist approach and rerlationship to the market and economic crises etc.

All of which are currently pressent in US politics.

Extreme nationalism.
Violence against the labour movement.
Fights over the middle class domination
Financial crisis
Relying on corporations to solve problems
Goal of pushing through class collaboration
Working on fears and Anxiety
Creating popular movements or sentiment
An extreme form of capital
Creating foreign enemies to focus on

To sum up a few of the descriptions offered in the article you linked.

The article then continues to explain the processes which relays current thought about fascism...

Paxton proposes to examine the development of fascism through five stages: the creation of a movement; its rooting in the political system; the seizure of power; the exercise of power; its fate in the long term (radicalisation or entropy)

also (to deal with arguments offered in posts above, not necessaruilly yours)

The Anatomy of Fascism provides a lucid and accessible antidote to prevailing trends in the study of fascism. Its sensitivity to settings and to the way fascist parties adapt to changing contexts will help those who want to make sense of the contemporary extreme right without the hindrance of narrow, inflexible definitions which portray fascism as a danger that has passed:



No, it isn't.


Well..your article basically states it is.



You've given a liberal definition which all point to characteristics of authoritarianism, not fascism. Though fascism is authoritarian in nature, this is not merely the case you put forward.

I gave the political science definition within the context of a move towards. Basically most of these markers are build upon the Marxist interpretations of fascism (as your article states) the context in which I provided them was the argument of fluid development. A natural move towards the fascist ideology. Which is both supported by radical left theory (Zetkin, Trotsky...and the names I dropped) and the development wityhin wider political development.

I see your article as a huge support for my interpretation.



I have consistently argued that the case above is not a signifier of fascism, and that you are weakening ther term by applying it here. You can disagree, but the fact that there is an argument here is not difficult to understand.

your link pretty much confirms my analysis. Now we can argue agaqinst the application of the article...but we can however not argue on the validity of my claim that capilism will inevitably develop into fascism based on the article you linked.



I have no idea what the link actually means here - it has nothing to do with definitions of fascism or its application. I have never deabted with you on the role of police in society or conveyed any tacit support for it at all. I responded in one thread where you were labelling everybody and nobody as a class traitor. There was no in-depth discussion about the role the police serves in upholding property rights or the system itself. It seems curious why you would put this here.

And I have not stated you tacit support for its role....as I stated before.
(To recap the thread you were refering to...I labelled very specific induviduals as class traitors. Based on arguments and fact. until one of those retracted their argument and gave an expanded interpretation of that.)

What I did say is that I was implying your posts comming from a personal dislike. You can argue against that...you can however not put words in my mouth.


So unforunded you posted another thread in the Mmeber's Area specifically mentioning it and calling out people who disagreed with you?

Ah...you refer to the other thread. In that case...yes...I was angry for somebody arguing that the police did a great job and should be called upon in political situational disputes between members of the radical left. That person later explained their position and clarified it.


I have no idea what this actually means. I cannot understand your grammar.

It meant that you offer no content to your arguments. And that I did. Aswel as application of theory on the situation. What I basically meant is;

You just argue: "no" without any backing of counter facts.

[PhoenixAsh]

Capitalism is not a fact of political development. It is a mode of production, within which there might develop several models of political rule, but what is common to all of them is that they do not question the existence of capital as a social relation.

Agreed.



Further, I seriously doubt that it is desirable to speak of the "natural developmental end stage" for capitalism in the form of Fascism. I think that you are basing your conclusion on the history of existing Fascist regimes (the fact that Fascism as a movement developed against the revolutionary workers' movement and based itself on breaking its back), but the thing is that any kind of political movement/organization/party which would be reasonably called "Fascist" must exhibit some social and economic traits which are NOT found in contemporary US. One of them is strong corporatism. Compare that to the relationship to unions found in political practice in the last 50 years lasting to now, mainstream American center-right, and even the far right.

I am basing my conclusion on the writings and ideas of the people I mentioned.

Also I see a underlying current towards strong tripartist collaboration in US politics of handing over the control of the economy to private corporations in a move to harmonize (enforce collaboration) the state, labor, and bussiness.


Another thing: "Fascism" must be a term that has a more or less clear definition, and clear lines of demarcation from similar terms which are used to refer to, again, similar phenomena in the social, economic, and political spheres. If you accept too many a factor, you'll end up with a useless term, which can ba applied to almost anything, ranging from pro-life positions to heavy corporatism, enhanced presidential powers and ethnic nationalism.

Fascism however is not clearly defined. Evidence by the huge and continuous debates about its meaning and definitions within the communism and socialism movements alone. All the people I mentioned had a different interpretation of fascism...as Samb's link shows...thats pretty much still the case.


Again, any kind of "Fascism" must have a clearly determined essential characteristics. In my opinion, I wouldn't dream of labelling a regime "Fascist" if it didn't insist on a class collaborationist perspective embodied in corporatist practice (bosses' and worker's unions, national unions controlled by the regime, suppression of independent political organizations, especially of the working class etc.).

You do understand that fascist corporatism is basically enforced collaboration?


And that is not to consider the fact that anything resembling a fascist regime tends to arise and take form in very specific historical conditions (working class fervour, a bluging revolutionary movement).

Fascism does not only develop in the fae of such a movement. It also develops in the absence of such movement. Its predominant precursor is crisis.


Another point: social control has a long history, and such blatant disregard for civil rights (this specific case) does not prove an especially repressive regime, by its qualities different from other similar regimes (do you think the French government is Fascist?).

In itself no. In the context of other social, economic and political developments....yes.



I have a question for you: how would you differentiate (terms) "Fascism" from "police state"?

I think any fascist state is essentially a form of police state or proto police state...not every police state is a fascist state.

[Blackscare]

Aha...its serious:


A 13 year old makes a FB post and the SS comes around to interrogate him....without his mother or lawyer present???



Lol, the SS, I never thought of that.

[Sam_b]

Capitalism leads to fascism when the working class is unable or unwilling to have their revolution. Its inevitable since capitalism will in crisis collapse its core values and needs to develop increasing authoritarianism and corporatism to maintain its dominance.

No, fascism is not inevitable. Capitalist degeneration is not linear, and consists of varying different examples. Capitalism can lead to fashism in the scope of an economic crises where there is a significantly weaker class than there is now. Nevertheless national security talking to a 13-year old, while reprehensible, is not a concrete factor or indicator of a spiral into capitalism.


Because these are the markers which are used to define fascism.

Says who? You? I might have a cough and chest problems but is that a marker used to define bronchitis?


You have yet to offer your definition of fascism.


I did. (http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=255&issue=112) Again the impetus is on your definition, not mine. I can look at a horse and reject your definition that it is a cow, based on knowing what a cow is, but not necessarily knowing that the animal is a horse.


there does not have to be an analysis. Its an observation about your conduct...


Observing something in the sense you are putting onto it equates at least a primitive form of analysis. Just because you changed a word doesn't mean X=Y.



I offer a widely accepted marker of fascism in political science

Number one I would contend it is a liberal rather than political analysis, and second of all who cares? The Labour Party was in the past widely accepted to be a worker organisation - this doesn't mean anything. Notwithstanding that there's nothing to shown that this is 'widely accepted' at all.


Its YOUR duty to base that attack on content.

I did. Definition does not equate content. It isn't my fault that you are basing your argument on supposed 'facts' and definites, with nothing concrete behind them.


You do realise this article expands on the markers I mentioned earlier and corresponds in big lines with what I argued. It even mentions Zetkins and Trotsky's analysis of fascism being the tool of capitalism.

I did of course need to bring some real analysis up, as namedropping anti-fascists is not an argument in itself.


Well..your article basically states it is.

This is actually ridiculous. To spell it out for you in perhaps simpler terms: I'm not disagreeing that fascism has and occupies many of the factors that you mention. However, these are not suffice enough to explain the phenomena of fascism, its causes or entrenchment. A country or movement can possess all these characteristics and be authoritarian, but not necessarily fascist.


I see your article as a huge support for my interpretation.


You have never stressed the importance of the petit-bourgeoisie or the much more complex capitalist relationship - the article cites The Economy and Class Structure of German Fascism, which is worth reading if you can get a hold of it. Unfortunately it is only Snippet View on Google Books, however.


but we can however not argue on the validity of my claim that capilism will inevitably develop into fascism based on the article you linked.

You might interpret this if you were reading the article intentionally to try and back it into your point. I don't think the article suggests that in the slightest. This would suggest fascism as a solely economic theory, which has been rejected.

Don't you just love a circle argument?

[CommieTroll]

Basically its ''Fuck Your Civil Rights, I'm The Law!'' Thats the Land Of The Free & Home Of The Brave for you, what brave man interrogates a fucking 13 year old?

[PhoenixAsh]

No, fascism is not inevitable. Capitalist degeneration is not linear, and consists of varying different examples. Capitalism can lead to fashism in the scope of an economic crises where there is a significantly weaker class than there is now. Nevertheless national security talking to a 13-year old, while reprehensible, is not a concrete factor or indicator of a spiral into capitalism.

I agree that the degeneration is not linear....and will have different scopes and timeline....but as capitalism collapses and time progresses forces will introduce increasing counter measures...which will eventually always develop into fascism. The main reason why I think this is because it has nowhere else to go...unless a prior state, a socialist revolution takes place or its process can be halted by introducing counter measures to the development (in effect turning back time).


Says who? You? I might have a cough and chest problems but is that a marker used to define bronchitis?

If by chest problesm you mean trouble breathing...then amongst others...yes.



I did. (http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=255&issue=112) Again the impetus is on your definition, not mine. I can look at a horse and reject your definition that it is a cow, based on knowing what a cow is, but not necessarily knowing that the animal is a horse.

After the fact. And...as I argued the article supports my theory.


Observing something in the sense you are putting onto it equates at least a primitive form of analysis. Just because you changed a word doesn't mean X=Y.

There you go then.


Number one I would contend it is a liberal rather than political analysis, and second of all who cares? The Labour Party was in the past widely accepted to be a worker organisation - this doesn't mean anything. Notwithstanding that there's nothing to shown that this is 'widely accepted' at all.

widely enough for your article to state all mentioned markers.



I did. Definition does not equate content. It isn't my fault that you are basing your argument on supposed 'facts' and definites, with nothing concrete behind them.

Except your article.




I did of course need to bring some real analysis up, as namedropping anti-fascists is not an argument in itself.

then again saying: So obvious you don't know what fascism is?
which started this whole exchange...is also not. which was my point.


This is actually ridiculous. To spell it out for you in perhaps simpler terms: I'm not disagreeing that fascism has and occupies many of the factors that you mention. However, these are not suffice enough to explain the phenomena of fascism, its causes or entrenchment. A country or movement can possess all these characteristics and be authoritarian, but not necessarily fascist.

A but now you are saying: phenomena.

And no...they can not be. Because in the markers there are very distinct economic ones. Authroitarianism is not an economic theory.



You have never stressed the importance of the petit-bourgeoisie or the much more complex capitalist relationship - the article cites The Economy and Class Structure of German Fascism, which is worth reading if you can get a hold of it. Unfortunately it is only Snippet View on Google Books, however.

I have specifically stated: middles class (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2115901&postcount=15). Fascism itself does not recognize the petit burgeoisie as a seperate class. They are placed in the term: middle class in Fascism.



You might interpret this if you were reading the article intentionally to try and back it into your point. I don't think the article suggests that in the slightest. This would suggest fascism as a solely economic theory, which has been rejected.

And not argued by me. I applied the markers (all mentioned in the article) and the process...which I have founded in arguments. So...sorry...but yes your article backs my story. Though there certainly are points which are open for debate...I am sure we neither see the article as difinitive?



Don't you just love a circle argument?


the article does not argue or offer counter arguments to that statement. If you disagree with the statement I made the linked article does not speak against it. If you have others links they might.

[Sam_b]

If by chest problesm you mean trouble breathing...then amongst others...yes.

You've absolutely proven my point. Amongst others. Neither problem can alone be the distinguishing factor, neither withm combined.


Except your article.

You base your entire analysis and knowledge of a subject on one article?


then again saying: So obvious you don't know what fascism is?
which started this whole exchange...is also not. which was my point.


The whole exchange started with the assertion that the US is becoming fascist. It isn't.


Authroitarianism is not an economic theory.

Neither is fascism. So how can an economic system degenerate in such a way?


I have specifically stated: middles class (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2115901&postcount=15). Fascism itself does not recognize the petit burgeoisie as a seperate class. They are placed in the term: middle class in Fascism.

The US system is not particularly dependent on the middle class. Interestingly enough there is nothing about ground movements and imposition in your list either.


And not argued by me. I applied the markers (all mentioned in the article) and the process...which I have founded in arguments. So...sorry...but yes your article backs my story. Though there certainly are points which are open for debate...I am sure we neither see the article as difinitive?


Here we go again with illogical definites. The article 'backs your story' in as much as you say it backs your story; in as much as you say your definition is 'widely accepted, in as much as you say that factors are there for the imposition of fascism. As i've pointed out time and time again, just because you say there are definites does not make them so.

Interesting again is that you have skimmed over a lot of the finer points. If this is going into a circle argument I won't indulge you. It's pretty meaningless to argue against a 'I say X so I am right' logical fallacies.

[PhoenixAsh]

You've absolutely proven my point. Amongst others. Neither problem can alone be the distinguishing factor, neither withm combined.


You are ignoring quite a lot of words there...but you have missed the conclusion:

Both these are markers...amongst others. I did not mention two markers. I mentioned quite a few....incidentally...those mentioned in your article.


You base your entire analysis and knowledge of a subject on one article?

No...but yoru article agrees with me :-) Isn't that a joyous occasion. The article you bring foreward as opposition to my assertion...basically confirms it.




The whole exchange started with the assertion that the US is becoming fascist. It isn't.

Then why isnt it. Because basically that is what I wanted to hear from you from the very start: actual content arguments.



Neither is fascism. So how can an economic system degenerate in such a way?

Ah...yes...amongst others it has a huge economic theory. Fascism can not exist without it. Authroitarianism is merely a social theory.


The US system is not particularly dependent on the middle class. Interestingly enough there is nothing about ground movements and imposition in your list either.

No there isn't because I do not think these are very relevant or already in place. And yes...the system is entirely dependent on the middle class....the whole powerhouse is based on it.


Here we go again with illogical definites. The article 'backs your story' in as much as you say it backs your story; in as much as you say your definition is 'widely accepted, in as much as you say that factors are there for the imposition of fascism. As i've pointed out time and time again, just because you say there are definites does not make them so.

And just because you say dosn't make it less so. So...this brings us back to the initial statement: offer content arguments instead of blanket statement. :-) See...everything comes back to my initial criticism.



Interesting again is that you have skimmed over a lot of the finer points. If this is going into a circle argument I won't indulge you. It's pretty meaningless to argue against a 'I say X so I am right' logical fallacies.

It must be just as frustrating as arguing against an "I deny X so I am right". As I said from the start: So obvious you don't know what fascism is? Is not a valid argument without content arguments backing it up.
:-)

Which you haven't. You have linked an article which basically agrees with me. You again say it does not.

But again you do not offer any content. You offer blanket denials. Now I on the other hand have argued why I think what I think based on theory, applying that theory, backing up my claim with examples and clarifications and...I even linked teh evidence pointed out in your article.

Now...all you offer is: no it isn't, no it doesn't and just because you say so. What you have not done is offer any content...but merely dismissal after dismissal. This is clear for everybody to see.

[Die Rote Fahne]

If you think the USA isn't a Big Brother-esque nation, think again. The similarities between the USA and Oceania are obvious.

[Sam_b]

.those mentioned in your article.


This is such a tired line i'm going to end this all now. The article refutes much of what you say for these reasons:


What set fascism apart from other forms of conservatism or authoritarianism was its ability to mobilise on the streets. Fascism had to prove itself in practice, not just as an alternative to political opponents, but also to the state. The hierarchical structure of fascist organisations fuelled a desire to dominate while reconciling members to their personal insignificance before a higher power, summed up in Hitler’s maxim, ‘Responsibility towards above, authority towards below.’ Fascist ideology was geared towards building an independent mass movement and relates, as Geoff Eley has underlined, not just to the party’s ideas or formal aims, but to ‘its style of activism, modes of organisation and forms of public display’

Fascinating that you've glossed over this, particularly when I mentioned it in my last post on the subject. Everything you've said so far completely negates what should be considered an essential part of fascism - the 'boot boy' movement. Now the US system is far from homogenous and there is no rank-and-file boot boy present aligned to the dominating strain of the current US ruling class - the very machine you argue is degenerating into fascism. The indicators for this is that the US system is indeed in crisis, but nowhere near to the extent that the majority of fascist movements historically enjoyed to use to their advantage. This indicates exactly the linked economic and social factors which lead to such a phenomenon. A decent explanation of this, or distinguishment if you will, is the differentials between the BNP and UKIP. UKIP espouse vile immigration and neo-libertarian ideals, and yet do not have this overall boot presence to swell their ranks and to challenge progression on the streets. From your list there seems to be the belief that political violence or social violence directed against the class itself is something that only comes from the top.


The autonomous development of fascism as a movement means that theories which claim it ended up as simply a puppet of big business once in power are wide of the mark.

Nothing you have said indicates any autonomous development away from the current ruling class. You appear to think that somehow the powers-that-be shift and gravitate to a fascist position over time, and that the uniform rank-and-file for impositioning fascist change is already in place. Again, nothing has been said about this, which leads your argument to be the one of this idea:


in favour of a crude analysis which saw it as an instrument of big capital

This can indeed be referenced in one of your opening shots which was such:

"Its the refusal to see how the American political system is developing. And the stages are: capitalism ---> fascism"

The very usage of 'developing' and the 'capitalism > fascism' equation therefore contain very low merit, purely because it assumes that the existing capitalist order are capable of making a switch to fascism completely by itself and then forming cross-class alliances to further its gains. This simply isn't true and negates the autonomous nature of fascist development. The only way that this line could be argued would be to state that the conditions for fascism, particularly a uniform movement and street presence, has been in the American pipeline for decades and thus the switchover is now being made on the back of the economic crisis. This leads to the question of a) why has it taken three years to show only junior signs of implementation, seeing as the initial deepening of the crisis had happened before; and b) were the Republicans and Democrats ever fascist movements or a force for this instigation. I don't think i'll need to explain the absurdities here.

"wether or not American society is rapidly developing into a fascist state"

The conundrum here would be to ask whether or not society-at-large is ever capable of taking power in the current political framework, and if it constitutes a movement in its own right, which is does not of course. We are all aware of society not being homogenous, consisting of various formations and classes, so the idea that society can somehow undergo a uniform degeneration into a political system also shows that this question is impossible; and highlights how the US is indeed not as a society able to change over to fascism. Autonomism and street presence are again not mentioned, yet as the article articulates well, these are key and pressing factors and concerns that have gone completely unaddressed, yet according to you the article is in agreement with your line!

" I argue that all capitalist societies will inevitably develop into fascism"

On this point allow me to quote from Trotsky, seeing as you claim to apply Trotskyism in part. Sorry that this will not come from a link, but I have the text in book form in fromt of me. From 1934's Bonapartism and Fascism:


The Stalinists adopted the idea that in the contemporary period, finance capital cannot accommodate itself to parliamentary democracy and is obliged to resort to fascism. From this idea, absolutely correct within certain limits, they draw in a purely deductive, formally logical manner the same conclusions for all the countries and all stages of development.

By taking this route, and by this route the assumption, very much like the Stalinists in the 1930s, that all capitalist states will eventually develop into fascism, negates several factors, including the idea of Bonapartism which is in itself the transitional method that ruling classes and finance capital need to adapt themselves in order to create a fascist system. By thinking in this way, the idea gets communicated that all capitalist imposition is linear and exists in some sort of void, which is of course untrue. It cannot itself develop into fascism without the autonomous movement, nor can it without the branching of cross-class forces and developments which leads to its rise. It cannot do it itself, thus the idea of sole-capital degeneration is an untrue one.

"Its inevitable since capitalism will in crisis collapse its core values and needs to develop increasing authoritarianism and corporatism to maintain its dominance"

This of course isn't fascism, but you have called it - it is authoritarianism. This would reflect that the collapse of capitalism is not one which solely leads to fascism, as it completely bypasses the relationship with the petit-bourgeoisie. Again Trotsky notes that "finance capital does not reside in its ability to establish a government of any kind and at any time according to its wish". Thus fascism again highlights its autonomous nature - capitalism is not able to change itself organically due to collapse into fascism - outside factors are the crux.

This then leads in to defining fascism, which I have been wary to do to an exact. You said:
"I offer a widely accepted marker of fascism in political science"
"I gave the political science definition within the context of a move towards. Basically most of these markers are build upon the Marxist interpretations of fascism (as your article states) the context in which I provided them was the argument of fluid development. A natural move towards the fascist ideology."

The article shows characteristics of fascism in action, yet deliberately holds back from a clear definition, seeing as:


One of the features of recent studies has been their obsession with elaborating a concise definition of fascism. As with the Comintern’s maxim, these tend to focus on one aspect of the phenomenon at the expense of others

Thus the article disagrees with you again, and links back to what Trotsky was arguing about the Stalininst line in the 1930s. The article goes on to suggest that:


But this emphasis on ideology above all else has made it harder to understand the link between fascist movements and regimes, and between different national variations of fascism

Thus this 'characteristic' definition is one which arguably weakens the understanding of what fascism is, and inevitably leads to the sort of accusations that you yourself have been making - that somehow the US is degenerating into some sort of fascist state. Not particularly possible.


The scope for comparison between movements of the inter-war period and those emerging today has been limited by the notion that fascist ideas must be treated as a ‘pure’ ideology

Again this doesn't really go along with what you are saying. You've tried to define the conditions of fascism in the US by conditions (your 'markers') and thus come to the assumption in a definite manner. In other words conditions A, B and C are met, and thus the phenomenon is fascism. Rather, it is what it is - authoritarianism perhaps. Fascism perhaps. As we see in the article, this weakens the understanding of it and lends to simplicism. I.E:


This reflex, of relating the characteristics of actual organisations to a so-called ‘fascist minimum’ or checklist, generally results in too much credence being given to the stated aims of the parties in question


. Since fascism is based on a rejection of universal values, it is more disparate than other political movements, and must be understood not ‘as the expression of the same fixed essence’, but within specific historical contexts.

Such historical contexts have not been met by your argument either. Caramelpence made it quite clear I thought, yet you said:

fascism does not come in two specific varieties which are defined by their historical context and existance. If that were not the case we would not have to worry about any form of fascims because the recreation of historical context and specificity can not be achieved

Again, you've missed out a key factor, and yet maintain that the article agrees with you. Throughout you've argued that fascism is fixed on some sort of key conditions, but missed out all historic context. You are right in that fascism is not linear, absolutely - but if that is the case then surely the historical contexts are one of the most important considerations?

Going back to an earlier point, you've also made such a simplicism in my opinion when you say that:

It even mentions Zetkins and Trotsky's analysis of fascism being the tool of capitalism.

A simplicism of Trotsky that isn't backed up by quotes and references, and again one which disagrees with Paxton and the article in general:


Analyses which reduce fascism to a tool of a particular interest group, meanwhile, ignore the fact that the movement won independent popular backing. Instead Paxton proposes to examine the development of fascism through five stages: the creation of a movement; its rooting in the political system; the seizure of power; the exercise of power; its fate in the long term (radicalisation or entropy).


I made this an extended quote because the end point you've quoted against me in itself. I should point out the second part. Rather than your allegation that this is pointing out "the processes which relays current thought about fascism" it is in fact going against your exact idea that capitalism can somehow organically degenerate to fascism in its very point one - the idea of building a movement. The movement has not been built, or in the process of being built, in the United States, which is point one, and that capitalsim could not degenerate as it would be dependent on said movement.


Paxton also stresses the extent to which fascism is influenced by context, forced to shift course according to the possibilities open to it. The strength of the Italian left at the end of the First World War, for example, closed off the use of socialist rhetoric to Mussolini. Fascism was constantly reshaped as it grew into the space available to it. In action, then, fascism ‘looks much more like a network of relationships than a fixed essence’.11 Those who ended up as allies of fascism made choices that were not necessarily their preferred options, proceeding, ‘from choice to choice, along a path of narrowing options. At each fork in the road, they choose the anti-socialist solution

Once again the historical context is made absolutely key in this article, as witnessed above.


Paxton stresses that fascism is shot through with tensions, between radical and more conservative activists, and, once in power, between the normative or legal state apparatus and what he calls the prerogative, or party, state. The basis for this ‘dual’ state is laid during the development of fascist organisations with the establishment of parallel structures. These structures, a defining feature of fascism, duplicate the functions of the state and present themselves as more viable alternatives, particularly when confronting the left.

If this is so 'defining' then I am confused as to why you have omitted it. Again it shows that fascism alone cannot come from the capitalist state as a 'tool' .


Despite acknowledging that once they neared power fascist movements ‘became biased on questions of class struggle’ and ‘tilted toward the capitalist class’, he offers little explanation as to why this should be the case and overall his analysis lacks sufficient feel for the texture of the motivations exercising fascist activists.

^ I also feel this is quite important at making the point of fascism as an autonomous current to the side of the state itself.

---------------------------------

Now i'll go on to the rest of your post:


Both these are markers...amongst others. I did not mention two markers. I mentioned quite a few....incidentally...those mentioned in your article.

These are indeed markers amongst others, which the very nature of the article actually rejects as a 'checklist' that actually weakens seeing the historical and contextual phenomenon of fascism.


but yoru article agrees with me :-) Isn't that a joyous occasion. The article you bring foreward as opposition to my assertion...basically confirms it.


I think you'll find from the above that this is very far removed from the case.


Then why isnt it.

You've wanted arguments and you've had them time and time again - and here, in this post are more. The US is not becoming fascist because you've pointed out on affectuals of the state and ruling class positioning. You have not once alluded to the autonomous nature of a fascist movement being built outside of these structures which is necessary for its implementation.


Ah...yes...amongst others it has a huge economic theory. Fascism can not exist without it. Authroitarianism is merely a social theory.


Authoritarianism is not just a social theory because it goes hand-in-hand with the economic system. Authoritarianism is still capitalism and still a capitalist system. Authoritarianism as well cannot exist without an exonomic back-up.


No there isn't because I do not think these are very relevant or already in place

Yet the article early on stresses the importance of a ground movement, again confirming that there cannot be a state 'top' mechanism to fascism, and again highlighting how it differences itself from your argument.


And yes...the system is entirely dependent on the middle class....the whole powerhouse is based on it.


Yet ideas of imperialism factor heavily into this. It has tacit support from elements of the middle class (again class itself is not homogenous), but is not the economic and political drive behind it: CEOs and venture capitalists are not middle-class. If you're arguing this line on the consumer economy, you also negate the working class as a consumer also topping up the system.


So...this brings us back to the initial statement: offer content arguments instead of blanket statement. :-) See...everything comes back to my initial criticism.


Everything should be coming back to your initial criticism because thats the aggrivating, or diagreeing factor. When I attack your position, I am attacking it for the very reason I don't believe in it. It is then your job to defend it. Again, the horse is not a cow.


You have linked an article which basically agrees with me. You again say it does not.


I don't 'say' it does not, I have referenced exactly why it does not.


why I think what I think based on theory, applying that theory, backing up my claim with examples and clarifications and...I even linked teh evidence pointed out in your article

Not particularly true. The only quotes you've mustered are from the article, two of them if I remember correctly. You've paraphrased theorists, i'll give you that one, yet 'paraphrase' is the important word here. You've offered no quotes showing exactly where the theorists have said this, most notably with Trotsky, and I've highlighted above the fallacies you've falled into with blanket 'theory' which actually goes against the argumentative line.

---

I think this is the longest post i've ever made on Revleft, and it will be interesting to see the thought-out and timely response, hopefully with the consideration that I put into this piece being reflected. This is most of what I have to say on the matter. You wanted arguments, so here is your argument in full and in total. Enjoy.

[Agent Ducky]

Holy crap! Complete overreaction. I better be careful what I post from now on.... Does anyone know what the original status was?

[Magón]

Doesn't the Secret Service have better things to do, than bother a 13 year old and watch his Facebook? Obviously not.

[PhoenixAsh]

This is such a tired line i'm going to end this all now. The article refutes much of what you say for these reasons:

Fascinating that you've glossed over this, particularly when I mentioned it in my last post on the subject. Everything you've said so far completely negates what should be considered an essential part of fascism - the 'boot boy' movement.

Fascinating how you seem to have problems understanding my use of the word development.



And yes,..I see that movement tried being formed. ( Fascist ideology was geared towards building an independent mass movement)

Its in the very political nature. The political teams...the seaping through of ideology. So no..I did not gloss over this. I find it a given.


Now the US system is far from homogenous and there is no rank-and-file boot boy present aligned to the dominating strain of the current US ruling class - the very machine you argue is degenerating into fascism.I never ever argued it would do that in itself, now did I? I fact you just happen to conveniently gloss over.

And your narrow interpretation of the quote you gave as "boot boy"movement" is classic. But a failure to apply the quote as it is actually contextualised; flexibility.


The indicators for this is that the US system is indeed in crisis, but nowhere near to the extent that the majority of fascist movements historically enjoyed to use to their advantage.
No...instead the US syste, itself moves towards the fascists instead of them taking over and implementing it. Nice of you to notice.



This indicates exactly the linked economic and social factors which lead to such a phenomenon. A decent explanation of this, or distinguishment if you will, is the differentials between the BNP and UKIP. UKIP espouse vile immigration and neo-libertarian ideals, and yet do not have this overall boot presence to swell their ranks and to challenge progression on the streets. From your list there seems to be the belief that political violence or social violence directed against the class itself is something that only comes from the top.No...it comes from the fascist movement and in this case the movement is on top. Again...nice of you to notice.




Nothing you have said indicates any autonomous development away from the current ruling class.Except you forget the current ruling class moving.


You appear to think that somehow the powers-that-be shift and gravitate to a fascist position over time, and that the uniform rank-and-file for impositioning fascist change is already in place. I think the rank and file do not organise they get organised in fascist movements. you article specificly states this: Fascist ideology was geared towards building an independent mass movement



Again, nothing has been said about this, which leads your argument to be the one of this ideaNo...actually your quote states very specificly that the rank and file IS organised when it said: Fascist ideology was geared towards building an independent mass movement and relates


This can indeed be referenced in one of your opening shots which was such:

"Its the refusal to see how the American political system is developing. And the stages are: capitalism ---> fascism"

The very usage of 'developing' and the 'capitalism > fascism' equation therefore contain very low merit, purely because it assumes that the existing capitalist order are capable of making a switch to fascism completely by itself and then forming cross-class alliances to further its gains. This simply isn't true and negates the autonomous nature of fascist development. Again...you have probelms uderstanding the word development.
Develops means a lot of things. ONE of those things is movement from above. The other (which was indicated by my use of he term: collapse) is take over, Nothing of which I said implied one over the other at the expense of the other....thats your narrow interpretation.

It is however the case in this instance.

Or as your article states:


For in order to move toward Stage Two (...) one must be firmly recentred on the moderate Righ





The only way that this line could be argued would be to state that the conditions for fascism, particularly a uniform movement and street presence, has been in the American pipeline for decades and thus the switchover is now being made on the back of the economic crisis. This leads to the question of a) why has it taken three years to show only junior signs of implementation, seeing as the initial deepening of the crisis had happened before; and b) were the Republicans and Democrats ever fascist movements or a force for this instigation. I don't think i'll need to explain the absurdities here.the absurdity being that you have problems with understanding time and causality...insisting that if it didn't happen in the past it will not happen in the future?

Because that is what you are arguing here. Which is indeed absurd.



"wether or not American society is rapidly developing into a fascist state"

The conundrum here would be to ask whether or not society-at-large is ever capable of taking power in the current political framework, and if it constitutes a movement in its own right, which is does not of course. We are all aware of society not being homogenous, consisting of various formations and classes, so the idea that society can somehow undergo a uniform degeneration into a political system also shows that this question is impossible; and highlights how the US is indeed not as a society able to change over to fascism. Autonomism and street presence are again not mentioned, yet as the article articulates well, these are key and pressing factors and concerns that have gone completely unaddressed, yet according to you [I]the article is in agreement with your line! Already adressed and yes...the article is as I stated in line with my argument. you seem to have trouble understanding the word: development.

Also:

In a new era of mass politics, ‘emotions…carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric’ counted for more than ‘the truth of any of the propositions advanced in its name’. In place of rational debate, fascism substituted the immediacy of sensual experience, turning politics into aesthetics.17



" I argue that all capitalist societies will inevitably develop into fascism"

On this point allow me to quote from Trotsky, seeing as you claim to apply Trotskyism in part. Sorry that this will not come from a link, but I have the text in book form in fromt of me. From 1934's Bonapartism and Fascism:

By taking this route, and by this route the assumption, very much like the Stalinists in the 1930s, that all capitalist states will eventually develop into fascism, negates several factors, including the idea of Bonapartism which is in itself the transitional method that ruling classes and finance capital need to adapt themselves in order to create a fascist system.Yes.



By thinking in this way, the idea gets communicated that all capitalist imposition is linear and exists in some sort of void, which is of course untrue. It cannot itself develop into fascism without the autonomous movement, nor can it without the branching of cross-class forces and developments which leads to its rise. It cannot do it itself, thus the idea of sole-capital degeneration is an untrue one.
so what implies linearity according to you? Because it seems to me that that is a very limiting interpretation.

Without power organisations, ideas cannot actually do anything…

So if the organisations which make the move are in power... thats one you did not account for. instead you are arguing inlexibility.

Nor does your argument support your conclusion that its an untrue one.



"Its inevitable since capitalism will in crisis collapse its core values and needs to develop increasing authoritarianism and corporatism to maintain its dominance"

This of course isn't fascism, but you have called it - it is authoritarianism. This would reflect that the collapse of capitalism is not one which solely leads to fascism, as it completely bypasses the relationship with the petit-bourgeoisie. Again Trotsky notes that "finance capital does not reside in its ability to establish a government of any kind and at any time according to its wish". Thus fascism again highlights its autonomous nature - capitalism is not able to change itself organically due to collapse into fascism - outside factors are the crux.I never said it did...there is also a nice littel word you are overlooking.; corporatism....not did I bypass the relation with the petit brugeoisie. I am pretty sure I mentioned it several times in my posts. But that is something that you conveniently want to ignore for the sake of continuing your nice lttle opposition here based on cherry picking :-) Very well...continue.

But you are forgetting and conveniently leaving out something in your quote there....


The quote actually reads: THE STRENGTH finance capital does not reside in its ability to establish a government of any kind and at any time according to its wish (...)

But thats not really relevant.


Here is the passage:
Fascism in power, like Bonapartism, can only be the government of finance capital. In this social sense, it is indistinguishable not only from Bonapartism but even from parliamentary democracy. Each time, the Stalinists made this discovery all over again, forgetting that social questions resolve themselves in the domain of the political. The strength of finance capital does not reside in its ability to establish a government of any kind and at any time, according to its wish; it does not possess this faculty. Its strength resides in the fact that every non-proletarian government is forced to serve finance capital; or better yet, that finance capital possesses the possibility of substituting for each one of its systems of domination that decays, another system corresponding better to the changed conditions. However, the passage from one system to another signifies the political crisis which, with the concourse of the activity of the revolutionary proletariat may be transformed into a social danger to the bourgeoisie. The passage of parliamentary democracy to Bonapartism itself was accompanied in France by an effervescence of civil war. The perspective of the passage from Bonapartism to fascism is pregnant with infinitely more formidable disturbances and consequently also revolutionary possibilities.

Ha. Seems your quotes passage pretty much disproves yor argument right there.



This then leads in to defining fascism, which I have been wary to do to an exact. You said:
"I offer a widely accepted marker of fascism in political science"
"I gave the political science definition within the context of a move towards. Basically most of these markers are build upon the Marxist interpretations of fascism (as your article states) the context in which I provided them was the argument of fluid development. A natural move towards the fascist ideology."

The article shows characteristics of fascism in action, yet deliberately holds back from a clear definition, seeing as:

Thus the article disagrees with you againNo...it really doesn't seeing as I pretty much stated that what you quote here. When I said: Fascism however is not clearly defined. Evidence by the huge and continuous debates about its meaning and definitions within the communism and socialism movements alone. All the people I mentioned had a different interpretation of fascism...as Samb's link shows...thats pretty much still the case.

So...yeah...pretty much wrong again Sam.




, and links back to what Trotsky was arguing about the Stalininst line in the 1930s. The article goes on to suggest that:



Thus this 'characteristic' definition is one which arguably weakens the understanding of what fascism is, and inevitably leads to the sort of accusations that you yourself have been making - that somehow the US is degenerating into some sort of fascist state. Not particularly possible.
No..it does not say that Sam. It says taht that opinion is too limiting as yo can read in the conclusion of yoru article. It does not however negate it. It says...as again you can read in the conclusion of yoru article....thyat Paxtons definition is the better one because its more flexible and allows for more complex and modern implications ofr the word fascism.


Again this doesn't really go along with what you are saying. You've tried to define the conditions of fascism in the US by conditions (your 'markers') and thus come to the assumption in a definite manner. In other words conditions A, B and C are met, and thus the phenomenon is fascism. Again the problem with the understanding of the word "developing".


Rather, it is what it is - authoritarianism perhaps. Fascism perhaps.
inevitably fascism.




As we see in the article, this weakens the understanding of it and lends to simplicism. I.E:





Such historical contexts have not been met by your argument either. Caramelpence made it quite clear I thought, yet you said:

fascism does not come in two specific varieties which are defined by their historical context and existance. If that were not the case we would not have to worry about any form of fascims because the recreation of historical context and specificity can not be achieved

Again, you've missed out a key factor, and yet maintain that the article agrees with you. Throughout you've argued that fascism is fixed on some sort of key conditions, but missed out all historic context. You are right in that fascism is not linear, absolutely - but if that is the case then surely the historical contexts are one of the most important considerations?You are confusing Paxtion with Mann here. you know...the guy the article is saying he is to narrow and argues against? you are quoting him. Just to let you know.

the article stated about this:

his insistence on the fixed nature of its values means that he is unable to conceive of fascism existing in a modern context




Going back to an earlier point, you've also made such a simplicism in my opinion when you say that:

It even mentions Zetkins and Trotsky's analysis of fascism being the tool of capitalism.

A simplicism of Trotsky that isn't backed up by quotes and references, and again one which disagrees with Paxton and the article in general:
And THAT is axac tly the part which supports my theory. :-) you know...seeing as I argue the move from above. the one we already established is possible :-P



I made this an extended quote because the end point you've quoted against me in itself. I should point out the second part. Rather than your allegation that this is pointing out "the processes which relays current thought about fascism" it is in fact going against your exact idea that capitalism can somehow organically degenerate to fascism in its very point one - the idea of building a movement. The movement has not been built, or in the process of being built, in the United States, which is point one, and that capitalsim could not degenerate as it would be dependent on said movement.Yes and I see that differenty. Because the movement may be necessary...that does not however mean it is not being shaped and planned.

Yet again...you seem to have trouble intepreting the word: developing.

also the articel insinuates that the movement is needed to gain power. That already being the case...one could argue that the movement may no longer be necessary in the narrow shaped definition you have of it.



Once again the historical context is made absolutely key in this article, as witnessed above.



If this is so 'defining' then I am confused as to why you have omitted it. Again it shows that fascism alone cannot come from the capitalist state as a 'tool' .aha...so you are shifting your argument. An pinpointed the contradiction in the article. FIRST you argue that there is no defininig feature of fascism. THen you argue there is a defining feature of fascism. Tahts Paxtons problem as well.


^ I also feel this is quite important at making the point of fascism as an autonomous current to the side of the state itself.

---------------------------------Or when becommong the state. when he said:
For in order to move toward Stage Two [integration into the political system] (...) one must be firmly recentred on the moderate Righ




Now i'll go on to the rest of your post:


These are indeed markers amongst others, which the very nature of the article actually rejects as a 'checklist' that actually weakens seeing the historical and contextual phenomenon of fascism.which the articel argues against as to narrowing and denying modern fascism. Yes, those?



I think you'll find from the above that this is very far removed from the case.No...it still does as you can see from the above.



You've wanted arguments and you've had them time and time again - and here, in this post are more.
No...I have actually got them in this post. You liar, you



The US is not becoming fascist because you've pointed out on affectuals of the state and ruling class positioning. You have not once alluded to the autonomous nature of a fascist movement being built outside of these structures which is necessary for its implementation.
an autonomous movement as argued is not necessary.



Authoritarianism is not just a social theory because it goes hand-in-hand with the economic system.No...it really is a social theory and is applied over all kinds of economic systems...but nice of you to try and pass it off as an economic theory. does however not fly.



Authoritarianism is still capitalism and still a capitalist system. Authoritarianism as well cannot exist without an exonomic back-up.
And that economic back-up does not have to be capitalism. But thank you for playing.



Yet the article early on stresses the importance of a ground movement, again confirming that there cannot be a state 'top' mechanism to fascism, and again highlighting how it differences itself from your argument.It does not confirm that.



Yet ideas of imperialism factor heavily into this. It has tacit support from elements of the middle class (again class itself is not homogenous), but is not the economic and political drive behind it: CEOs and venture capitalists are not middle-class. If you're arguing this line on the consumer economy, you also negate the working class as a consumer also topping up the system.
Hence perhaps the whole class colaboration thingy.



Everything should be coming back to your initial criticism because thats the aggrivating, or diagreeing factor. When I attack your position, I am attacking it for the very reason I don't believe in it. It is then your job to defend it. Again, the horse is not a cow.No Sam...thats not how it works. I do not believe in your theory on anything. Now prove me wrong is not a valid debate tactic.

It goes ==> thesis: antithsesis: synthesis.

So simply rejecting something does not require arguments against that rejection. It requires rejection on the basis of arguments. Saying: "you do not know what fascism is" is not an argument.


I don't 'say' it does not, I have referenced exactly why it does not.And I have done why it did. Showing you exactly where you are wrong.


Not particularly true. The only quotes you've mustered are from the article, two of them if I remember correctly. You've paraphrased theorists, i'll give you that one, yet 'paraphrase' is the important word here. You've offered no quotes showing exactly where the theorists have said this, most notably with Trotsky, and I've highlighted above the fallacies you've falled into with blanket 'theory' which actually goes against the argumentative line.No they do not. :-)

---



I think this is the longest post i've ever made on Revleft, and it will be interesting to see the thought-out and timely response, hopefully with the consideration that I put into this piece being reflected. This is most of what I have to say on the matter. You wanted arguments, so here is your argument in full and in total. Enjoy.I did. Especially the forgetting to mention the passage which disproves your usage of it.

Or the part where you quote the one being attacked by your article to support your argument.

But I definately love it how you offer one opinion and pose it as the definitive definition and only definition of fascism and the only right interpretation of fascism. :-)

[Sam_b]

Let's go.


Fascinating how you seem to have problems understanding my use of the word development.

Because the state alone cannot actually develop fascism on its own accord. This has been explained to you already.


( Fascist ideology was geared towards building an independent mass movement)


It is not 'geared' towards. It is inherently and at its very core an autonomous movement. Not necessarily a mass movement, but an autonomous one nonetheless.


I never ever argued it would do that in itself, now did I? I fact you just happen to conveniently gloss over.


You never mentioned anything about a seperation of movement. Your argument geared itself at the state, at American 'society', and that was it. Seems very convenient to say that now.


No...instead the US syste, itself moves towards the fascists instead of them taking over and implementing it. Nice of you to notice.


You've just given a classic example of Bonapartism. Bonapartism is not fascism. Who are the 'fascists' in America today?


No...it comes from the fascist movement and in this case the movement is on top. Again...nice of you to notice.


That argument, if I can navigate my way through the horrible grammar, implies that fascism is already on the top of the ruling class order in America. Now, earlier on I explained this was impossible, given the political changes undergone in the last several decades. So what changed?


Except you forget the current ruling class moving.

Except that isn't fascism, it's adaptability of the ruling class, mobilising to a more authoritarian mould. Bonapartism is not fascism.


I think the rank and file do not organise they get organised in fascist movements. you article specificly states this: Fascist ideology was geared towards building an independent mass movement


Correct. There is indeed no current uniform and organised rank-and-file fascist movement to take power within the ruling class system in America. So whats your point here?


The other (which was indicated by my use of he term: collapse) is take over, Nothing of which I said implied one over the other at the expense of the other....thats your narrow interpretation.

Which begs the question - why didn't you say this in the first place? Purely because it is a flip-flop of position. You now appear to be arguing that there is a fascist order capable and ready to take over the organs of the state. I'll ask again - who?


insisting that if it didn't happen in the past it will not happen in the future?


Never argued this line. If I did, there would be no thread and no debate. It isn't relevant if the US will turn fascist in 300 or 400 years, yet the immediacy of the argument is that this is a short-term thing, that it is immintent for taking ovewr by a fascist order. As I've said a number of times now, it isn't.


Already adressed and yes...the article is as I stated in line with my argument. you seem to have trouble understanding the word: development.


I'm disappointed. I took about an hour to write this post and clearly laid down arguments. You have merely responded with one-liners repeating tired mantras, without picking up any of the fundamentals here. 'Development' means a lot of things, but it means fuck-all here. Society cannot go through any stages of 'development' to fascism because the homogenity of society renders it impossible that it becomes a uniformed movement. No amount of semantics on your part can cover this up. There is not a 'developing' factor in here - it either happens in the current political framework, or it doesn't. Obviously it doesn't because society is not a mass.


In a new era of mass politics, ‘emotions…carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric’ counted for more than ‘the truth of any of the propositions advanced in its name’. In place of rational debate, fascism substituted the immediacy of sensual experience, turning politics into aesthetics.1

This is then followed by a quote for the hell of it, as it has nothing to do with the abilities of society to enact mass-fascist transformations.


so what implies linearity according to you? Because it seems to me that that is a very limiting interpretation.

Without power organisations, ideas cannot actually do anything…

So if the organisations which make the move are in power... thats one you did not account for. instead you are arguing inlexibility.

Nor does your argument support your conclusion that its an untrue one.

This argument which has then been produced, unfortunately, does not engae with the quote you quoted in response. I'm not talking about power organisations - I agree. I pointed out the flawed nature of the Stalinist interpretations during the Comintern era, and that capitalism is not a one-line ideology - it takes several forms. Trotsky is pointing out that it is flawed to suggest that capitalism inevitably ends up as fascism when it experiences decline. I'm not talking about 'power organisations' at all here.

When 'the organisations which make the move are in power' do so, that is classic Bonapartism. If you mean that I 'didn't account for it' when I spelled it out completely in my last post, I really have no idea where you are coming from. You are definitely aware that I mentioned it because you quoted it yourself.


I never said it did...there is also a nice littel word you are overlooking.; corporatism....not did I bypass the relation with the petit brugeoisie. I am pretty sure I mentioned it several times in my posts. But that is something that you conveniently want to ignore for the sake of continuing your nice lttle opposition here based on cherry picking :-) Very well...continue.


Yes, which is why I aknowledged and dealt with it in previous posts. I even quoted you when you were talking about the middle class. Why is this 'cherry picking' when its already been gone over? Or do I have to spell out everything to you in one post and one post only?


THE STRENGTH finance capital does not reside in its ability to establish a government of any kind and at any time according to its wish (...)


The strength of finance capital is there, in fact. But we're not talking about comparative strength of capital here, it is surely a given. Why should I quote things that don't add or detract from the argument?


Ha. Seems your quotes passage pretty much disproves yor argument right there.

Well I wouldn't know, seeing as you posted one line and didn't develop anything. You only put things in bold. Such as:


or better yet, that finance capital possesses the possibility of substituting for each one of its systems of domination that decays, another system corresponding better to the changed conditions

Trotsky is absolutely correct here. It's curious you would quote this, as the argument was never around creating conditions to which fascism could rise. Instead, it was the assertation that the systema as a whole was creeping towards fascism, which has already been dealt with on a number of occasions. The state cannot do this itself, of course. As i've said, there's no organised fascist movement capable of taking it over. You were never arguing about taking it over at all - you were arguing it would transform. Why are you switching your position all of a sudden?


No...it really doesn't seeing as I pretty much stated that what you quote here. When I said: Fascism however is not clearly defined. Evidence by the huge and continuous debates about its meaning and definitions within the communism and socialism movements alone. All the people I mentioned had a different interpretation of fascism...as Samb's link shows...thats pretty much still the case.

You are now covering for yourself. You, and it has been aknowledged by other posters in the thread, went out and defined fascism by several main clauses. You even used the word 'defined' while doing so. All you have done here is reneged and said it isn't true in a later passage, without retraction. It's still clear to see in your posts. If you weren't defining fascism there wouldn't have been this argument eschuing. And if fascism is something that isn't clear it begs the question why you jumped out in post #1 and shouted about how fascist it was, knowing there were a range of contexts and conditions. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


No..it does not say that Sam. It says taht that opinion is too limiting as yo can read in the conclusion of yoru article. It does not however negate it. It says...as again you can read in the conclusion of yoru article....thyat Paxtons definition is the better one because its more flexible and allows for more complex and modern implications ofr the word fascism.


Limiting is weakening by its scope and remit. You've tried to wriggle your way out of things by changing around one word.


.seeing as I argue the move from above. the one we already established is possible
It is possible. But we've never had that in the argument until you brought it in right now. Just because it is possible does not mean it is fascism. Bonapartism is not fascism.


that does not however mean it is not being shaped and planned.

So why don't you tell us about it? I'm not into Nostradamus predictions, by the way.


aha...so you are shifting your argument. An pinpointed the contradiction in the article. FIRST you argue that there is no defininig feature of fascism. THen you argue there is a defining feature of fascism. Tahts Paxtons problem as well.

The historical context is key to the defining and exploration of fascism. How can history define fascism itself? That doesn't make sense! I never said that 'history is a feature of fascism', mostly because i'm not a fucking idiot.


No...I have actually got them in this post. You liar, you


This is one of a few quotes around it which I will not be dealing with, solely because it is 'no u' in its very core, doesn't make any point or argument, and frankly insulting to the debate itself.


an autonomous movement as argued is not necessary.


Oh jesus can I buy a fucking clue. Why? QUOTES!!!!! REFERENCES! MORE THAN ONE LINE!


No...it really is a social theory and is applied over all kinds of economic systems...but nice of you to try and pass it off as an economic theory. does however not fly.


I didn't. I said that it goes hand-in-hand - ie plays a part in it. You just admitted it when you said it is 'applied over all kinds of economic systems'. I said the same thing. Please learn phrases such as 'hand-in-hand' before you post something like this, or else it just makes you look bad.


And that economic back-up does not have to be capitalism. But thank you for playing.

? Point out where I said that Authoritarianism has to have capitalism at its core. Please, give me a quote where I said it.


It does not confirm that.


WHY? QUOTES!!!! MORE THAN ONE LINE! ANALYSIS!


So simply rejecting something does not require arguments against that rejection. It requires rejection on the basis of arguments. Saying: "you do not know what fascism is" is not an argument.


"Two plus two is five"

"You don't know the sum"

"That's not an argument!"

...


Showing you exactly where you are wrong.


Rewrite post, try again?


No they do not. :-)

Oh ok. Because you said so it must be fact.

---------


As an aside, unless you're going to reply with measured and reasoned arguments i'm not interested in this discussion. I feel like i've wasted my time writing out an hour-long post that you have glossed over for ten minutes, and used a number of one-liners which are totally irrelevant to the subject matter, or naively conceived. If you wish to make a good, measured argument, rather than resorting to the 'no u did' sort of chit-chat shit post, then i'll be happy to respond. More of this and you can just take whatever moreal high ground and superiority you wish from grinding down somebody with better things to do. If you wish to parade about me 'running from the argument' please do so! Because more posts like this and i'm really not bothered either way.

[PhoenixAsh]

Several times in your post you alledge that my argument is alleging that it is already fascist.

[Sam_b]

But I definately love it how you offer one opinion and pose it as the definitive definition and only definition of fascism and the only right interpretation of fascism

Why are you talking about definitions? You said there wasn't any concrete definition to it. Oh, but before it you gave a concrete definition. But then again...

[Nolan]

The US is not fascist. Fascism is an ideology and system that has nothing to do with this liberal republic we call the US.

The Secret Service (yes, I noticed it makes SS, and I made all kinds of references to that when I was like, 12.) going paranoid over whatever it thinks are threats to Obama is not fascism. It has nothing to do with it.

Let's stop using fascism as a stupid buzzword.

[Agent Ducky]

Um, how about we implement Godwin's Law? So everyone can stop making huge tl;dr arguments?

[PhoenixAsh]

Let's go.
Because the state alone cannot actually develop fascism on its own accord. This has been explained to you already.


And yet..you have not offered any back up to that. As has been explained to you already.




It is not 'geared' towards. It is inherently and at its very core an autonomous movement. Not necessarily a mass movement, but an autonomous one nonetheless.

that however is not been supported by your article. As has been explained to you aleready. Nor has it been supported by any other article you mentioned. As has been explained to you already


You never mentioned anything about a seperation of movement. Your argument geared itself at the state, at American 'society', and that was it. Seems very convenient to say that now.

Nor do I need to. As has been explained to you already on the basis of quotes.


You've just given a classic example of Bonapartism. Bonapartism is not fascism. Who are the 'fascists' in America today?


I have not given a classic definition of bonapartism. Trotsky had this to say about it:

Just as Bonapartism begins by combining the parliamentary regime with fascism, so triumphant fascism finds itself forced not only to enter into a bloc with the Bonapartists, but what is more, to draw closer internally to the Bonapartist system.

Also:

The passage of parliamentary democracy to Bonapartism itself was accompanied in France by an effervescence of civil war. The perspective of the passage from Bonapartism to fascism is pregnant with infinitely more formidable disturbances and consequently also revolutionary possibilities.



That argument, if I can navigate my way through the horrible grammar,

Niceee...ad hominem. :-) Against a non-native speaker. Thumbs up....but to easy...even for you.



implies that fascism is already on the top of the ruling class order in America. Now, earlier on I explained this was impossible, given the political changes undergone in the last several decades. So what changed?

Yes and I rejected that explanation. Its now up to you to prove it....according to your own arguments.



Except that isn't fascism, it's adaptability of the ruling class, mobilising to a more authoritarian mould. Bonapartism is not fascism.

You are the only one arguing bonapartism. But also you are overlooking the fact that Bonapartism can very well develop into fascism. As I have shown in the quote above.


Correct. There is indeed no current uniform and organised rank-and-file fascist movement to take power within the ruling class system in America. So whats your point here?

Developing.



Which begs the question - why didn't you say this in the first place? Purely because it is a flip-flop of position. You now appear to be arguing that there is a fascist order capable and ready to take over the organs of the state. I'll ask again - who?


I did. You didnt want to listen.



Never argued this line. If I did, there would be no thread and no debate. It isn't relevant if the US will turn fascist in 300 or 400 years, yet the immediacy of the argument is that this is a short-term thing, that it is immintent for taking ovewr by a fascist order. As I've said a number of times now, it isn't.


I have also never implied imminency. But I do think we will see goose stepping in the next two decades or so. Which I htink is relatively fast.



I'm disappointed. I took about an hour to write this post and clearly laid down arguments. You have merely responded with one-liners repeating tired mantras, without picking up any of the fundamentals here.

I have also used your own cited articles against you and offered from them counter quotes to your arguments. Also from the article you posted.

But lets apply your article. If we take Paxtons definition of fascism...North Korea is fascist. Thats the application of theory. Back to you...




'Development' means a lot of things, but it means fuck-all here. Society cannot go through any stages of 'development' to fascism because the homogenity of society renders it impossible that it becomes a uniformed movement.

Aha...then you are arguing there was a possibility fo fascism to develop in a non homogenous society. Which is obviously counter historical.


No amount of semantics on your part can cover this up. There is not a 'developing' factor in here - it either happens in the current political framework, or it doesn't. Obviously it doesn't because society is not a mass.

Neither was Germany, nor Italy, nor Spain. Because mass is subjective. when exactly did the nazi's become fascist in your opinion? When exactly had they gathered enough mass to become so?

This is then followed by a quote for the hell of it, as it has nothing to do with the abilities of society to enact mass-fascist transformations.


Yes. It does do that.



This argument which has then been produced, unfortunately, does not engae with the quote you quoted in response. I'm not talking about power organisations - I agree. I pointed out the flawed nature of the Stalinist interpretations during the Comintern era, and that capitalism is not a one-line ideology - it takes several forms. Trotsky is pointing out that it is flawed to suggest that capitalism inevitably ends up as fascism when it experiences decline. I'm not talking about 'power organisations' at all here.

No...indeed...he says that it will either develop into fascism or bonapartism which in turn can and will inevitably both develop into each other. As I have shown in the quote above.


When 'the organisations which make the move are in power' do so, that is classic Bonapartism. If you mean that I 'didn't account for it' when I spelled it out completely in my last post, I really have no idea where you are coming from. You are definitely aware that I mentioned it because you quoted it yourself.

But then again what yo are forgetting is that I never argued against bonapartism. As I have also argued is that its not the end stage IMO.
And as Trotsky in bonapartism shows...he does not consider it an end stage also.



Yes, which is why I aknowledged and dealt with it in previous posts. I even quoted you when you were talking about the middle class. Why is this 'cherry picking' when its already been gone over? Or do I have to spell out everything to you in one post and one post only?

And then you went on to say I ignored the class....if you knew I mentioned it then why did yo alledge I said nothing about it?


The strength of finance capital is there, in fact. But we're not talking about comparative strength of capital here, it is surely a given. Why should I quote things that don't add or detract from the argument?

As I said right in the next line. Thats not really relevant.

....in fact I decided to quote the entire passage.



Well I wouldn't know, seeing as you posted one line and didn't develop anything. You only put things in bold. Such as:

I quoted the entire passage.Placing the quote into context. A context which explicitly states the power of capital can change the political ideology.



Trotsky is absolutely correct here. It's curious you would quote this, as the argument was never around creating conditions to which fascism could rise. Instead, it was the assertation that the systema as a whole was creeping towards fascism, which has already been dealt with on a number of occasions. The state cannot do this itself, of course. As i've said, there's no organised fascist movement capable of taking it over. You were never arguing about taking it over at all - you were arguing it would transform. Why are you switching your position all of a sudden?

I have not. I have stated it will develop. I have never mentioned the word transform....you assumed develop equated transform.

But it does show, the quote that is, that the state can be transformed (to use your terminology here) if necessary.




You are now covering for yourself. You, and it has been aknowledged by other posters in the thread, went out and defined fascism by several main clauses.

Yes...aswell as development processes.



You even used the word 'defined' while doing so. All you have done here is reneged and said it isn't true in a later passage, without retraction. It's still clear to see in your posts. If you weren't defining fascism there wouldn't have been this argument eschuing. And if fascism is something that isn't clear it begs the question why you jumped out in post #1 and shouted about how fascist it was, knowing there were a range of contexts and conditions. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Ah but here we come to the essence of the argument. The point where you countered my definition of fascism by saying it lacked knowledge of the matter. Which you then went out to prove by supplying an article and several quotes of an article which apply the very same definition.

The only difference being you apply Praxton (though still cite Mann as well) to provide evidence for your allegation that there was lack of knowledge on my part.

Thats the fun part. That is the part which your article disproves. Because all your article does is say that these definitions are basically true but not sufficient enough to explain fascism in a flexible enough manner. Offering a new suggested definition (one which is still being criticisied by others by the way) which BETTER SUITS the definition of fascism in the modern context.


Limiting is weakening by its scope and remit. You've tried to wriggle your way out of things by changing around one word.

And you have been attacking a position I did not take...because you cvonveniently disregarded that word. :-)



It is possible. But we've never had that in the argument until you brought it in right now. Just because it is possible does not mean it is fascism. Bonapartism is not fascism.

Nor does bonapartism negate fascism developing.



So why don't you tell us about it? I'm not into Nostradamus predictions, by the way.

It seems to me I just did.


The historical context is key to the defining and exploration of fascism. How can history define fascism itself? That doesn't make sense! I never said that 'history is a feature of fascism', mostly because i'm not a fucking idiot.

Because you mention histroical context factors which have not been met. Now either explain what you meant by those or admit you ahev cited Mann here...the one being attacked by your article as not being sufficient enough amongst other reasons for placing fascism in a histroical context too much and not aplpying it to modern context.



This is one of a few quotes around it which I will not be dealing with, solely because it is 'no u' in its very core, doesn't make any point or argument, and frankly insulting to the debate itself.

Sam...you are basically the essence of no you arguments. Its what started this whole exchange. So basically the position you take here is somewhat of a pot-cettle thing.

you stated something which was untrue. I called you on it.



Oh jesus can I buy a fucking clue. Why? QUOTES!!!!! REFERENCES! MORE THAN ONE LINE!

I already explained this. But mostly because I do not adhere stricly to Paxtons theory. I do not see it as the single and ultimate definition of fascism. I think its lacking.

but then again...also becaus Paxton in itself stated that movement is necessary to gain power. If power has been gained the movement is no longer necessary. Nor does Paxton argue that his stages should be moved through in order as the only way to become fascist.

Because if you apply his stage theory in such a way this means the NAZI's were either not fascist but became fascist when they gained enough movement. Then stopped being fascist again when they merged with the democratic proces. Then became fascist again when they disbanded the democratic proces.



I didn't. I said that it goes hand-in-hand - ie plays a part in it. You just admitted it when you said it is 'applied over all kinds of economic systems'. I said the same thing. Please learn phrases such as 'hand-in-hand' before you post something like this, or else it just makes you look bad.

you specifically stated: Authoritarianism is still capitalism and still a capitalist system

which it is only in so far the economic system is capitalist. The economic system is unrelated to authoritarianism.


? Point out where I said that Authoritarianism has to have capitalism at its core. Please, give me a quote where I said it.

Authoritarianism is still capitalism and still a capitalist system



WHY? QUOTES!!!! MORE THAN ONE LINE! ANALYSIS!


I have done that.



"Two plus two is five"

"You don't know the sum"

"That's not an argument!"

...


This isnt sums. Íts conflicting definitions and interpretations. Apples...pears...you are comparing them.



Rewrite post, try again?

No basically I will not. either you agree or you do not. I pretty much do not care. What I do care about is you giving contentual arguments,. which you have. I do not accept these arguments as definitive or true.



Oh ok. Because you said so it must be fact.

---------


Basically applying your line of argument there.



As an aside, unless you're going to reply with measured and reasoned arguments i'm not interested in this discussion. I feel like i've wasted my time writing out an hour-long post that you have glossed over for ten minutes, and used a number of one-liners which are totally irrelevant to the subject matter, or naively conceived. If you wish to make a good, measured argument, rather than resorting to the 'no u did' sort of chit-chat shit post, then i'll be happy to respond. More of this and you can just take whatever moreal high ground and superiority you wish from grinding down somebody with better things to do. If you wish to parade about me 'running from the argument' please do so! Because more posts like this and i'm really not bothered either way.


I pretty much do not care. You have started this debate by saying:

You lack knowledge. Then you continued with saying my definition of fascism was incorrect. I said I was using a popular internet saying. Which you rejected. I then said why I thought the US was developing into a fascist state. You denied that. Then when pressed you eventually posted an article. An article which stated that my definition of fascism was a definition of fascism but that it was not flexible enough.

As I said from the very start...its a definition of fascism. Which your article acknowledges. I also said you could debate its application on the situation in the US. You did. Your arguments were equally supported and not supported by your article (also using quotes from the one in the article being attacked and which the articl refutes...but hey...who is counting). I offered you the non support arguments. you reject them based on a narrow defined interpretation. You also apply these in disregard of things I said, alledging I did not say something which I said, and cherry picked quotes.

Yeah...basically you have proven that
a). My definition of fascism is a definition of fascism.
b). We disagree and have different interpretations

I also do not feel the need to claim victory or anything. I never had that goal in the first place. So feel free to stop debating....we do not agree. Accept it.

[Property Is Robbery]

Props to the security guard

[tachosomoza]

Let this have happened when Shrubbayou was president. :lol:

[Blackscare]

you do realise that in saying that words do not have intrinsic meaning...it pretty much voids any argument in any debate about anything?

It's pretty funny that you always respond to/complain about perceived abrasiveness/ad-homs in the most obnoxious, smug manner possible. Just saying.


As much as I like to have philosophical debates about the placement of the words and their meaning Sam pretty much rejected my statement that it refered to common interweb saying...

Honestly dude, I waste a lot of time on the internet and I've never seen the word 'fascism' used as a "common interweb saying". You seem to be hiding behind this "common interweb saying" (that doesn't really exist, as far as I can tell) to justify your own usage's divergence from the actual meaning of the work. I have three questions concerning this then:

1) Why, on a marxist/anarchist political forum that actually places stock in the correct application of political terms, are you introducing a needlessly obfuscatory "interweb phrase" in place of an actually useful definition?
2) If the word fascism actually exists as a commonly used internet phrase, then like other memes etc it should have developed it's own meaning, one that you should be able to easily provide either through a definition or by placing it in context in a sentence and contrasting it with another sentence in which the 'formal' use of the word demonstrated. Because otherwise it's not a really a legit "internet phrase", it's just a confusingly vague misuse of a word, communicated via the internet. There is a difference, this medium of communication doesn't give you some kind of license to redefine any word you like in any manner you like.
3) If, as you've also claimed, you actually are correctly using the term, why hide behind the whole "it's just an internet phrase, you know what I mean" argument in the first place? Seems mighty contradictory to me, in fact if either one of those claims are correct the other is necessarily invalid. I understand the desire to cover all of your bases, but this seems pretty weak coming from a person whose favorite debate style is deconstructing/attacking other people's method of arguing*.




However...it would be nice if somebody would offer a counter definition. Essentially saying: "no it does not"...is a meaningless argument.

To be fair, you never actually defined fascism yourself. You claimed something was fascist, or quasi-fascist, whatever, and you then proceeded to list a few features that (while obviously being elements present in fascist states) on their own are just elements of any generic authoritarian capitalist state. If you were to provide a clear, rounded definition of a fascist state's relation to ultra-nationalism, culture, unions, etc, not simply state suppression, and explain how the US is either fascist or becoming fascist, then you'd have room to talk. But you didn't, you've provided no wider context.



I think it is going there...its not there yet. But give it time.


While I agree that we may well wind up with some form of really existing fascism in the US, you haven't backed up your claims. This really isn't the thread for that anyway, and it really just seems that this is another instance of you grasping at any argument, no matter how spurious and tangentially related, that could possibly deflect from your original claim that this article constitutes an example of fascism/proto-fascism. To me it reads like this;

"Hey, that's fascism!"
"No it's not!"
"Well anyway, we're heading towards fascism! Lets talk about that, because if I can make the topic a debate about the possibility of fascism in the future, rather than my original claim, I can still possibly come out of this looking like I was correct all along. Oh shit, did I just say that out loud?"


No. Its the recognition that fascism does not come in two specific varieties which are defined by their historical context and existance.
Of course, but obviously you need to take some sort of insight from history (or even Mussolini's rather clear definition) and recognize the defining features of fascism and the historical context in which such situations arise.


If that were not the case we would not have to worry about any form of fascims because the recreation of historical context and specificity can not be achieved.

Oh don't be silly, now you're just being silly. Stop that.


That however is not what fascism is. Its not limited in time, space and context.... and it can very well surface through different ways.


I didn't know that fascism was some sort of inter-dimensional cosmic deity, but that's beside the point. The very core of fascism is the economic element, the heavy-handed corporatism that is implemented to sustain degenerating capitalist economies. Everything else is simply a necessary tool to generate support from those inclined towards nationalism/religion/tradition and to suppress those who aren't. Unless a certain general combination of methods come together for a specific purpose, it's not fascism. Fascism isn't the boogeyman that it is simply because it is nasty or brutal, there are a lot of nasty political systems out there and throughout history.



Context is extremely important and the manner in which it surfaces, or the stimuli that lead to it's formation, are an intrinsic factor of fascism. It's what makes fascism fascism.

Fascism is a threat because it's an extremely potent formula for counterrevolution, specific to a certain set of circumstances under capitalism that presents not only the immediate threat of repression but a threat to the course of history itself. This is why people get angry when you misuse the word fascism, fascism arises under the same conditions that communist revolutionary fervor does and exists to negate it, it is our dialectical enemy. When you label any old thing "fascist", you obfuscate the actual significance of the word. Not to say that we shouldn't fight oppressive states where they arise, we should, but context is important when trying to recognize the rise of such a specific historical threat, rather than just another shitty state.











*As an aside, that IS a clever tactic when done properly (I've seen you execute it well, you're not in this thread) because it deflects from the actual meat of the argument while you critique people's posting style. It (usually) makes you look smarter than the content of your posts actually merit, without really having to get your hands dirty.

[PhoenixAsh]

It's pretty funny that you always respond to/complain about perceived abrasiveness/ad-homs in the most obnoxious, smug manner possible. Just saying.

Its a gift...especially for those who offer no content arguments.


Honestly dude, I waste a lot of time on the internet and I've never seen the word 'fascism' used as a "common interweb saying". You seem to be hiding behind this "common interweb saying" (that doesn't really exist, as far as I can tell) to justify your own usage's divergence from the actual meaning of the work. I have three questions concerning this then:http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=fascism%20its%20that%20obvious&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=649&bih=502



1) Why, on a marxist/anarchist political forum that actually places stock in the correct application of political terms, are you introducing a needlessly obfuscatory "interweb phrase" in place of an actually useful definition?Because it was not the topic of the thread. It was an expression. As stated. However some people chose to derail on an issue which was pretty much cleared up...refusing to let go. So I defended the position.

And has been pretty much shown in the debate the term was applied in a correct way...even in a Marxist way. Which pretty much answers your second question as well.




3) If, as you've also claimed, you actually are correctly using the term, why hide behind the whole "it's just an internet phrase, you know what I mean" argument in the first place? Seems mighty contradictory to me, in fact if either one of those claims are correct the other is necessarily invalid. I understand the desire to cover all of your bases, but this seems pretty weak coming from a person whose favorite debate style is deconstructing/attacking other people's method of arguing*.
Because the debate is not the intend of the thread title but of some who basically chose to press the issue wanting to argue. So I obliged:


But the point I made can be very well defended.And I defended it.



To be fair, you never actually defined fascism yourself. You claimed something was fascist, or quasi-fascist, whatever, and you then proceeded to list a few features that (while obviously being elements present in fascist states) on their own are just elements of any generic authoritarian capitalist state.Which is why I did not present them alone....obviously



If you were to provide a clear, rounded definition of a fascist state's relation to ultra-nationalism, culture, unions, etc, not simply state suppression, and explain how the US is either fascist or becoming fascist, then you'd have room to talk. But you didn't, you've provided no wider context.because the application of the markers is pretty damned obvious...nor did my markers merely point out state supression...now did they?


Well I agree that we may well wind up with some form of really existing fascism in the US, you haven't backed up your claims.I think I did.




This really isn't the thread for that anyway,DUH....



and it really just seems that this is another instance of you grasping at any argument, no matter how spurious and tangentially related, that could possibly deflect from your original claim that this article constitutes an example of fascism/proto-fascism. To me it reads like this;

I never made a claim. As I pretty much stated. I made a reference. This was also stated.



"Hey, that's fascism!"
"No it's not!"
"Well anyway, we're heading towards fascism! Lets talk about that, because if I can make the topic a debate about the possibility of fascism in the future, rather than my original claim, I can still possibly come out of this looking like I was correct all along. Oh shit, did I just say that out loud?"

Then you need to reread the thread....because you have missed some posts.



Of course, but obviously you need to take some sort of insight from history (or even Mussolini's rather clear definition) and recognize the defining features of fascism and the historical context in which such situations arise.

Yes. I do not disagree. But if you argue and backing up that with an article which distancing from those, according to the article, limitations...well..thats the argument you are goign to get.



Oh don't be silly, now you're just being silly. Stop that.

Yes...because the argument was silly. I just drew it to its logical conclusion.



I didn't know that fascism was some sort of inter-dimensional cosmic deity, but that's beside the point.

It has six legs...two heads and a big ass sword.....


you were saying about being silly?



The very core of fascism is the economic element, the heavy-handed corporatism that is implemented to sustain degenerating capitalist economies.

Yes...as I have been arguing against SamB.



Everything else is simply a necessary tool to generate support from those inclined towards nationalism/religion/tradition and to suppress those who aren't.

We are in agreement here.


Unless a certain general combination of methods come together for a specific purpose, it's not fascism.

Yes...so far we are following the same reasoning.



Fascism isn't the boogeyman that it is simply because it is nasty or brutal, there are a lot of nasty political systems out there and throughout history.

God...no? Really?


Context is extremely important and the manner in which it surfaces, or the stimuli that lead to it's formation, are an intrinsic factor of fascism. It's what makes fascism fascism.

Yes...and those context are not historical. Those context are contemporary.


Fascism is a threat because it's an extremely potent formula for counterrevolution, specific to a certain set of circumstances under capitalism that presents not only the immediate threat of repression but a threat to the course of history itself.

Yes.


This is why people get angry when you misuse the word fascism, fascism arises under the same conditions that communist revolutionary fervor does and exists to negate it, it is our dialectical enemy.

Or when we fail to emerge. As Trotsky stated. So far we have not yet been in disagreement.



When you label any old thing "fascist", you obfuscate the actual significance of the word. Not to say that we shouldn't fight oppressive states where they arise, we should, but context is important when trying to recognize the rise of such a specific historical threat, rather than just another shitty state.

Agian...we do not disagree.



here is no such thing as "imminent working-class revolution", there are merely historical opportunities derived from inescapable contradictions in capitalism.

Yes...and that is the worrying part. which I already stated a few times...the absence of a working class revolution will not negate the rise of fascism.


In such situations if proletarian revolution fails, the form capitalism takes will necessarily be fascism, because it is the only thing that can (temporarily) "force" a system that does not work to grind forward.

Temporarily will be debatable...but for arguments sake we are arguing along the same lines of reasoning.



You're playing a semantic game here, whether or not proletarians are actually in a position to take power is irrelevant to the potential development of fascism, what matters are the historical factor that makes either outcome a possibility.

Yes...indeed.



Obviously if our revolution fails they will succeed, but fascism doesn't arise once we've already failed, it only succeeds if we fail. It arises parallel to the possibility of proletarian revolution.

Or in the absence of it.



*As an aside, that IS a clever tactic when done properly (I've seen execute it well, you're not in this thread) because it deflects from the actual meat of the argument while you critique people's posting style. It (usually) makes you look smarter than the content of your posts actually merit, without really having to get your hands dirty.

For a method of arguing there needs to be a method of arguing. In its absence there is nothing that can be argued with. So basically you are barking up the wrong tree.

I have stated on page one: I made a reference. Implying specifically the meme with that caption. However...somebody wanted to push the debate. So I obliged.

Go bark up that tree.

[Blackscare]

Lol, damnit, you did get me on the internet phrase thing. GG.


Still think that you're waaaaay too broad with your application of the word fascism, though.

I'm tired and doped up, I'll enter the fray with something a little more coherent tomorrow.

[PhoenixAsh]

Lol, damnit, you did get me on the internet phrase thing. GG.


Still think that you're waaaaay too broad with your application of the word fascism, though.

I'm tired and doped up, I'll enter the fray with something a little more coherent tomorrow.

I...am wasting more time on the interwebs ;-) I would consider your position the better one. :D

Offcourse I am too broad...thats not the issue. The issue was if the position was defendable or not. SamB just annoyed the hell out of me with his usual one line dismissal and pushing the issue after I gave a perfectly sound answer to him refering to the meme making a big issue and completely overreacting... and pushing the argument on me...so I defended the position.

that does not negate the fact though that I think the US will go flip side and eventually degenerate into fascism...they are heading that direction if continued down the road they are travelling...passing several stations along the way...as will all capitalist states eventually...including authoritarianism/bonapartism. I still think Trotsky's analysis of that was the correct one. Bonapartism and fascism will gravitate towards each other.

[Sam_b]

And yet..you have not offered any back up to that. As has been explained to you already.


Are you fucking blind?


The very usage of 'developing' and the 'capitalism > fascism' equation therefore contain very low merit, purely because it assumes that the existing capitalist order are capable of making a switch to fascism completely by itself and then forming cross-class alliances to further its gains. This simply isn't true and negates the autonomous nature of fascist development. The only way that this line could be argued would be to state that the conditions for fascism, particularly a uniform movement and street presence, has been in the American pipeline for decades and thus the switchover is now being made on the back of the economic crisis. This leads to the question of a) why has it taken three years to show only junior signs of implementation, seeing as the initial deepening of the crisis had happened before; and b) were the Republicans and Democrats ever fascist movements or a force for this instigation. I don't think i'll need to explain the absurdities here.

Nothing you have said indicates any autonomous development away from the current ruling class. You appear to think that somehow the powers-that-be shift and gravitate to a fascist position over time, and that the uniform rank-and-file for impositioning fascist change is already in place. Again, nothing has been said about this, which leads your argument to be the one of this idea:


all capitalist states will eventually develop into fascism, negates several factors, including the idea of Bonapartism which is in itself the transitional method that ruling classes and finance capital need to adapt themselves in order to create a fascist system. By thinking in this way, the idea gets communicated that all capitalist imposition is linear and exists in some sort of void, which is of course untrue. It cannot itself develop into fascism without the autonomous movement, nor can it without the branching of cross-class forces and developments which leads to its rise. It cannot do it itself, thus the idea of sole-capital degeneration is an untrue one.

Now, seeing as you've quoted from these pieces of my argument before, you are either a) not understanding what i'm talking about; or b) being intellectually dishonest to the extent of completely lying about my position. You can argue against it sure, but claiming that I have never developed on this point is complete slander.

[Sam_b]

Actually, looking at the rest of your post I will not be commenting again. You have blatantly ignored everything that I have had to say and are trying to twist it into a position that is completely false. I am not going to have a debate with a user that posts one-liners lying about what I have said. Disagreements are fine. Saying that I have not done X or Y when there are specific quotes alluding to it made absolutely crystal clear is not on.

[magicme]

It's still surreally absurd. And of course there are adults making much more credible threats to Mr. Obama in public who aren't getting heat from the SS.

It's also disturbing that the SS is reading a chlid's Facebook page. Is it possible there was some sort of tip, or is there actually that much digital surveillance (of course the surveillance exists hypothetically, but in a form where it can be acted on).

I think it works like this. Computer programmes scan the worldwide web looking for flagged combinations of words (you can guess what some of these would be, I could give examples but I'm scared of waking up in Gitmo) and when they find the flagged expressions it creates a 'ping' on secret service computers for analysts to respond to. Depending on the current threat level analysts will respond by either ignoring it or sending it to operatives to look at. So Jim and Bob, the secret service men, are in their office and get this flagged facebook page sent to them.

JIM: Hey Bob look at this, some kid's worried about the Pres in the wake of recent events.
BOB: Well Jim, this doesn't look like a threat or anything and the boy's only thirteen. Not a job for us.
JIM: Screw that Bob, I'm bored and fancy a trip out. We'll be able to pick up lunch on expenses and I need to pick the dry-cleaning up. Two birds, one stone.
BOB: But Jim, aren't we supposed to hunting terrorists rather than harrassing frightened children?
JIM: Harrassing frightened children is an important tool in the fight against terror and I'm bored, stop talking a like commie-liberal and get the car keys.
BOB: Lol, ok Jim. You're such a fascist.
JIM: Now Bob, STFU about that. Am I part of a state that represses independent trade unions and is based on a petit-bourgeois ideology developed in response to a mass movement of the workers? No, I'm not so I'll thank you not to take things out of historical context like that.
BOB: But Jim, didn't Trotsky say that Fascism can be defined as...
JIM: Just get the car keys and get moving, let's go and intimidate America.

Or it's possible that some concerned citizen read the facebook page and rang the police who then decided it was above their pay grade and rang the secret services. Once something's on their system they're scared of not reacting in case it turns out to be something after all though it is really hard to see why this kid's worries got this reaction.

[PhoenixAsh]

Are you fucking blind
Now, seeing as you've quoted from these pieces of my argument before, you are either a) not understanding what i'm talking about; or b) being intellectually dishonest to the extent of completely lying about my position. You can argue against it sure, but claiming that I have never developed on this point is complete slander.


Let me explain this in the simples way possible. You are quoting me attacking this initial statement:

Because the state alone cannot actually develop fascism on its own accord. This has been explained to you already.

Then you continue to offer as proof taht you did not back up that statement three quotes. Here is the analysis of that quote which illustrates you are wrong:


...your entire back up to your assertion is:

1) I say so. Which is actually quote one.

This simply isn't true and negates the autonomous nature of fascist development

Which I have argued against by pointing out to you that the very article you quote on that also talks about integration into the power base. which negates your autonomous argument. Nor does your article state that a fascist movement absolutely has to be autonomous.

This has been adressed in an earlier reply I made.

2). quote 2 is a statement of fact. You read that into what i aid, reworded it and put it in your post.

away from the current ruling class. You appear to think that somehow the powers-that-be shift and gravitate to a fascist position over time,

This is however not an argument on its own merrit which back ups your claim or counters the observation...since in itself it is the observation.

3). It cannot itself develop into fascism without the autonomous movement, nor can it without the branching of cross-class forces and developments which leads to its rise.

Again you are stating that it can not...without actually backing it up with arguments.




NONE of your quotes to show that my attack of your initial claim is wrong or a lie...dactually do not disprove my claim. In fact they show the opposite. Show me where you have explained why it can not develop on its own other than stating that it can not in various different ways.

K...thanx

[PhoenixAsh]

Actually, looking at the rest of your post I will not be commenting again. You have blatantly ignored everything that I have had to say and are trying to twist it into a position that is completely false. I am not going to have a debate with a user that posts one-liners lying about what I have said. Disagreements are fine. Saying that I have not done X or Y when there are specific quotes alluding to it made absolutely crystal clear is not on.

Yeah....I figured you would say that. However...see my above post.

I have not lied about what you said. I have denied you actually explained anything...because that is what you claimed and your own quotes just proven that you haven't.

Now...you backing out of a debate I did not want but that you pressed...is not something that will hurt my feelings in the slightest or cause any problems for me at all. I am actually surprised you pushed the debate to begin with...


Now...this claiming comming from somebody who previously stated I never mentioned the petit burgeoisie when I did...this whole post comes of as a bit wobbly.


Now here is the end result of this debate:

1). Your initial claim that my idea of fascism was uneducated or unknowledgeable has been disproven. The article you claim is backup for your assertions and any side citations basically say my interpretation and definition of fascism is one of the many legitimate definitions of fascism. Your article merely stated that in the opinion of Paxton its too limited.

2). That the position of the US becomming fascist has not been disproven in any way shape or form. Maybe you have attacked the timeline and linearity...but you have stated I misinterpreted authoritarianism and bonapartism for fascism. Which I have not....(in a previous post to another poster I have specifically stated that this is pretty much a station on the way)...but in oder to provide back up for your claim you have made several citations and linked that article. The citations show that every capitalist state will develop into authoritarianism and bonapartism or fascism and that these two will eventually merge. What you have shown...is that the US is not fascist at the moment based on your article....something which I do not dispute....and that the most likely station that is going to be passed first is authoritarianism/bonapartism. Which also do not dispute.

3). You have provided a counter theory on fascism. One which is fascinating. But its not definitive. Basically the theory ddoes not disprove my interpretation of fasccism. It merely names it too limited and not widely aplpicable. Which I can accept as a valid counter theory since I never claimed there was a singular definition of fascism. However not one I particularly agree with. with leaves us wuth different interpretations. and neither of us is proven difinitively right or wrong on our respective opinions. Again...this does not provide adequate backing for your claim of uneducated or unknowledgeable.

However....I do dispute your opinion is definitive. As I have stated and as your article has stated the theory is being disputed by others and some see several things wrong with it. Hardly definitive.

4). My initial claim the position could be defended has been justified. :-)

[chegitz guevara]

The Secret Service investigates nearly every verbal or written threat on the President, regardless of how innocuous it might seem. They do so for ex-Presidents and candidates also.

It is ILLEGAL in the United States to make a threat about the Pres, even jokingly. One person got investigated for saying he'd like to see a burning Bush, when the former Pres was in town. Another because he had a picture of Bob Dole's head blowing up out of rage.

Serious political folks know to keep those kind of comments inside their brains.

[Jeraldi]

Ok, if you insist on arguing on a historical basis here:

exhibit a: corporate person-hood - a direct result of the amendment that freed the slaves. This was done through case law, I would post links but I have forgotten all of them and you would need a legal background in case law to make much sense of this anyway.(yes it is that convoluted)

so the US started fascist type policy before the term was even coined.

the structure of how European fascism was derived from was US -> Mussolini
->Hitler

exhibit b: many of the political and economic elite in the US supported fascism (Disney, Trump etc.)

exhibit c: the state of the US today as is being discussed. No laws are passed that the corps can not bypass or not blatantly in their favor. Also remember that the US is the party most responsible for the World Bank, WTO and IMF. (Organizations have created an anarchic-capitalist system over the developing world.)

Also if we only think along strict historical lines we will miss the signs of fascism and other similar systems that have not been named yet.

[PhoenixAsh]

Its a pretty horrible law.

Its main motivation seems to be aimed at stiffling political opposition and dissent. Creating limits to how this opposition can be expressed and the wide spread and indiscriminate application of the law is an obvious attempt to create a climate of terror and though policing.

Especially because the law itself places no limits on its intepretation and application. Which basically means it can be applied as wanted. There are some limiting factors thoughh, mostly formed by different intepretations from state to state of the wording and by some juresprudence. But its hirstory shows these can be changed at will and rely on the position of the judge...who can freely adjust the requirements of the law. Some have limited its application against the will of the state...but most have not.

Most of the interprettation differences are because of the word: wilfully. Originally this was interpreted as with malicious intent or purpose. These days its interpreted as: out of free will. Though in some states additional requirements are needed. I

Its not a law which is applied uniformly throughout the US.



This law is similar to other laws in other countries. Sometimes these laws are far more restricting or more widely applicable than this US one.

In Holland, fro example, there is a law against violating the persona and integrity of the queen. Its applied to all kinds of situations ranging from behaviour, insults, threats, caricatures, negative information (even if true), and actual threats.

In the past it has been applied to such a wide varierty of things. Including (in the late 19th century) somebody whistling when her carriage passed by on the street) was arrested and convicted based on this law. In the last decades it has also been applied and implemented several times.

Where the law itself is more far reaching...the implementation of the law is, especially in the last decades, is extremely restricted. Since the 50's there has been one arrest and conviction of 10 days in prison because he wrote something about embargoed personal information (which turned out to be true).

After that the law has been applied a few times but never led to anything more substantial than a fine (the highest was $500).

Mostly the courst decide that freedom of speech trump this law however and they rarely lead to anything more tyhan a fine these days.

There has been one noteable incident in 2000 when the law was applied and a father and son were arrested by an arrest team because they posted insulting comments about the queen online. This sparked a huge uproar and controversy in the media because of its wanton implementation.

At most one or two investigations are made a year which result to anything. And anybody who would even suggest it would apply to al forms of communication or should be applied on a 13 year old would be met with wide opposition.


The current juresprudence limits the law in the scope of its implementation. This however does not mean this law is not horrible law or that the juresprudence can change. It has been attempted in the past and failed....but in the current climate anything is possible.

Such laws need to go. They have no place in a society and there are more than enough tools available to root out dangerous elements. They are not only supurfluous but also a clear violation of induvidual autonomy.

[Sam_b]

Here is the analysis of that quote which illustrates you are wrong:

It's not a question of being right or wrong or agreeing with the analysis. The fact that it is plain to see that it was developed with a clear line of argument. You may DISAGREE with the level of clarity, you may DISAGREE with the end result being right or wrong, but that is not removed from the fact that it was DEVELOPED IN FULL.

I cannot help if you are not smart enough to see this.

The intellectual dishonesty maintains at every turn, very much ploving Blackscare's contribution right. Over the last posts you have:

- quoted references that are completely irrelevant to the discussion (and this is why when I challenged you on them you simply didn't reply)

- Failed to inject any concrete politics here (your line of argument has been all along 'the article says i'm right' without proof or reason, and that somehow I haven't refuted enough. In other words, pure deflection tactics.).

- Simply tried to hammer your way through with no actual concrete line, flip-flopping where convenient and then denying it after.

It's not my fault that you don't seem to find the subject matter serious enough to warrant a real discussion. You should re-read Blackscare's post again, seeing as it exposes a lot of what you have been doing. I said I was done, and I went back on my word. I am now done. I feel that if Blackscare has enough energy for you, he will develop the position again which I agree with. I'm done wasting my time on you.

[PhoenixAsh]

It's not a question of being right or wrong or agreeing with the analysis. The fact that it is plain to see that it was developed with a clear line of argument. You may DISAGREE with the level of clarity, you may DISAGREE with the end result being right or wrong, but that is not removed from the fact that it was DEVELOPED IN FULL. I cannot help if you are not smart enough to see this.


I never said it was not developed with a clear line of thought. Now did I? Nor did I say that you never mentioned it. I stated that it saying something is so...does not mean you have founded that in argument. In essence you have not explained anything. As your own quotes show.


The intellectual dishonesty maintains at every turn, very much ploving Blackscare's contribution right. Over the last posts you have:

- quoted references that are completely irrelevant to the discussion (and this is why when I challenged you on them you simply didn't reply)
No...you find them irrelevant to the discussion because they disprove your claims and contradict your interpretations. There is a difference there.




- Failed to inject any concrete politics here (your line of argument has been all along 'the article says i'm right' without proof or reason, and that somehow I haven't refuted enough. In other words, pure deflection tactics.).I did. you simply do not acknowledge it.


- Simply tried to hammer your way through with no actual concrete line, flip-flopping where convenient and then denying it after.
I have never flip flopped. You just made too many assumptions and allegations.

I have not abandoned or detracted any of my original statements and maintained them through out the debate. I did however adjust my arguments based on your assumptions and allegations. That is not flip flopping.



It's not my fault that you don't seem to find the subject matter serious enough to warrant a real discussion.Perhaps you should try to actually enter a debate based on content instead of a oneline ad hominem....especially if you can not back it up. Its the tone that sets the music.


You should re-read Blackscare's post again, seeing as it exposes a lot of what you have been doing. I said I was done, and I went back on my word. I am now done. I feel that if Blackscare has enough energy for you, he will develop the position again which I agree with. I'm done wasting my time on you.Good for you! I never wanted this debate. I am merely obliging you in your attempt to force it on me. And I think I can actually have a very good contentual debate with Blackscare...thats to his credit...not to yours....seeing as he actually enters the debate with the intend to debate.

Now...one more thing about Blackscare. He pretty much holds the same interpretation as I do about fascism. Which opposed to your position...includes corporatism.

So with him the debate is not about th definition of fascism but about the aplpication in this instance. Which is a more relevant debate than a debate between somebody (you) who out of hand dismisses my interpretation and claiming to have the correct superior interpretation...as you initially claimed. See the difference there?

[human strike]

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOUR COUNTRY????

Because something like this couldn't happen anywhere else? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/10/schoolboy-quizzed-cameron-office-picket

[PhoenixAsh]

Because something like this couldn't happen anywhere else? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/10/schoolboy-quizzed-cameron-office-picket

as I reaction I refer back to my initial statement you quoted.

Completely unacceptable.

However...there is a difference between actually organising something and making a statement of opinion. So the comparison is not really equal. It would if he had satted Cameron needed to be aware or made a threat to Cameron.

That however does absolutely not negate the fact that this is still intimidation outside the scope of such laws. Which...can be argued makes it even worse... especially considering the fact that it has everything to do with the right to organise.

[SacRedMan]

He was a threat to the people of the United States of America! :rolleyes: