Are there any Fascist countries?

[seventeethdecember2016]

Are there any countries around the world that you would consider Fascist?

[marl]

The US is heading down that path fast.

[Sinister Intents]

You're living in one, the United States is a fascist nation, just look at everything it does and has done in the past 50 years. China can also be considered fascist, so basically all capitalist nations are fascist or will become fascist.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The US is heading down that path fast.

Especially with the rise of religious fundamentalists and hardcore right-wingers recently. The passing of NDAA, assassination of US citizens legalized, etc.

[thriller]

The US is heading down that path fast.

Ehh, I would disagree. I good test is to call your government fascist on a public street. If your not arrested, it's probably not fascist. As far as the OP, none that I can think of.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Fascism is an actual ideology, not just a curse word to throw at brutal/corporatist dictatorships. In that sense there is no Fascist countries.

[Red Rabbit]

There are none. Authoritarian countries? Plenty. Fascist? Nope.

[roy]

You're living in one, the United States is a fascist nation, just look at everything it does and has done in the past 50 years. China can also be considered fascist, so basically all capitalist nations are fascist or will become fascist.

Fascism is something specific and the US isn't it. Please don't just abuse words.

[Offbeat]

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea probably comes closest.

[#FF0000]

The US is heading down that path fast.


You're living in one, the United States is a fascist nation, just look at everything it does and has done in the past 50 years. China can also be considered fascist, so basically all capitalist nations are fascist or will become fascist.


Especially with the rise of religious fundamentalists and hardcore right-wingers recently. The passing of NDAA, assassination of US citizens legalized, etc.

no shut up that is not what fascism is.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

no shut up that is not what fascism is.

I never said that the U.S. or those things were fascism, I said that they were the way toward fascism.

[Capitalist Octopus]

This is something I don't like about people on the left. Stop using fascist to describe everyone you don't like. It makes you look stupid because 99% of the time the person/place you're insulting isn't really fascist. I think the left should rebrand their insult term to be "liberal" ahaha.

[#FF0000]

I never said that the U.S. or those things were fascism, I said that they were the way toward fascism.

I even think that is wildly untrue, though. I don't see the US replacing its mixed economy with a corporatist one anytime ever.

[Tim Cornelis]

(I should really save this to my computer, cause I keep repeating it)

Fascism is based on palingenetic ultranationalism (although alone it does not make one fascist). This form of ultranationalism stresses the need to stage a national rebirth modeled after some imagined historical golden period. This is the essence of fascism.

Turkish fascists want to revive the Ottoman empire; Dutch fascists admire Dutch empire symbolism and want to reunite it; Japanese fascists are inspired by Imperial Japan and the Emperor; etc.

But if we look at a historical golden age (the 'national myth' if you will) in the United States we see that the Founding Fathers, the deceleration, and the Constitution constitute the imagined golden age of the USA. Therefore, potentially fascist sentiments in the USA are curtailed and redirected towards zealot admiration of the Founding Fathers, liberty, and the Constitution.

Constitutionalism is the American equivalent of fascism (it is fairly harmless), and manifests itself in the militia-movement, and the Tea Party. But they are not fascist since they do not want to establish an authoritarian/totalitarian government.


Some political analysts have described the Tea Party movement as "fascist," particularly with respect to Griffin's emphasis on palingenesis[4][5].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalism

Therefore, fascism never really existed in the USA, and will never exist in the USA.

Given the above description, there is not a single country that qualifies as fascist. (though I am not fully aware of all governments).

[seventeethdecember2016]

Not one person has named a country besides the USA. -.-

I was actually thinking that my home country of Turkey is becoming Fascist thanks to the Conservative Justice and Development Party and the Fascist Nationalist Movement Party.

And what about Israel? Parties that claim to be Zionist make up almost all of the Knesset.

I also feel as though Iran has been Fascist since 1979.



Turkish fascists want to revive the Ottoman empire; Dutch fascists admire Dutch empire symbolism and want to reunite it; Japanese fascists are inspired by Imperial Japan and the Emperor; etc.

Aww, this guy beat me to it.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Calling the United States fascist is about as intellectual and honest as calling the Tea Party libertarians authoritarian fascists.

Saying that the United States is becoming fascist is about as intellectual and honest as Glenn Beck saying the United States is becoming a communist nation.

[Caj]

No, there are no fascist countries currently. I'm sick of this tendency on the left to denounce every form of reaction as "fascist," as if it doesn't have an actual meaning. All it does is makes light of actual fascism.

[seventeethdecember2016]

It is ironic that Ron Paul says that the US is becoming Fascist, seeing that his ideologies are Reactionary, Degenerate, somewhat Nationalistic, Populist, Social Darwinistic, etc.

He is anti-Imperialist, which gives him something I suppose.

[DrStrangelove]

There aren't any currently existing fascist nations that I can think of.

Oh, and to everyone on the left, fascism =/= something reactionary that you disagree with. It's an actual ideology that actually means something.

[Rafiq]

Neo Liberalism is the new capitalism in decline, not Fascism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What reasons would people here give for Baathism not being a fascist ideology? Also, would people here consider Latin American militarist dictatorships from the 70s and 80s as fascist?

[Tabarnack]

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

Benito Mussolini

[Rusty Shackleford]

On Iran, Iran is a theocratic republic, not fascist.

[Ostrinski]

Fascism is not a political system, it is an ideology that reflects intensified class struggle as a weapon of the bourgeoisie.

[Rafiq]

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

Benito Mussolini

Benito has a different conception of what a corporate is than you, me thinks.

A corporation in Fascism means like a body, or some kind of collective.

[Deicide]

Benito has a different conception of what a corporate is than you, me thinks.

A corporation in Fascism means like a body, or some kind of collective.

That is correct. Corporatism, in the sense that Mussolini talks about, is a system of economic and political organization, in which an association of people organize into corporate groups, e.g, as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military and so on, taking into account ability and interest, to form the community into an ''organic'' body. Though it ain't limited to fascism.

Anyway, the most dominant characteristic of fascism is surely the wish to revive some grandiose past.

[Tabarnack]

That is correct. Corporatism, in the sense that Mussolini talks about, is a system of economic and political organization, in which an association of people organize into corporate groups, e.g, as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military and so on, taking into account ability and interest, to form the community into an ''organic'' body. Though it ain't limited to fascism.

Possibly, but the following quote would seem to contradict this, but then again I'm no expert on Mussolini...

"The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative."

Benito Mussolini

[Deicide]

Possibly, but the following quote would seem to contradict this, but then again I'm no expert on Mussolini...

"The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative."

Benito Mussolini

No it doesn't contradict it, the state is the absolute institution, but ''Corporatism'' as explained in my previous post and by the poster rafiq, is how the economy is organized.

If you want a greater understanding of Fascism, at least italian fascism, read ''The Doctrine of Fascism'' by Mussolini.. Well, actually he didn't write it, Giovanni Gentile did, but credit is given to Mussolini.

[MarxSchmarx]

On Iran, Iran is a theocratic republic, not fascist.

I wouldn't be so quick to rule out fascism as the de facto political and social system in Iran. The problem with Iran is that we have no real modern "theocratic republic", apart I suppose from the Vatican, to reference what we mean by such a term.

Iran is probably the country most by closely aligned to classical definitions of fascism. Indeed, take a modern (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/076.html) criteria of fascism applied to Iran:

Powerful and continuing nationalism
Check.
Disdain for human rightsCheck.
Identification of enemies / scapegoats as a unifying cause
Check.

Supremacy of the military
Maybe, probably not so much as some other places but still considerable

Rampant sexism
Check

Controlled mass media
Check

Obsession with national security
Check
Religion and government intertwined
Check
Corporate power protected
Maybe, no real reason to doubt this
Labor power suppressed
Check
Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
Check
Obsession with crime and punishment
Check
Rampant cronyism and corruption
Check
Fraudulent elections
Check

I think the PRC, Burma, most gulf states, Zimbabwe, and likely Russia also comfortably fit quite a few of these criteria - in Saudi Arabia they don't even bother with elections; kleptocracies like Kazakhstan, Equitorial Guinea and Uzbekistan are probably comfortably outside of traditional "fascism" and in the mold of "merely authoritarian" regimes, although they borrow heavily from traditional fascism.

It's fair to say places Belorussia and North Korea to a lesser extent (e.g., corporate power is nonexistent in the DPRK and Belorussia doesn't really have an identifiable "enemy" nor really an obsession with national security, and its nationalism isn't as well established) are classes of their own, and the analogy to fascism isn't very useful.

Thailand and highly militarized states like Israel and Pakistan are other plausible next level states that while still open enough to allow quite a bit of discord systematically manage to marginalize this dissent at a political level. These countries are probably extremes of fascistic elements of conventional liberal democracies like the UK or the US, and represent points on a continuum rather than qualitatively distinct social organizations.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Indeed, take a modern (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/076.html) criteria of fascism

"Modern definition", yes, totally, taking something and then changing the meaning of it to be "something we disagree with" is a great way to change what was once a political ideology into an utterly meaningless slur for an ideological enemy of whatever character. Fucking nonsense article.

[Salyut]

Everyone should read this before throwing "fascism" around. (http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/product-description/1400040949) Also this one for a good understanding of the ideology post-WWII. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Beast-Reawakens-Resurgence-Spymasters/dp/0415925460/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333849555&sr=1-1)

[Die Neue Zeit]

What reasons would people here give for Baathism not being a fascist ideology? Also, would people here consider Latin American militarist dictatorships from the 70s and 80s as fascist?

Because Baathism was historically a broad spectrum. There were left-Baathists in Syria who argued for aggressive nationalization, only to be massacred.

[marl]

no shut up that is not what fascism is.
I said it was heading down the path, I didn't actually say it was.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I said it was heading down the path, I didn't actually say it was.

It isn't. Becoming a surveillance and police state does not mean it is fascist.

[Salyut]

Because Baathism was historically a broad spectrum. There were left-Baathists in Syria who argued for aggressive nationalization, only to be massacred.

Lee covers the development of Baathism in Beast. Its a fascinatingly complex story.

[marl]

It isn't. Becoming a surveillance and police state does not mean it is fascist.

Correct. However, corporations, who run the state, have been taking over their competition, and eventually there might be the possibility where there will be no more bourgeoisie to compete with each other.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Correct. However, corporations, who run the state, have been taking over their competition, and eventually there might be the possibility where there will be no more bourgeoisie to compete with each other.

That still doesn't make fascism, sorry. Makes monopoly capitalism.

[marl]

That still doesn't make fascism, sorry. Makes monopoly capitalism.

Throw in a douchebag like Santorum, increase the preexisting election fraud, and sure, it does.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Do you guys think that the insane personality cult in North Korea, along with the rigid dictatorship, silence of opposition, gulag system, etc. resembles a fascist state or not?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Throw in a douchebag like Santorum, increase the preexisting election fraud, and sure, it does.

No. A religious lunatic and monopolistic capitalism does also not make fascism. How hard is it to fathom? All elections everywhere are fraudulent. The U.S. might, under extreme circumstances and worse case scenarios, become a theocratic and despotic (more than it is) state, but it will not become fascism. More things are needed for this leap to be taken, and it is very unlikely, partly because of the political history (as some others have explained early on) and other reasons.

[marl]

Do you guys think that the insane personality cult in North Korea, along with the rigid dictatorship, silence of opposition, gulag system, etc. resembles a fascist state or not?
No, North Korea is social conservative, but not to the point where they do shit like eugenics.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

No, North Korea is social conservative, but not to the point where they do shit like eugenics.

Well, they look down on anyone who isn't pure-blooded Korean, and I don't think eugenics is a necessary part of fascism.

[marl]

Well, they look down on anyone who isn't pure-blooded Korean, and I don't think eugenics is a necessary part of fascism.

Yeah, that's true.

Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation) based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity) by suprapersonal connections of ancestry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry), culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture), and blood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity) through a totalitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism) single-party state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-party_state) that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline), indoctrination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination), physical education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_education), and eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics).

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Yeah, that's true.

Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation) based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity) by suprapersonal connections of ancestry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry), culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture), and blood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity) through a totalitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism) single-party state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-party_state) that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline), indoctrination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination), physical education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_education), and eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics).

Honestly, sounds like NK to me :D

[Salyut]

Throw in a douchebag like Santorum, increase the preexisting election fraud, and sure, it does.

Thats proto-fascism, not Ur-Fascism (http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html). Next time you visit a library, check out the books I linked.

edit: Sara Robinson explains the American situation pretty well. (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009083205/fascist-america-are-we-there-yet) Ties in with Neiwart's The Eliminationists. (http://www.amazon.com/Eliminationists-Hate-Radicalized-American-Right/dp/0981576982/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249538915&sr=8-1)

[Salyut]

Fun historical fact: the early proto-fascist movements that appeared in France in the 1880's dressed up like cowboys. Ten gallon hats and everything.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Fun historical fact: the early proto-fascist movements that appeared in France in the 1880's dressed up like cowboys. Ten gallon hats and everything.

What was the purpose of this?

[Salyut]

What was the purpose of this?

I'm not actually sure. Its covered in Lee's book, but I don't have access to a copy currently. :( The 'western' motif seems to have been a subcultural thing back then though. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_(gang))

edit: It might actually be in Paxton's book. I have to reread it for this paper I'm writing...so I might get a answer shortly. :D

edit2: It was this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Mores). His ranching background was the source for the cowboy hats. Apparently the term 'national socialism' was first used to describe him and his movement by Maurice Barres.


His squads wore the cowboy garb and ten-gallon hats that the marquis had discovered in the American West, which thus predate black and brown shirts (by a modest stretch of the imagination) as the first fascist uniform.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Because Baathism was historically a broad spectrum. There were left-Baathists in Syria who argued for aggressive nationalization, only to be massacred.

What about after they were massacred? What about the Baathism of Hafez, Assad and Saddam?

[thriller]

(I should really save this to my computer, cause I keep repeating it)

Fascism is based on palingenetic ultranationalism (although alone it does not make one fascist). This form of ultranationalism stresses the need to stage a national rebirth modeled after some imagined historical golden period. This is the essence of fascism.

Turkish fascists want to revive the Ottoman empire; Dutch fascists admire Dutch empire symbolism and want to reunite it; Japanese fascists are inspired by Imperial Japan and the Emperor; etc.

But if we look at a historical golden age (the 'national myth' if you will) in the United States we see that the Founding Fathers, the deceleration, and the Constitution constitute the imagined golden age of the USA. Therefore, potentially fascist sentiments in the USA are curtailed and redirected towards zealot admiration of the Founding Fathers, liberty, and the Constitution.

Constitutionalism is the American equivalent of fascism (it is fairly harmless), and manifests itself in the militia-movement, and the Tea Party. But they are not fascist since they do not want to establish an authoritarian/totalitarian government.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalism

Therefore, fascism never really existed in the USA, and will never exist in the USA.

Given the above description, there is not a single country that qualifies as fascist. (though I am not fully aware of all governments).
I really like this point and I think you hit the nail on the head. Fascism usually stresses returning to a former government that was supposedly better for the nation and it's power relation to the area. Since the US has pretty much had the same form of government it always had (excluding the governments of Native tribes), there really is nothing to return to. No former national setup to re-establish. There may be people who glorify the Founding Fathers, but that is more reactionary and nostalgic/idealistic than strictly fascist.

[The Intransigent Faction]

CANADA.

But really, would China not qualify? One of my political science profs seems to think so.

As much as it may seem to lose its meaning as a term being thrown around as much as it has in so many different cases, there are countries with certain conditions that qualify them as fascist, I think.

George Carlin once said "Germany lost the Second World War, fascism won it". As easy as it is to dismiss, it's not a threat we should pretend is absolutely irrevocably absent from the world.

[MarxSchmarx]

"Modern definition", yes, totally, taking something and then changing the meaning of it to be "something we disagree with" is a great way to change what was once a political ideology into an utterly meaningless slur for an ideological enemy of whatever character. Fucking nonsense article.

Well that gets at the problem, doesn't it? Look at the flip side - define fascism too narrowly and you talk only of a movement and its historical offshoots restricted to postp-wwi southern europe - almost all restricted to catholic countries or utterly meaningless rightwing sects. It would therefore be no more universal than, say, the term "Protestant".

For the term to be of interest and continuity, however, it has to be kept in mind precisely the commonalities of agreed upon fascist states like Italy or corporatist Austria. When one sees that these commonalities extend beyond their mere historical contiguity but reflect a certain consistent approach to how the ruling class manages the capitalist state, one can either restrict fascism to the point where it refers only to a very specific historical phenomena, or where it refers to the aggregate policies the ruling class undertook. Fair enough, one can regard fascism as being in essence purely historical and locally circumscribed to be synonymous with a handful of regimes and their offshoots.

But is such particularity social science? Fascism, as a political rather than historical term, must have some broader applicability outside of very specific epochs and places to be of use. One need not call it fascism, which does have rhetorical weight. But for better or worse the phrase fascism even in public discourse already means something quite beyond a handful of central and southern european states, that coming up with a definition that isn't so bound to a particular moment in time at a particular place remains a useful enterprise..

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ What about Corporatism and Social Corporatism, comrade?


What about after they were massacred? What about the Baathism of Hafez, Assad and Saddam?

They were mafia-like scumbags, but not fascists, despite their common admiration of Mussolini and Hitler.

[arilando]

North Korea and it's supporters.

[Persson121]

Sweden is a capitalist facist country.

[Persson121]

North Korea and it's supporters.

No! North Korea is a good contry!
It's socialism and the few contries have no capitalism as system.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

it makes me cringe just as much as the next guy to see the term fascism thrown around so lightly. but i do think that sometimes it's useful to categorize certain policies and agendas as fascist-like. because of course fascism was something that happened in europe in the 1920s and 30s in a small handful of countries. very arguably extending a few decades beyond that in spain and portugal. and never again occuring anywhere else. strictly speaking. so in fact this thread should probably be in the History forum.

the united states has perhaps the most solid liberal democratic instutions anywhere. to say that it's a fascist regime is a fucking joke.

[Positivist]

No! North Korea is a good contry!
It's socialism and the few contries have no capitalism as system.

...

[Positivist]

Well that gets at the problem, doesn't it? Look at the flip side - define fascism too narrowly and you talk only of a movement and its historical offshoots restricted to postp-wwi southern europe - almost all restricted to catholic countries or utterly meaningless rightwing sects. It would therefore be no more universal than, say, the term "Protestant".

For the term to be of interest and continuity, however, it has to be kept in mind precisely the commonalities of agreed upon fascist states like Italy or corporatist Austria. When one sees that these commonalities extend beyond their mere historical contiguity but reflect a certain consistent approach to how the ruling class manages the capitalist state, one can either restrict fascism to the point where it refers only to a very specific historical phenomena, or where it refers to the aggregate policies the ruling class undertook. Fair enough, one can regard fascism as being in essence purely historical and locally circumscribed to be synonymous with a handful of regimes and their offshoots.

But is such particularity social science? Fascism, as a political rather than historical term, must have some broader applicability outside of very specific epochs and places to be of use. One need not call it fascism, which does have rhetorical weight. But for better or worse the phrase fascism even in public discourse already means something quite beyond a handful of central and southern european states, that coming up with a definition that isn't so bound to a particular moment in time at a particular place remains a useful enterprise..

I agree fully. We cannot fall into the error of only defining countries as what they label themselves. Otherwise socialism could only be understood as Sovietism, Maoism, or Nazism. (Remember they called themselves national socialists.) Yes fascism is a specific ideology, but like any ideology it is proceeded by certain actions. So when we see actions that are characteristic of fascism or that were encouraged by fascists we should label them as such regardless of whatever they claim to be.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well that gets at the problem, doesn't it? Look at the flip side - define fascism too narrowly and you talk only of a movement and its historical offshoots restricted to postp-wwi southern europe - almost all restricted to catholic countries or utterly meaningless rightwing sects. It would therefore be no more universal than, say, the term "Protestant".

For the term to be of interest and continuity, however, it has to be kept in mind precisely the commonalities of agreed upon fascist states like Italy or corporatist Austria. When one sees that these commonalities extend beyond their mere historical contiguity but reflect a certain consistent approach to how the ruling class manages the capitalist state, one can either restrict fascism to the point where it refers only to a very specific historical phenomena, or where it refers to the aggregate policies the ruling class undertook. Fair enough, one can regard fascism as being in essence purely historical and locally circumscribed to be synonymous with a handful of regimes and their offshoots.

But is such particularity social science? Fascism, as a political rather than historical term, must have some broader applicability outside of very specific epochs and places to be of use. One need not call it fascism, which does have rhetorical weight. But for better or worse the phrase fascism even in public discourse already means something quite beyond a handful of central and southern european states, that coming up with a definition that isn't so bound to a particular moment in time at a particular place remains a useful enterprise..

i disagree. the meaning of fascism in public discourse is still closely linked to its actual academic historical meaning. such that no other authoritarian regimes are widely considered "fascist". furthermore, i think your revisionist definition of fascism is unmaterialistic and ahistorical. the way in which, let's say, italy's fascist gov't used rhetoric, war, religion and nationalism are completely and utterly different from ahmadinejad's or the ayatollah's rule. surely some similarities can be drawn between them like populist and bellicose rhetoric. but that's hardly enough. by that criteria, queen elizabeth i was a fascist.

[MarxSchmarx]

Revisionist, maybe, but umaterialistic, no. Indeed,


the meaning of fascism in public discourse is still closely linked to its actual academic historical meaning.

That's really debatable. For instance, teenagers can call their parents fascists, there is a bona fide adjective "fascistic" and American politicians like Huey Long can say things like “When fascism comes to america, it will come in the form of democracy.” no other political ideology has morphed from the "academic historical meaning" into something quite amorphorous.

One could argue that teenagers call their parents nazis and one speaks of things like a "gardening nazi" but the implied analogy is not to some vague dictator but to a certain group of Germans at a certain time. People who use the word "fascist" in other contexts generally do not think of Mussolini, much less Dolfuss or Salazar.

Why this happened who knows. Likely it was because mussolini was from the perspective of english speakers, generally a buffoon while hitler was in a different category. Or it might be because fascism had an international side to it that even on its own terms made it likely to diverge quite radically across times and places.

But what's important to understand that far from being unmaterialistic, recognizing that the constraints placed on authoritarian, modern states in a capitalist global arena entail a convergence of solutions is in fact quite consciously materialist. It is hardly surprising that when authoritarian rulers take over societies with sharp industrial-agrarian divides, that are very religious, in militarily unstable regions, etc..., like Iran and 1920s Italy, wish to maintain and strengthen capitalism within their societies, they come to similar conclusions about how to run their affairs. And when the list of major commonalities is larger between the two than against other forms of government, if anything insisting that there be a direct "line of descent" before one can group them similarly under a phrase that in every day use becomes less associated with particular historical regimes every generation seems the less materialistic approach.



by that criteria, queen elizabeth i was a fascist.

I'm tempted to say that sounds good to me.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Calling the United States fascist is about as intellectual and honest as calling the Tea Party libertarians authoritarian fascists.

Saying that the United States is becoming fascist is about as intellectual and honest as Glenn Beck saying the United States is becoming a communist nation.

But the USA is moving to a State Capitalism in the interest of Capital. To the person who says North Korea is "Fascist": If You think "State Capitalism in the interest of the working class" is bad, what then do you call actual state capitalism in the interest of capital?

*(As a remark, i don't think DPRK is actually in the interest of the working class, if it were they would have turned to capitalism, as bad as that sounds. They are really rabid nationalists)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Revisionist, maybe, but umaterialistic, no. Indeed,

That's really debatable. For instance, teenagers can call their parents fascists, there is a bona fide adjective "fascistic" and American politicians like Huey Long can say things like “When fascism comes to america, it will come in the form of democracy.” no other political ideology has morphed from the "academic historical meaning" into something quite amorphorous.

One could argue that teenagers call their parents nazis and one speaks of things like a "gardening nazi" but the implied analogy is not to some vague dictator but to a certain group of Germans at a certain time. People who use the word "fascist" in other contexts generally do not think of Mussolini, much less Dolfuss or Salazar.

Why this happened who knows. Likely it was because mussolini was from the perspective of english speakers, generally a buffoon while hitler was in a different category. Or it might be because fascism had an international side to it that even on its own terms made it likely to diverge quite radically across times and places.

But what's important to understand that far from being unmaterialistic, recognizing that the constraints placed on authoritarian, modern states in a capitalist global arena entail a convergence of solutions is in fact quite consciously materialist. It is hardly surprising that when authoritarian rulers take over societies with sharp industrial-agrarian divides, that are very religious, in militarily unstable regions, etc..., like Iran and 1920s Italy, wish to maintain and strengthen capitalism within their societies, they come to similar conclusions about how to run their affairs. And when the list of major commonalities is larger between the two than against other forms of government, if anything insisting that there be a direct "line of descent" before one can group them similarly under a phrase that in every day use becomes less associated with particular historical regimes every generation seems the less materialistic approach.

no im afraid this is all wrong comrade. the relevant historical and material conditions go far beyond your comparison of italy in 1922 and Iran in 1979 or whatever youre trying to prove. much closer to fascism were the "populist" regimes of mexico, argentina and brazil in the 30s/40s/50s actually led by people who were inspired by fascism. and nobody has ever seriously called them fascists.

like you said, fascistic is a real thing. institutional corruption in the united states and the protection of corporations under the first amendment is fascistic. but obviously the us is far from being fascist.

[Positivist]

no im afraid this is all wrong comrade. the relevant historical and material conditions go far beyond your comparison of italy in 1922 and Iran in 1979 or whatever youre trying to prove. much closer to fascism were the "populist" regimes of mexico, argentina and brazil in the 30s/40s/50s actually led by people who were inspired by fascism. and nobody has ever seriously called them fascists.

like you said, fascistic is a real thing. institutional corruption in the united states and the protection of corporations under the first amendment is fascistic. but obviously the us is far from being fascist.

If Iran's policies resemble those of fascist countries, then calling the regime fascist would be appropriate. An adjective is a means of categorizing a certain synthesis of qualities. So when something is called fascist, the similarity between the object and fascism is being referenced. Excuse me if I am misunderstanding you, but the only argument I see against this position is that there are no fascist regimes today because no regimes call themselves fascist. Or are you simply suggesting that no nation today possesses the fascist synthesis of qualities?

[Agathor]

There are three kinds of people. Fascists, communists and liberals.

[Ocean Seal]

Fascist, no.
Authoritarian capitalist. Yes.
In the future. Probably quite a few considering the disconcerting number of proto-fascist movements that currently exist, and the fact that capitalism is currently entering a phase of decay.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If Iran's policies resemble those of fascist countries, then calling the regime fascist would be appropriate. An adjective is a means of categorizing a certain synthesis of qualities. So when something is called fascist, the similarity between the object and fascism is being referenced. Excuse me if I am misunderstanding you, but the only argument I see against this position is that there are no fascist regimes today because no regimes call themselves fascist. Or are you simply suggesting that no nation today possesses the fascist synthesis of qualities?

that's right. fascism was a reactionary movement that flourished in the early XXth century in Europe against growingly hegemonic democratic liberalism and socialism. the conditions that allowed those movements to take the forms that they did no longer exist.

[Rafiq]

There are three kinds of people. Fascists, communists and liberals.



Radicals, Liberals, and Reactionaries makes more sense.

[Rafiq]

isreal .



You do know that "Fascistic" and "X Racially discriminitive colonial power" aren't the same thing, right?

[Geiseric]

The way Israel kills Palestinians I would describe as nationalism to the extreme, and the size of Israel's army, as well as the purpose of that state as being NATOs thug makes it pretty close to fascistic. But the way that 1930s fascism developed didn't happen for Israel at all.

[dodger]

This I thought a modest gem.

Big Society, Big Government, Big Business – The Corporate State
Posted on April 16, 2012 ....IMARXMAN

On the 3rd May local elections take place: already propaganda leaflets and newsletters are tumbling through letterboxes on their way to the recycling bins. The three main parties desperately strive to maintain the fiction of genuine differences between them.

Local councils are being effectively emasculated by central government bent on ensuring the state has no effective counter to its operation. What municipal responsibilities remain are hedged around with regulations preventing independent action.

Whichever party wins control of a local authority gains kudos and little more. It will be expected to enact policies in line with national diktats. The burgeoning academy/free school programme, often in the teeth of parental, student and council opposition, is an example of the primacy of state power.

The electorate is perfectly free to vote for whosoever it wills, but must do so in the knowledge that it can make no substantive difference. There may well be local issues presently beyond the scope of government concern, but council action will be circumscribed by economic necessity.

The ConDem coalition government, and PM Cameron in particular, have promoted the concept of the Big Society. This is portrayed as the state stepping back to allow civil society to willing shoulder social responsibilities.

Libraries run by volunteers, charities providing services for the elderly, concerned parents setting up their own free schools, whatever – the dead hand of public bureaucracy is to be amputated.

Only, this is not the state voluntarily withering away; quite the contrary. In the phrase, “The Big Society”, the key word is not “Society”, but “Big”. For it sits alongside other crucial “bigs”, such as big business, big government and big media: it is the social expression of the corporate state.

The corporate state first manifested itself most obviously in Mussolini’s Italy of the 1920s. There the state concerned itself with every aspect of economic life, setting wage levels and working conditions, regulating and licensing commercial activities and closely controlling political activity.

Mussolini’s rather blunt and belligerent approach was refined in the 1930s USA by President Roosevelt who gave a democratic façade to very similar economic policies. The New Deal was the corporate state of big government working with big business in the context of the great depression.

Of course, the reality is that governments and business have been interacting since capitalism became the dominant economic system. The Anti-Combination Acts of 1799/1800 was the British government acting on behalf of industry against the working class and its trade unions.

Today, the corporate state is so effective many don’t even realise it exists. When people vote for a party they become disillusioned when, on assuming office, it acts against their wishes, usually in much the same manner as the previous government or council of a different party.

This is often cynically dismissed by electors regarding politicians as, “in the end they’re all the same just in it for themselves”. This may well be true, but not crucially so, because it suggests all that is required is to find honest politicians.

If every MP was obviously scrupulous at all times fundamentally nothing would change. The problems facing everyone in society arise not from corrupt or corrupted politicians and officials, but capitalism itself.

The on-going issue of extravagant boardroom bonuses has been recently joined by many of the very rich using charitable giving as a way of reducing their tax liabilities to 20% or so, rather less than their very much more modestly paid employees are expected to pay.

Even the present Tory Chancellor has spoken out against such fiscal sleight of hand and attempted, be it in an apparently ham-fisted way, to counter it. He could be being disingenuous, of course, but even if his disquiet if genuine and his policy works, the few extra millions to the treasury, though welcome, again changes nothing fundamentally.

Indeed, it would be a demonstration of the corporate state in action, defending the broader interests of capitalism against the personal greed of some individual capitalists. It could also have an ideological spin off, demonstrating how capitalism is being run fairly in the common interest.

The big media will certainly propagate such notions. It may well be highly critical of government and greedy businessmen, exposing scandals and corruption, but always in the interests of preserving capitalism.

Come the possibility of the working class organising itself to take action on its own behalf and a united front of media vilification can be guaranteed. Big business and big government can rely on the media’s support should any significant confrontation with a trade union be in the offing.

Not that labour relations have been left to the self determination of union members. The corporate state has regulated trade unions to the point where action is legally hedged around to the point of being almost ineffectual. This has resulted in a dramatic fall in union membership.

The reaction has been for unions to construct amalgamations to form multi-occupation super or big unions. Perhaps without realising it, big unions providing a multiplicity of services and insurance to their members become enmeshed in the corporate state. Maybe they did so once they began to bankroll one of the major constituent parts of the corporate state, the Labour Party.

By the 4th May most of the votes will have been counted and the results announced. Actually, and exclusively, the overall result can be revealed here: the corporate state will continue in power and will remain there in perpetuity.

Unless, of course, the working class of Britain can find its voice and make itself heard, outside and beyond the stifling ballot booths. That would be the voice of the people – Democracy!

http://imarxman.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/big-society-big-government-big-business-the-corporate-state/


****&&&&&&&&**************&&&&&&&&&&