Fascism in america [Archive]

flaming bolshevik

27th June 2014, 04:34

Do you guys think that america could become fascist in the near future?

LuÃs Henrique

27th June 2014, 04:59

Do you guys think that america could become fascist in the near future?

I think it is extremely improbable.

Bourgeois democracy seems to be doing quite well in keeping the downtrodden downtrodden, so why change?

Luís Henrique

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 05:35

RedWorker

27th June 2014, 05:40

How is the USA similar to Francoist Spain?
I hope you're not talking about the degree of authoritarianism because the USA now is a joke compared to the brutality of Francoist Spain.

#FF0000

27th June 2014, 05:47

Hell no.

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 05:56

How is the USA similar to Francoist Spain?
I hope you're not talking about the degree of authoritarianism because the USA now is a joke compared to the brutality of Francoist Spain.

I agree that the brutality of Francoist Spain was horrific. The Death Warrants that Franco continued to sign until his death were indicative of his maliciousness and sadistic cruelty. I certainly agree that there is no comparison in brutality. However, totalitarian regimes need not be brutal to be effective. That is the point I'm trying to make.

A leader like Franco wouldn't come to power in the modern world, because the character of totalitarianism itself has changed. Technofascism doesn't need secret prisons, death warrants, torture or gulags. Only a control of what people hear and see and the ability to discredit dissenters. The GDR became truly genius at this tactic. The Drug War is, for instance, one of these mass imprisonment schemes of undesirables implemented under the guise of fighting crime.

Revolver

27th June 2014, 06:58

Trap Queen Voxxy

27th June 2014, 07:01

Do you guys think that america could become fascist in the near future?

No, I see 'Libertarianism' or neo-liberal bourgeois republicanism still hold strong cuz muneys. Fascism impedes on business and making that elephant money, you know.

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 08:36

I think that Loonyleftist makes some very important points about the distinctive features of American fascism. One thing to keep in mind is that American fascism would by necessity be responding to a completely different kind of economic crisis, and it would need to draw on a very different base of support within the United States. Moreover, the example of fascism, particularly Nazi Germany, would haunt every action this hypothetical regime took. As Loony indicates, this means a system of control that does not evoke concentration camps, open and radical racial antagonism, death squads or, you know, skulls on uniforms.

I'm rather used to being flamed for my honesty about what I perceive as a modern technofascism. I think that it's tough to get people out of the idea that fascism is going to rise again in precisely the same form.

The racial antagonism is covert as you say. The Drug War is an example a type of modern mass imprisonment of racial minorities, under the cover of preventing crime. Rarely do voices questioning it ever rise above the level of a whisper.

The other important point is that there are existing institutions that would have a constitutive function in the regime's formation. By that I simply mean that the American judiciary, the legislative branch and state and local governments would set the parameters of this hypothetical fascism and direct its content in ways that are different from Europe in the era of fascism 1.0. How might this play out? Well consider the way that the constitution has been "interpreted" in an era of indefinite detention and mass surveillance. There are a lot of ways to winnow down the protections without denouncing it outright and declaring the US a fascist regime. You can create procedural blocks to challenges, as with the doctrine of standing or a related concept of "judicial minimalism" that disposes of court challenges on very narrow grounds that often doesn't resolve the actual underlying conflict or question. You might block lawsuits that challenge the indefinite detention and/or state murder of American dissidents by invoking the judicial doctrine of "standing" to prevent the parties from even having their day in court. There are a number of ways that you can preserve the façade of American liberal democracy while the core rots. And if you need further proof, take a look at the growth of the carceral state (also known as the prison industrial complex) and the complete evisceration of substantive limits on the police state, at least for those without access to material resources.

Exactly. Our system of law is based on British common law and therefore is open to interpretation. Crafty lawyers and judges can interpret law in colourful ways leading to changes in what laws actually mean.

The courts have consistently moved to remove barriers on police. Not once in the last century has the Supreme Court ruled to place limits on police powers. Not one single time. Reading both the dissenting and majority opinions in those cases, it is hard to believe how thoughtful human beings intent on preserving justice could have drafted them. It seems that the only conclusion one can draw is that this has been purposeful--or at least that those drafting them must be indoctrinated.

And while the institutions above avoid a direct confrontation with this nascent fascism, the population is habituated into a new status quo. These new "citizen fascists" are groomed, but not with clunky propaganda from the Nazi era. "First they came for the radical Islamic terrorists, sure, but I am not a radical Islamic terrorist, says the mute witness. I'm not a crack dealer, or a sex offender. I'm not squatting in front of Wall Street and toking marijuana. I've got a job, a family, a mortgage..." And mind you this entire time there is nonstop propaganda, but it is diffused through the new avenues made available by the digital revolution, and disseminated by people who certainly don't look like fascists.

Right. Sometimes those people don't even know they are vessels and establishment tools. However, the same was probably also true of older fascist regimes as well. I'm sure there were plenty of Germans during the Third Reich who thought they were good citizens. Considering the history, overt propaganda would be repulsive. The only way for it to work is to create a crisis regime (as you mention later on) to keep minds pliable to it.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it can be easily controlled. If you're a member of the economic elite (or at least believe yourself to be), you can never know with certainty what might happen if you continue to support creeping authoritarianism. Maybe a nativist faction channels populist anger against undocumented cheap labor, and you just have to deal with it because, if you don't, well they've got some digital archives showing that you've been dabbling in insider trading, and it would be a shame if that were to get out...or hell, maybe there's just a different faction that has its eyes on lucrative market opportunities or government contracts that you rely on and now it has the ear of the government, and the next thing you know you're in prison. You can try your luck with the courts.

Precisely. The character of totalitarian technofascism is far different than previously seen forms. It can get past the sniff test for most people.

Fascism 2.0 doesn't even require a flag and a cross. It just requires a crisis regime that can relax the "rules" for the duration of hostilities. And as for the war on terrorism, well, there's no end in sight.

I'd like to borrow this quote, if I may. It sums up everything I was thinking rather nicely. :grin:

We are living in a technofascist police state. What I find surprising is how defensive many get when you point this out. Though they say that denial is the first part of acceptance.

Црвена

27th June 2014, 08:42

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 08:56

There's no chance of America going collectivist, but I think it will go further right, more laissez-faire, more backward and just generally become more of a shithole.

Do not fall into the trap of pessimism! :grin: We have one another! On the contrary I see a more collectivist leftist society after about a generation or so. Perhaps by the mid 21st century the latest. History shows us that people will not stay oppressed. In ancient times it was harder to fight oppression. Keep in mind that the same technology used to enslave and indoctrinate can also be used to emancipate. Do not lose hope!

Maybe America'll have some kind of weird isolationist fascism where they share the fascist belief of one type of person being inherently better than another but believe in the supremacy of the individual and the supposed right of the corporate fat cat to do whatever they want while some people starve to death.

Exactly. Modern fascism is about allowing material wealth to define a persons value to society. Much like race did with older forms of fascism. It will take a long time for people to realize that wealth says little about someone's character. Just like we are still struggling with the idea that certain races are inferior. Fascism is about authoritarianism, stratification and control. That will take different forms depending on the society.

Tim Cornelis

27th June 2014, 17:47

DO PEOPLE EVEN KNOW WHAT FASCISM IS!

Jeez.

I don't feel like writing or copy-pasting a rebuttal, but come on, stop with this hysterical shouting of 'fascism!' at errything

DOOM

27th June 2014, 17:50

Nah. The ideal of bourgeois democracy is far too deep embedded within the american population to be replaced with fascism. Something really big would have to happen, to turn America into a fascist state.

DOOM

27th June 2014, 17:50

DO PEOPLE EVEN KNOW WHAT FASCISM IS!

Jeez.

I don't feel like writing or copy-pasting a rebuttal, but come on, stop with this hysterical shouting of 'fascism!' at errything

God I hate this. I don't think they know how they're relativizing REAL fascism with such stupid statements.

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 18:05

God I hate this. I don't think they know how they're relativizing REAL fascism with such stupid statements.

My opinion is rubber yours is glue, what you say bounces off mine and sticks to yours.

I figured I would keep my response at the level of yours. :laugh:

Nah. The ideal of bourgeois democracy is far too deep embedded within the american population to be replaced with fascism. Something really big would have to happen, to turn America into a fascist state.

We are already there.

DO PEOPLE EVEN KNOW WHAT FASCISM IS!

Jeez.

I don't feel like writing or copy-pasting a rebuttal, but come on, stop with this hysterical shouting of 'fascism!' at errything

Yes.

Racism, anti-immigrationism, either covert or overt
An intertwining of corporate and state functions, serving the interests of elites
A positive view of violence
Emphasis on continued expansion, imperialism, and conquest
Nationalism & Exceptionalism (we are the chosen ones)
An emphasis on the superiority of masculinity
Maintenance of existing of social stratification
Romantic and/or religious symbolism
Emphasis on competition, within accepted societal norms

You keep plugging your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala. I understand it's part of the psychological process of acceptance. I'm sorry that you are so myopic that you cannot get that totalitarianism (technofascism) no longer requires physical brutality.

You can continue to have your view that fascism must have concentration camps, and physical torture. At least you won't see the fact that they have already slipped the chains on you. But I'm just a hysterical conspiracy theorist. Akin to those tin foil hatters that claimed the state was spying on us and storing our information in datacenters.

DOOM

27th June 2014, 18:20

My opinion is rubber yours is glue, what you say bounces off mine and sticks to yours.

I figured I would keep my response at the level of yours. :laugh:

We are already there.

This was actually not a response to you, it was more a commentary on an observation I made.

elaborate.

Yes.

Racism, anti-immigrationism, either covert or overt
An intertwining of corporate and state functions, serving the interests of elites
A positive view of violence
Emphasis on continued expansion, imperialism, and conquest
Nationalism & Exceptionalism (we are the chosen ones)
An emphasis on the superiority of masculinity
Maintenance of existing of social stratification
Romantic and/or religious symbolism
Emphasis on competition, within accepted societal norms

Funny how you've excluded features of fascism, that aren't really describing the USA :D
However, those points that you wrote down apply to basically every authoritarian state, excluding "imperialism".
Fascism is a movement that rejects and fights modernism, searching an answer in pre-enlightenment or neo-traditionalism. For fascists, "Degeneracy" is the product of modernist, post-enlighentment and democratic thinking and doing. Hence the romanticism for empires, like the Roman one.
We can't observe such an attitude in america, as the States ARE the (apparent) proponents of modernist ideals, in the context of capitalism.
The second point that doesn't work out with America is the notion of Volksgemeinschaft, replacing class war with corporatism on a basis of nationalism. There's really no way this applies to the USA.
And like it or not, authoritarianism IS in fact a trait of fascism. And the States are obviously not authoritarian, like it or not.

MarxistPC

27th June 2014, 18:34

I know I'm going to ruffle feathers, but I'd say it's already here in nascent form. However, fascism looks different--as it does for every country it's been implemented in. I would say our model is similar to Francoist Spain, but with that good old American corporate flair. :grin:

Many attribute the quote "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" to Sinclair Lewis, author of It Can't Happen Here--a dystopian novel about precisely the topic at hand.

In the book American Fascism, Chris Hedges draws parallels between the Christian right in the US and Nazism. Often times words like that are applied far too loosely and the terms Nazi and fascist are used as slurs for those we don't like. So I can certainly appreciate skepticism anytime someone uses that term to describe a particular group of individuals. In this case, however, the term is appropriately applied.

Dominion Theology continues to be a driving force in America. In fact, I believe 9/11 had a strengthening effect on it. It should give us pause worldwide that many inside the US's DoD subscribe to this Christian Dominionism. It is Christianity fueled by a hatred of open society, zealotic nationalism and imperialism American Exceptionalism.

Consider the US's current situation. What else would one call that, other than fascism 2.0? What else would you call a situation where you have ideologues with push-button control over nuclear warheads, drones that can assassinate anyone at a memos notice from our President within moments (see the National Defense Act of 2014), and a full fledged surveillance state (revealed by the Snowden leaks) that puts the Stasi of the GDR to shame? Am I an alarmist? What would you have called me if I told you our internet traffic was being stored and collected in hard drives in a NSA datacenter before the Snowden leaks were revealed?

The key point to get is that by the time the 80s came around the Stasi had learned (in part, thanks to research from the FBIs COINTELPRO program in the 60s) that there isn't a need to throw people in gulags or prisons and torture them to quell dissent. In fact, it was found to be counter-productive because one creates martyrs. It is much more effective to discredit one's opponents. Sound familiar? Just because we don't have gulags and widespread torture of citizens, doesn't mean we already don't have totalitarianism. Our technology allows us to maintain a totalitarian regime that maintains a nice, clean, friendly exterior.

While I have optimism for the left long-term, the short game seems to indicate things will get worse before they get better in the states.

I'll leave you with a partial quote from Hedges,

I would go further. I would say our role is demolish all unjustified authorities and hierarchies and emancipate human beings once and for all. Forever.

I wrote something about this earlier in the week on the Anti-Fascism thread. So I'll just leave it here for you guys on my thought on the matter.

Though I was only 10 years old when I saw it I don’t think I’ll ever get over it. The sight of people dressed in colonial era whigs, armed with muskets parading in Washington D.C., not as a reenactment but as the most impactful political movement since the Civil Rights struggle of the 20th Century, is something that is uniquely American. Getting off buses en masse, armed with ideological zeal, and shots of sound bites heard all around, these so called revolutionaries were not playing dress-up. Fed and foddered by the vast right-wing news machine ranging anything from talk radio, television, or literature, they were angry and gearing up for a fight. They said they were peaceful and “came unarmed...this time”. But something about the presence of these protestors was seemingly driving the Left apoplectic with the rest of society left to ask the question, “What the hell is going on”?

Beyond looking like a skit that you might see on The Daily Show, it become a force that is causing the total derailing and disintegration of the Republican Party. This seemingly bizarre movement, is a reflection of some of the most conservative and reactionary politics in United States history, therefore worthy of taking for anyone interested in contemporary politics. It has been astounding growing up with the emergence of popular Right movements in the United States in the form of the Tea Party and in Europe as nationalistic and openly fascist movements like Golden Dawn. In this particular political moment as the world reels from economic disaster, the Left has had no real response to the crisis, only to follow the same policy that the public disdains: austerity. Pushed by in Europe by the bureaucrats in Brussels and in the United States by the economic elite, this guiding principle that demands the scrapping of social spending gives the same vitriolic reaction every time it is implemented.

So in the process of trying to find out how the Right came to claim the working classes especially in the United States I came across, Invisible Hands: The Businessman's Crusade Against The New Deal, written by Kim Phillips-Fein. In the book she explains how Franklin Roosevelt, himself a capitalist but a social Democrat, saw that fascism was a grave threat to the Left's vision of a capitalist democracy, so he created the New Deal Coalition. The Industrial workers of the North, Farmer's of the West, poor of the South, and the newly created middle class, merged into the most successful political coalition’s in modern political history.

Feeling robbed of the power that they felt had been taken from them during the New Deal Era, powerful heads of corporations like the head of Milton Steel, the DuPont Family, U.S. Steel and Oil, in conjunction with professors of economics from the Austrian School like Ludwig Von Mises, Hayek, and Milton Friedman, began associations and round tables for devising a way to "get our message out... tell the world our side of the story". Several of these groups were founded and nearly all of them failed, but beginning in the late 1960s and 1970s with the general strikes in the United States and around the world for higher wages they received large amounts of money from Coors Beer, U.S. Steel, G.M. and DuPont Chemical in order to break the strikes, and unfortunately for us they won.

They generated entire political and economic theories in the form of what is called Libertarianism, far from their European counterparts they advocate the “Free-Market” almost as if it were a deity. Believing that markets are the ultimate form of democracy, they wish to implement the area of exchange on every facet of life. “Gain wealth forgetting all but self”, as the old labor rally cry goes, their ideology was cooked up by thinkers like Milton Friedman, who among being a racist, taught the “Chicago Boys” who flew down to Chile after Augusto Pinochet took power and created the economic policies that flushed the population back down to the third world from which they painstakingly crawled out of. Though the followers of Libertarianism believe it sincerely enough to have generated an entire political movement in the form of Ron Paul, their corporate masters are more than happy to have that message spread. One in which they are freed from any responsibility to their communities or the environment, by reducing the State to enforcing contracts and fighting wars, totally impotent to regulate them.

The John Birch Society and the National Review began to push this message within the Republican Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but for the most part were laughed out of conventions and meetings. So they took their message to the airwaves to spread, with the fervor of preachers believing every word and tenant of their ideology as if revealed by God, their Libertarian message. We all know what the religion says, "markets are efficient, the public should be subject to market discipline, but not for the rich, they need a powerful nanny state in order to bail them out". It's also very anti-union, and against what they call big government. That has meant for the population a major assault on social spending and the destruction of one of the only places where the working class can get together to have ideas in their class interest: Union meetings. But once again the hypocrisy, markets are good for you but not good for the rich, as union meetings are bad for the middle class and "kill jobs", but for the rich being able to meet together through dinners that cost more than their workers monthly salaries, retreats, and associations such as the American Enterprise Institute, The John Birch Society, The Heritage Foundation, the Chamber of Commerce, and Bilderberg Group, along with many others, this is just what's best for you.

But as suspected if you tell a middle class, that has been according to the Wall Street Journal "pampered for far too long", that the gravy train ends here and they must give up their health care, their children's college education, pension funds, strike and work environment protections, they are likely to put up some resistance. But what was the tranquilizer of the solution to be? As Marx recorded a century earlier in this response to Hegel's Theory of Right and probably the most misunderstood Marxian quote ever, "Religion is the opium of the people... not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and destroy it". And here came the Valium in the form of the Religious Right, the Jerry Falwell's, Pat Robertson's, John Hagee's, and Mike Huckabee's of the world.

After over a decade under the Civil Right's Act of 1964 and the 1970s economic crisis, the New Deal Coalition was on the ropes and the seemingly strange bedfellows of the godless "Libertarians" and the Religious Dominionists got together to exploit the insecurities and fears of a racist and increasingly xenophobic poor southern industrial worker class and married them to the "law and order" politics in Northern cities as a reaction to the 1960s mass movements. Forged as we know it today in the policies of busing and integration, The Christian Right began as a movement as white families removed their children from public schools to private christian academies that respected their “values”. Convinced that the old New Deal style preachers that engaged in the civil disobedience of the 1960s were a part of the problem of their children going out into the streets, they turned to new more reactionary voices. It didn’t help that out of the protests and marches grew the feminist and LGBT liberation movements. They formed what are known as Mega Churches, profit making machines that the solicitors for the Saint Peter’s Cathedral would have launched a crusade for.

The Religious Right offered the population answers to what must have seen an apocalyptic situation, their cultural station as "White Christians" had been stripped away by the Civil Rights Act, abortion had just been adjudicated to be legal, those they labeled perverts were in the streets marching for equal rights, along with their communities growing poorer, beginning to resemble third world countries. They began to, "confuse the iconography of the Christian religion with the patriotic symbolism of the United States" according to Chris Hedges in his book, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.

Meshing together the Free Market Religion with that of the Christian Religion on the lines of it's protestant work ethic and need for Universal Truths such as responsibility (a mask for the laziness of blacks and minorities), and morality (their version of who you should go to bed with in what position and what to do with a child if it is conceived), these forces found themselves in total control in the 1980 elections winning a landslide victory for the White House and Congress. Giving us some of the most reactionary statists that the United States government has ever played host to. The cabinet of the Reagan Administration, featured former and future heads from Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, the Oil Industry, the Arms Industry, and some of the most religious ceremonies and events in modern political history.

Holding God and Country Rallies, which were so disturbing to those who lived under the threat of the Swastika they were talked about in intellectual circles and in the media throughout Europe very seriously. They pushed free market tenants, the Christian Religion, and what Forbes has called a "a culture of ignorance... that states my ignorance of the facts is just as valid as your informed opinion", as an assertion against intellectualism, internationalism, secularism, and a tolerant socially democratic open society. The things that we all hold dear as apart of the basic tenants of civilization, they have cast into the fire and are generating their political and social power with their hatred them.

Their economic policies have destroyed and alienated the middle class from one another, the hope of college education for most of society, impoverished the third world, and rendered the Left as an incompetent force. Their Christian-Militarism in conjunction with the military industrial complex have created Christian soldiers out of the South that believe that they are fighting a war not against an ideology, but called upon by God to wage a holy war against the muslim infidels. Their social policies, best said by Christopher Hitchens, "have relegated women to a station not much above animals in that they are forced to have and carry children they do not want, destroyed the lives of homosexuals through lies and distortions, of whom they know nothing about, and created an atmosphere so toxic to intellectualism and unfettered investigations that in the 21st Century we are having to teach the equivalent of Alchemy in the form of Creationism".

With their ducks in a row, the Corporate sector running the show used this new found political base to assume control of the Republican party and radically snatch the American political spectrum to Right. Opposed to the opening up of and connecting of the world, the Republican Party have a long list of people they hate, including blacks, homosexuals, feminists, Muslims, the impoverished, Jews, intellectuals, liberals, and "Illegal Aliens". Republicans and their radical insurgency known as the Tea Party have come not to claim the conversation but close it completely. As one of the most respected conservative commentators in the world Norman J. Ornstein said in a Washington Post Op-Ed titled, Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem, they (Republicans) have become, “an insurgent outlier in American politics... Ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science”.

The greatest example of this is the Koch Brothers who themselves claim to be Christians and are the poster boys in American politics who funded the entire Republican/Tea-Party ticket in 2010, 2012, and intend to do even more damage in 2014 and 2016. They have funded the bus's that drew the Tea Party into the Capital dressed in costumes like Benjamin Franklin and Musket men, they are the head of Koch Industries who are trying to strip mine the last carbon sinks in the world in Alberta,Canada, and send the oil sands through the heartland of the United States via the Keystone XL pipeline. They have fed and funded the Fox News network along with the right wing media in order to distract their base from the real dangers in the world, and do so quite successfully.

With what has been called the shocking defeat of the House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, which is the first defeat of a sitting House Majority Leader in his own primary in history, by someone who calls himself a Tea Party Candidate, David Brat is a product of the Koch Political Machine. White, straight, and rich he claims to be the voice of the people who he describes as, “everyday Americans”. But for all his honest talk and common man machinations he owes a ggreat deal of his success to the Cato Institute, formerly known as The Charles Koch Foundation. John Allison, the former CEO of the BB&T gave $500,000 to Randolph Macon College in order to hire Mr.Brat under the guise of the “BB&T Moral Foundations of Capitalism Program” hosted by the “Millennials for FREEdom”. Allison was picked up by the Cato Institute of which he is President today. The Koch Machine, of which the Cato Institute is apart of, is the largest buyer of ads on right wing talk radio especially during campaign season. Giving over $700,000 to famous right-wing radio host Mark Levin, who on his show for the past months has been praising David Brat as the people’s hero. David Brat, a tea party candidate and a professor of economics said repeatedly that he has done his best to converge his “three guiding principles”: economics+religion+politics. Constantly going on about how "Universal Truths" should guide every function of political and social life, surprise surprise, they're all Christian tenets of faith melded together with a commitment to the "Free Market.... where all people are treated equally". Once again reaching back to religion where truths that were laid down at the beginning of time, "Natural Law", are to be respected and revered. Jesus in this manufactured world was a free market guru.

I’m willing to wager however, that once Mr.Brat ascends to Congress, he will likely follow in the same footsteps that his predecessor and the Congress as a whole trek, serving the rich and powerful. David Brat along with the the Tea Party and modern right-wing have been bred in the Koch Machine’s laboratories of deceit and engineered with the genes to be blissfully ignorant of the world around them, they march to the tune that their corporate masters have sounded off. As Emma Goldman quipped about the majority that the rich hypnotized in her day, "It clings to its masters, loves the whip, and is the first to cry Crucify! the moment a protesting voice is raised against the sacredness of capitalistic authority or any other decayed institution". They pray for a coming of Jesus Christ just as they wish for a "truly" free-market system that will unchain of itself of the only apparatus that could contain it, the State. Disregarding the biggest threat to the world today: Climate Change, they claim it can’t be happening because God promised Noah never to flood the Earth again.

Fascism is always hard to understand and to conceive, mainly due to the fact that when you hear it, it's rhetoric sounds so much like the Left. If you go back to see Hitler's Speeches he's often speaking about how in Germany under the National Socialist Regime,"it's not the rich who should take care of the poor, or the poor to the rich, but it's the job of every citizen to consider that every other German might me less fortunate than those above and below them". Along with many other ways that Fascism might take hold past the co-opting of the left’s rhetoric, in the eyes of Mussolini, fascism meant the corporate sector taking over the State directly. When he came to power he dissolved the Parliament, and instituted in it's place the Fascistas Corporatisas Assembly, which was a governing body of the heads and representatives of corporations.

There is a convergence of these two different conceptions of Fascism, both involving putting into control of the State the two utmost authoritarian institutions in human history: the Corporation and the Church. One in which orders come from the top down and if you don't carry them out you're fired and someone else far less nicer than you will carry them out, in the latter case orders come from God and if you don't follow them you're damned to hell. But we are facing two branches of Fascism that openly embrace each other and want the same thing: Corporate control and Christian dominance in every conceivable social arena.

In his essay on Fascism and what it is, Leon Trotsky identified some of it's characteristics that he described while he witnessed the rise of Fascism during the 1930s. He characterized it as Chris Hedges did, a failed revolution, one in which power employs the petty bourgeois as in order to assert their power and authority that comes from land owning in a State-Capitalist society, against social deviants in a Christian lens. In America's case it is homosexuals, blacks, feminists, along with all religions and denominations that don’t believe in their interpretation of the Bible.

We live in a time that corporate power has for all intents and purposes performed a coup d'etat of the State. They get what they want when they want irrespective of the public's needs. What's that, you want Universal Health Care? I'm sorry that's politically unpalatable or impossible because only the American Public wants it, now what about those tax breaks we were talking about? The Religious Right has been weakened greatly though, they have lost their Holy War that they labeled a "Culture War", against Gays, Abortion, Illicit Drugs, and daily through the actions of their last vestiges in the form of NOM (National Organization for Marriage) show how disillusioned the vast majority of the country has become to their casuistry. But in the form of the Tea Party it has stayed alive and with it's racist roots has become one of the most verbal and outspoken forces in American politics. It has become the source of outlet for a befuddled and angered working class and middle class that has found themselves in a world where they cannot survive in modern society on their own wages. So they have created Boogeymen out of undocumented workers who have taken their jobs, violent lazy blacks who want their daughters even more than their welfare checks, and the homosexuals that are out to ruin their last social structure: the family. They want to restore honor and truth and responsibility to the country of which they feel has been taken from them.

But to close with a warning and a hopefully the beginning of a fruitful conversation leading to action against the greatest threat to the world in human history. Though first that sounds from Mars in it's exaggeration, understand what the goals of the Corporate Fascists are, to have access to, exploit, and sell every commodity, natural resource, and human on the planet. If we assume that the Earth resources are infinite or that Climate Change isn't as drastic as scientists are saying then we have some time to figure out a plan of attack against the immense wealth, power, and ignorance that lie ahead. But with the continuing warning of scientists that are now filling up entire scientific journals weekly now with dire warnings growing worse every week, time is quickly running out. This isn't ozone, this is a global climate crisis caused directly by humans releasing billions of ton of CO2 into the atmosphere for the greater part of the past 300 years, and in recent years with continuing compound growth things are guaranteed to only get worse. Make no mistake Capitalism must go and they will fight us with all of the resources they can reach for in order to distract, distort, and stupefy the public who if they knew that they were joyously marching over a cliff would try and do something about it.

Brothers and sisters, Anarchists especially, it will take our wit and zeal to abolish these reactionaries and their hatred. But we must act fast, the Fascists are already here.

Revolver

27th June 2014, 18:50

There is no coherent definition for "fascism," notwithstanding the attempts to define it. You can easily define away the possibility that a fascist state would emerge in the United States, or you can try to understand how counter-revolutionary, radical inegalitarian authoritarianism would try to manage the capitalist crisis in the United States. And if you impose limits based on what happened during the mid 20th century, fascism is unlikely to emerge anywhere ever again, and certainly not the United States. But if you are trying to understand fascism as an objective phenomenon, as a ruling class strategy for managing class conflict in times of crisis and revolutionary potential, then you should not be so limited.

The aversion to this kind of analysis stems in part from political considerations, i.e., the overuse of the term "fascist" as a term of abuse for one's political opponents. But that is not what we are discussing. We're discussing how something akin to fascism would take shape in a country that was never limited by the feudal structure the way that Europe was, where there is a completely different set of institutions in place and where there are very different mass organizational techniques, and also well after the digital revolution. So to suggest that American fascism will look like European fascism in the 1920s, 30s and 40s is ridiculous.

Also to suggest there's some kind consensus among members of the Left on the definition is equally absurd. As I've indicated elsewhere, I don't think that it was ever a coherent movement or set of beliefs. If you are going to analyze it, you have to examine it by using comparative historical methods, and you need to examine what the correlates are within the US political economy in order to figure out how it would play out here.

I'm not suggesting that fascism is here, btw. On that point I would disagree with Loonyleftist. I think that there is a budding tendency, but I don't think that the US regime is fascist. Do I think it can get there in the near future? I'm not sure. If the right crisis conditions are present, I suspect it could.

Tim Cornelis

27th June 2014, 19:06

The aversion to this kind of analysis stems in part from political considerations, i.e., the overuse of the term "fascist" as a term of abuse for one's political opponents. But that is not what we are discussing. We're discussing how something akin to fascism would take shape in a country that was never limited by the feudal structure the way that Europe was, where there is a completely different set of institutions in place and where there are very different mass organizational techniques, and also well after the digital revolution. So to suggest that American fascism will look like European fascism in the 1920s, 30s and 40s is ridiculous.

No, this aversion stems from an actual analysis of what fascism is ideologically, and in relation to the ruling class. And yes, also not hysterically screaming 'totalitarianism! Fascism!' against any authoritarian-leaning style of government.

We are already there.

Nope. Not even by a long shot.

Racism, anti-immigrationism, either covert or overt
An intertwining of corporate and state functions, serving the interests of elites
A positive view of violence
Emphasis on continued expansion, imperialism, and conquest
Nationalism & Exceptionalism (we are the chosen ones)
An emphasis on the superiority of masculinity
Maintenance of existing of social stratification
Romantic and/or religious symbolism
Emphasis on competition, within accepted societal norms

Right........ None of that is fascist. Basically commonplace bourgeois values. Is there any country non-fascist by these standards? Iran is, Cuba is, Venezuela is, Brazil is, China is, Greece is, Russia is.

You keep plugging your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala. I understand it's part of the psychological process of acceptance. I'm sorry that you are so myopic that you cannot get that totalitarianism (technofascism) no longer requires physical brutality.

Haha, wow. Sorry, but this is really dumb. It's like saying "you're too dense to recognise totalitarianism/fascism does not require the fundamental and defining features of totalitarianism/fascism." Comradski, you do not know what totalitarianism.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/600435/totalitarianism

"totalitarianism, form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of the individual’s life to the authority of the government ... In the broadest sense, totalitarianism is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression." This includes, "all aspects", culture, entertainment, sports are all subject to the political hegemony of the state. So, in Nazi Germany we see mandatory youth clubs for political indoctrination, banning of all art that is deemed undesirable (regulations of arts to ensure they are aligned with the political ideology of the state, or those who rule the state), banning civil liberties (free speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, etc.) to ensure subjugation to the will of the state, and no free and fair (by liberal standards) elections.

You can continue to have your view that fascism must have concentration camps, and physical torture. At least you won't see the fact that they have already slipped the chains on you. But I'm just a hysterical conspiracy theorist. Akin to those tin foil hatters that claimed the state was spying on us and storing our information in datacenters.

Yeah, no one denied that. Only in hindsight the people who emphasised this claimed everyone said they were crazy.

Anyway, copy-pasting a rebuttal it is. What is fascism? It's not a secret or incremental process of a liberal democratic government developing some authoritarian-leanings, and then anything beyond that.

"Griffin's definition of fascism can be boiled down to three words: "palingenetic populist ultra-nationalism."[38] Each of these terms needs explanation:

Palingenetic -- from the Greek palin (again or anew) + genesis (creation or birth) --refers to a myth or vision of collective rebirth after a period of crisis or decline.
Populist, in Griffin's usage, means a form of politics that draws its claims of legitimacy from "the people" (as opposed, for example, to a monarchical dynasty or divine appointment) and uses mass mobilization to win power and transform society.
Ultra-nationalism treats the nation as a higher, organic unity to which all other loyalites must be subordinated. Ultra-nationalism rejects "anything compatible with liberal institutions or with the tradition of Enlightenment humanism which underpins them."[39]

As a form of populist ultra-nationalism, fascism fundamentally rejects the liberal principles of pluralism and individual rights, as well as the socialist principles of class-based solidarity and internationalism, all of which threaten the nation's organic unity. At the same time, fascism rejects traditional bases for authority, such as the monarchy or nobility, in favor of charismatic politics and a new, self-appointed political elite that claims to embody the people's will. Fascism seeks to build a mass movement of everyone considered part of the national community, actively engaged but controlled from above, to seize political power and remake the social order. This movement is driven by a vision "of the national community rising phoenix-like after a period of encroaching decadence which all but destroyed it."[40] Such rebirth involves systematic, top-down transformation of all social spheres by an authoritarian state, and suppression or purging of all forces, ideologies, and social groups the fascists define as alien.

Nevertheless, Griffin's focus on fascism's myth of collective rebirth represents a conceptual breakthrough, which has widely influenced the field of fascism studies. The palingenetic element gives Griffin's model of fascism more precision than some earlier ones (such as Mihaly Vajda's), which identify fascist ideology simply with ultra- or "organic" nationalism. The focus on palingenetic myth also clarifies fascism's apparent contradiction between forward- and backward-looking tendencies. As Griffin notes, although some forms of fascism invoke the glories of an earlier age, they do so as inspiration for creating a "new order," not restoring an old one. Fascism "thus represents an alternative modernism rather than a rejection of it."[44]

Griffin's definition of fascism also excludes most of the dictatorships that have often been labeled fascist. He has suggested the term para-fascist to describe many of these.[46] A para-fascist regime is imposed from above (often by the military) and represents traditional elites trying to preserve the old order, but surrounds its conservative core with fascist trappings. These trappings may include an official state party, paramilitary organizations, a leader cult, mass political ritual, corporatism, and the rhetoric of ultranationalist regeneration. Para-fascist regimes may be just as ruthless as genuine fascist ones in their use of state terrorism. Unlike true fascism, para-fascism does not represent a genuine populist mobilization and does not substantively challenge established institutions. During the 1920s and 1930s, Griffin argues, para-fascist regimes arose in several European countries, such as Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Romania, and Austria, joined by the Vichy government after France surrendered to Germany in 1940. Para-fascist regimes regarded genuine fascist movements as a threat and used various strategies to contain, coopt, or crush them. In Spain during the Civil War, for example, General Franco "imposed a shot-gun marriage between Falangists and the traditional (that is non-fascist) radical right" as part of his strategy to establish a para-fascist dictatorship.[47]

Although his focus is on fascist ideology, Griffin also addresses the broader social and political factors that promote fascism's rise. He argues that the growth of a strong fascist movement is only possible under a special combination of circumstances: a liberal democracy (where there is political space for fascist organizing) experiencing a major crisis (which gives visions of radical rebirth broad appeal) and without strong non-fascist right-wing forces (which block fascism's ability to build mass support). For a fascist seizure of political power, the window of opportunity is even narrower: the liberal democracy must be "mature enough institutionally to preclude the threat of a direct military or monarchical coup, yet too immature to be able to rely on a substantial consensus in the general population" around liberal values. Griffin argues that fascist movements have reached such an opportunity in only four countries: Italy (1918-22), Germany (1918-23, 1929-33), Finland (1929-32), and South Africa (1939-43).[49]"

http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~lyonsm/TwoWays.html
http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~lyonsm/TwoWays.html
http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~lyonsm/TwoWays.html

So we see, Golden Dawn is fascist for its ultranationalism, appeals to a romantic vision of Hellenic culture, its militarism, etc. While the USA is not by a long shot. Ukraine was/is quite fertile ground for fascism:
It's a liberal democracy experiencing a major crisis;
It's "mature enough institutionally to preclude the threat of a direct military or monarchical coup [unlike Egypt recently], yet too immature to be able to rely on a substantial consensus in the general population [around liberal values]", which is true as we can see from social attitudes (basing this on a Pew research survey). So unsurprisingly, we see (para-)fascist movements flourishing in Ukraine, in the west Svoboda and Right Sector, in the East there are some as well.

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 19:44

Right........ None of that is fascist. Basically commonplace bourgeois values. Is there any country non-fascist by these standards? Iran is, Cuba is, Venezuela is, Brazil is, China is, Greece is, Russia is.

I would say China is definitely fascist along with the DPRK. Am I gonna get flamed for that shit. You fucking bet. I don't give a fuck. I'm used to it. :laugh:

Haha, wow. Sorry, but this is really dumb. It's like saying "you're too dense to recognise totalitarianism/fascism does not require the fundamental and defining features of totalitarianism/fascism." Comradski, you do not know what totalitarianism.

I'm not saying you are too dense to recognize fascism. I'm saying that you are in denial. They are two different things. Dense would imply you are stupid--despite your own lack of aversion to reaching into insults.

My whole point is that totalitarianism can be nice. You can be controlled through more subtle means than the threat of being blugoned with a truncheton. Totalitarianism is sinister. Especially with the level of technology we have today. It is so easy to spread rumours about people on social media. To destroy reputations by clicking send. There is no need to torture individuals anymore. You get it, brah? :D

So, in Nazi Germany we see mandatory youth clubs for political indoctrination, banning of all art that is deemed undesirable (regulations of arts to ensure they are aligned with the political ideology of the state, or those who rule the state), banning civil liberties (free speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, etc.) to ensure subjugation to the will of the state, and no free and fair (by liberal standards) elections.

What is the need to ban these things when you can control the flow of information? We live in a whole different society now. Welcome to the fucking 21st century, comrade.

Yeah, no one denied that. Only in hindsight the people who emphasised this claimed everyone said they were crazy.

That's what people say in hindsight. I remember saying that shit and getting my ass flamed. Just like I am now. After all, I'm just a loony leftist, remember? :laugh:

[copy pasted rebuttal from some ivory tower academic shit]

So we see, Golden Dawn is fascist for its ultranationalism, appeals to a romantic vision of Hellenic culture, its militarism, etc. While the USA is not by a long shot.

Absolutely. GD is far more overt with it's form of opression. Which is why it will eventually collapse. However, more dangerous than the evil we can see, is the evil which we cannot.

Ukraine was/is quite fertile ground for fascism:
It's a liberal democracy experiencing a major crisis;
It's "mature enough institutionally to preclude the threat of a direct military or monarchical coup [unlike Egypt recently], yet too immature to be able to rely on a substantial consensus in the general population [around liberal values]", which is true as we can see from social attitudes (basing this on a Pew research survey). So unsurprisingly, we see (para-)fascist movements flourishing in Ukraine, in the west Svoboda and Right Sector, in the East there are some as well.

I hear you. Again, those fascist movements are overt. I'm talking about a far more sinister evil.

Nothing but love, brah. No hate intended.

--Loony Leftist.

LuÃs Henrique

27th June 2014, 19:50

Fascism is a kind of dictatorship, and dictatorships are peculiar forms of bourgeois regime, in which some institutions rule on behalf of the bourgeoisie. Those institutions, in fascism, are the police and a political party, promoted into State-party.

Fascism, consequently, demands one-party rule (and indeed forcibly incorporation of vast contingents of people into the party, who would never join it if it wasn't a State party) and police unaccountability. If these are elements are missing, it is absolutely certain that the regime is not fascist, but either a bourgeois democracy (which is what the United States are) or some other, different, kind of bourgeois dictatorship (military dictatorship, bonapartism, "clerical fascism", regressive dictatorships such as those of Salazar or Franco, etc).

Fascism is not merely violence against the working class - bourgeois democracy can do it quite smoothly too.

Racism, anti-immigrationism, either covert or overt
An intertwining of corporate and state functions, serving the interests of elites
A positive view of violence
Emphasis on continued expansion, imperialism, and conquest
Nationalism & Exceptionalism (we are the chosen ones)
An emphasis on the superiority of masculinity
Maintenance of existing of social stratification
Romantic and/or religious symbolism
Emphasis on competition, within accepted societal norms

Those things necessarily exist in any capitalist society. But their configuration is quite different in fascism, when compared to other bourgeois regimes.

For instance, "racism and anti-immigrationism". Racism in fascist regimes serves as an instrument of national mobilisation against a perceived "internal enemy", and such mobilisation is coordinated and pushed forward by State agencies - mainly the party, plus of course the police and all agencies that deal with borders, immigration, etc. This isn't the police applying double standards toward immigrants or Jews or Blacks, as is the case in most bourgeois democracies. It is the police actually directly harrassing those people, or supporting party paramilitary in doing so. Racism in bourgeois democracies, on the contrary, is merely a substratum upon which the police and other State agencies act, without the need of actively promoting it.

Or take "continued expansion, imperialism, and conquest". The US is quite obviously an imperialist power. But it mainly rules the world without imposing direct American administration upon its client States. They don't need to occupy militarily Brazil or India or France (on the contrary, they seem to usually prefer that these countries administrate themselves, and bear the economic and political burdens of such administration).

Or "emphasis on competition, within accepted societal norms", which is indeed much more visible and important in bourgeois democracies than in fascist regimes, in which several aspects of competition are constrained (starting of course with political competition, which is for the most part simply repressed, and going down to the "coordination" aspect of capitalist economies under fascism, in which the autonomy of the several individual capitals is quite harshly subordinated to State interests).

Or "a positive view of violence", which must be very different between States that do not have a conscript army and States that deliberately seek to militarise most aspects of social life.

You can look yourself at the other points of your list, and realise that while all of them are present in both fascist and bourgeois-democratic regimes, they play very different roles, are promoted by different agencies, and relate to each other quite differently (racism relates to militarism in the USA by making the military an important way open to social ascension of "racial" minorities; racism related to militarism in Nazi Germany by almost completely closing the military to "racial" minorities, and indeed making it an important tool of social exclusion).

Luís Henrique

Црвена

27th June 2014, 20:35

Do not fall into the trap of pessimism! :grin: We have one another! On the contrary I see a more collectivist leftist society after about a generation or so. Perhaps by the mid 21st century the latest. History shows us that people will not stay oppressed. In ancient times it was harder to fight oppression. Keep in mind that the same technology used to enslave and indoctrinate can also be used to emancipate. Do not lose hope

I think the emancipation will come after the indoctrination, as a reaction to it. When people are completely sick and tired of inequality, injustice and corrupt authoritarian governments, the revolution will happen. But this won't happen unless the left get our act together, create class consciousness, present ourselves as an alternative to and way out of fascism and learn from our past mistakes when fighting fascism *cough*Spanish Civil War*cough*.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

27th June 2014, 20:39

I think we need a thread devoted to defining what fascism actually means. According to the definition provided, pretty much every government since the rise of Mercantilism could be defined as "fascist". Anyone from Robespierre to Stalin to Queen Victoria to Abraham Lincoln could be defined as "fascist" according to these overly broad definitions.

People confuse nationalism and authoritarianism with fascism. If fascism doesn't fit exactly, we can just create some trendy neologism like "technofascism" or "monarchofascism" to describe it properly.

Yet that's not what fascism is - it is a particular model of capitalism which responds to particular historical circumstances, and initially arose in post-war Europe. It is distinct from authoritarian state capitalism, militarism, libertarianism, neoliberalism, nationalistic imperialism, religious fundamentalism, monarchial conservatism and other political models envisioned by Capitalists as a response to their conditions. Each of those ideologies is shitty for its own reasons. Each of these ideologies should be criticized for the structures unique to it. We should not just conflate them all as forms of fascism just because it includes cops who aren't nice and enforce racist laws, or forms of collusion between state and capital, or socially conservative values. They all have particular, vague similarities to fascism to varying degrees, but none of them are inherently fascist on their own.

Tim Cornelis

27th June 2014, 20:44

I'm not saying you are too dense to recognize fascism. I'm saying that you are in denial. They are two different things. Dense would imply you are stupid--despite your own lack of aversion to reaching into insults.

You're in denial of political analysis.

My whole point is that totalitarianism can be nice.

Your whole point is that totalitarianism can be totalitarian without being totalitarian.

You can be controlled through more subtle means than the threat of being blugoned with a truncheton. Totalitarianism is sinister. Especially with the level of technology we have today. It is so easy to spread rumours about people on social media. To destroy reputations by clicking send. There is no need to torture individuals anymore. You get it, brah? :D

Yeah I get it. That would just mean that present technology has made totalitarianism obsolete, not that it is totalitarianism.

It's also a stupid reason, see McCarthyism.

What is the need to ban these things when you can control the flow of information? We live in a whole different society now. Welcome to the fucking 21st century, comrade.

Right, that would just mean that the control of flow of information makes totalitarian rule obsolete, not that it is totalitarianism. It's also eh, silly, because the government can't and doesn't.

That's what people say in hindsight. I remember saying that shit and getting my ass flamed. Just like I am now. After all, I'm just a loony leftist, remember? :laugh:

Absolutely. GD is far more overt with it's form of opression. Which is why it will eventually collapse. However, more dangerous than the evil we can see, is the evil which we cannot.

I hear you. Again, those fascist movements are overt. I'm talking about a far more sinister evil.

Nothing but love, brah. No hate intended.

--Loony Leftist.

No, you're talking about rule which is not fascist, which you deem fascist, because both of them are styles of rule, or ruling over people. It's an irrelevant parallel.

Buttscratcher

27th June 2014, 20:46

Why would they want fascism? They might take a few policies similar to it, but to exchange their current system for one that might not even last longer than one leadership before collapsing would be sort of stupid.

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 21:04

You're in denial of political analysis.

Whatever brah. I'm not an ivory tower academic. Sue me. :laugh:

Your whole point is that totalitarianism can be totalitarian without being totalitarian.

I just said that totalitarianism can be nice. Did you even read what you quoted? If the end result is the same--a subjugated population--what is the difference?

Yeah I get it. That would just mean that present technology has made totalitarianism obsolete, not that it is totalitarianism.

See now we are just arguing over semantical bullshit. The character of totalitarianism can change, even though the end result is control of the population. I call a spade a spade. Intellectual circle jerking isn't my thing.

Right, that would just mean that the control of flow of information makes totalitarian rule obsolete, not that it is totalitarianism.

No it means that the old definitions of totalitarianism are obsolete. Again, the goal is control of the population. The precise means are unimportant.

It's also eh, silly, because the government can't and doesn't.

That is why there is NSA data collection equipment at various communication hubs throughout the country. There is a very large one in Atlanta, which was put in place with the cooperation of AT&T. There was an expose on that years ago. Of course, no one payed attention. The government can't and doesn't. Right.

No, you're talking about rule which is not fascist, which you deem fascist, because both of them are styles of rule, or ruling over people. It's an irrelevant parallel.

No. It is about controlling what people think, hear and see. It is about controlling access. Totalitarianism has changed. It's time we bring our definitions up to speed.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

27th June 2014, 21:08

Whatever brah. I'm not an ivory tower academic. Sue me. :laugh:

With all due respect, I don't think it's reasonable to make broad claims on political philosophy then resort to anti-intellectualism when you are challenged on it. You are dealing with issues which "ivory tower" political scientists etc have been talking about.

No. It is about controlling what people think, hear and see. It is about controlling access. Totalitarianism has changed. It's time we bring our definitions up to speed.

First, totalitarianism =/= fascism. Second, I think if we're going to try to see how terms change, we should avoid losing what is essential about them.

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 21:15

With all due respect, I don't think it's reasonable to make broad claims on political philosophy then resort to anti-intellectualism when you are challenged on it. You are dealing with issues which "ivory tower" political scientists etc have been talking about.

Well this isn't about anti-intellectualism. It is possible to be intellectual and not lock yourself up in the ivory tower.

First, totalitarianism =/= fascism. Second, I think if we're going to try to see how terms change, we should avoid losing what is essential about them.

Granted.

However, I do think that there are specific things about the US that lead me to conclude that there is a rise of a new type of fascism. You may not want to call it that because it goes against whatever definitions feel good to you. Fascism is a bit of loaded term, as has been pointed out by myself and others. I call it fascism because of the similarities I see. I'm not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong; this is a subjective question. It's something we could debate all day, and not come to a definitive answer about.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

27th June 2014, 21:27

Well this isn't about anti-intellectualism. It is possible to be intellectual and not lock yourself up in the ivory tower.

Maybe, but I don't think Tim Cornelius has locked himself up in such a place.

However, I do think that there are specific things about the US that lead me to conclude that there is a rise of a new type of fascism. You may not want to call it that because it goes against whatever definitions feel good to you. Fascism is a bit of loaded term, as has been pointed out by myself and others. I call it fascism because of the similarities I see. I'm not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong; this is a subjective question. It's something we could debate all day, and not come to a definitive answer about.

I think it's dangerous to make political analysis wholly subjective. When we analyze political economy, we should be soberly analyzing particular characteristics of the society. That way, we can develop an appropriate critique which shows us the specific actions we must take in opposition to it. If political analysis is wholly subjective, then Stalinist Russia and Obama can both be "Communist", despite the fact that the use of the term "communist" to describe either one is inaccurate. Why? Because particular subjective agents call each one "Communist." People also call each one "fascist". We get a world of muddied terms where nobody can properly describe anything without running into the fact that someone out there disagrees or conflates terms that should be used to describe very distinct movements.

Every capitalist society in history has shared important features with fascism, but that doesn't make them fascist, any more than a trapezoid having four sides makes it a square.

Tim Cornelis

27th June 2014, 21:42

I just said that totalitarianism can be nice. Did you even read what you quoted? If the end result is the same--a subjugated population--what is the difference?

Right.... :rolleyes:

By that logic, the Roman empire was a totalitarian fascist state. Wait, government is. You inflated the definition of fascism and totalitarianism to encompass any form of rule, because, in the end, the population is subjugated... What's the difference?

See now we are just arguing over semantical bullshit. The character of totalitarianism can change, even though the end result is control of the population. I call a spade a spade. Intellectual circle jerking isn't my thing.

It's infuriating how you miss the point.

It's more like you call a spade and an excavator and a bucket a spade because in the end, sand gets moved: what's the difference?! The difference is they are entirely different things to move sand.

No it means that the old definitions of totalitarianism are obsolete. Again, the goal is control of the population. The precise means are unimportant.

Control of population = fascism/totalitarianism

In other words government/state is synonymous with fascism/totalitarianism :rolleyes:

That is why there is NSA data collection equipment at various communication hubs throughout the country. There is a very large one in Atlanta, which was put in place with the cooperation of AT&T. There was an expose on that years ago. Of course, no one payed attention. The government can't and doesn't. Right.

Jesus Christ... :rolleyes:

Because monitoring information is totally the same as controlling it.

No. It is about controlling what people think, hear and see. It is about controlling access. Totalitarianism has changed. It's time we bring our definitions up to speed.

Yeah, that's called class rule mate. Jeez.

How about we reserve totalitarian rule for totalitarian rule, mmmk.

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 21:59

By that logic, the Roman empire was a totalitarian fascist state. Wait, government is. You inflated the definition of fascism and totalitarianism to encompass any form of rule, because, in the end, the population is subjugated... What's the difference?

What else would you call the roman empire? It was a fucking totalitarian fascist state.

It's infuriating how you miss the point.

It's more like you call a spade and an excavator and a bucket a spade because in the end, sand gets moved: what's the difference?! The difference is they are entirely different things to move sand.

Well the difference between a spade and excavator is that you can move sand a lot quicker with an excavator. You could essentially call an excavator a more advanced version of a spade. Get it?

Control of population = fascism/totalitarianism

In other words government/state is synonymous with fascism/totalitarianism :rolleyes:

They are different. I agree it is wrong of me to conflate the two. However, I think that fascisms goal is totalitarianism. In that way they are synonymous. While you don't require fascism to cause totalitarianism, fascism is always totalitarianism.

Because monitoring information is totally the same as controlling it.

What is the purpose of monitoring information if not control of some kind. Either controlling the information or controlling people.

Yeah, that's called class rule mate. Jeez.

We find a point of agreement, which I will cherish considering our previous disagreements. :laugh:

How about we reserve totalitarian rule for totalitarian rule, mmmk.

Again, using your own words. A spade is not an excavator. That is true. However we could argue that an excavator is a more advanced version of a spade. That is precisely what I'm arguing here. Our version of totalitarianism is far more advanced and sinister. Fascism was the spade. What we have now is the excavator. A more advanced form.

Slavic

27th June 2014, 22:15

So basically what I'm getting from this thread is:

Communism is Communism.
Everything else is Fascism.

Oh and anything that moves dirt is some varying degree of a shovel.

Mind as well lop off half the dictionary since we are just going to label everything in the most broad terms that we can imagine. To hell with precise analysis, its either communist or fascist; no more need to think or understand why, just "This Good, That Bad".

No need for an Ivory Tower when it is just a tall shitty shovel.

Sinister Intents

27th June 2014, 22:17

I voted no, if anything the USA will become something worse than the fascist regimes IMO.

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 22:21

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 22:23

I voted no, if anything the USA will become something worse than the fascist regimes IMO.

Damn right. Perhaps fascism is the wrong word, since fascism is overt evil. This is covert evil. They'll slip the chains on you in your sleep and you don't even know you're being subjugated. Sinister as fuck. No offense--I love your type of sinister. You know what I mean. :laugh:

Tim Cornelis

27th June 2014, 22:23

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/giveup.gif

Right... An excavator is a spade, and a bucket is a spade.

And a computer, a mobile phone, a telephone, and a Television are all..... electric telegraphs, because they all send messages, electronically.

Trap Queen Voxxy

27th June 2014, 22:30

Tim Cornelis

27th June 2014, 22:34

I wish we still communicated via telegraph and I wish I had a pretty little gold one, lol, oh what fun

We do. This computer sends messages, so do telegraphs, so your computer is a telegraph.

Trap Queen Voxxy

27th June 2014, 22:37

We do. This computer sends messages, so do telegraphs, so your computer is a telegraph.

You know what I mean, the old timey ones with the push thing and such

Sinister Cultural Marxist

27th June 2014, 22:40

What on earth do you folks mean by "evil"? Or "worse than fascism"?

We do. This computer sends messages, so do telegraphs, so your computer is a telegraph.

Also, every telegraph is a book because it communicates language, and all writing is hieroglyphic, since it uses symbols to communicate meaning. All books are cave paintings since it involves images on a surface, and all hieroglyphics are cave paintings too since they involve pictures with meaning. So we're all really neolithic people.

Screw it, lets just have one word which can be used to describe everything.

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 22:40

Right... An excavator is a spade, and a bucket is a spade.

When did I say an excavator was a spade. Please provide that quote.

You have absolutely no integrity so you must resort to the cowards tactic of attempting straw man my position. How pathetic. Here I thought you might have been an intellectual in an ivory tower. Clearly you are just in an ivory tower--minus the intellectual.

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 22:42

We do. This computer sends messages, so do telegraphs, so your computer is a telegraph.

Why should I even debate an coward who is unwilling to counter-argue. You are the same as the right-wingers you deplore. Simply attempting to straw man a position rather than having the intellectual courage to challenge it. I feel sorry for you.

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 22:48

Also, every telegraph is a book because it communicates language, and all writing is hieroglyphic, since it uses symbols to communicate meaning. All books are cave paintings since it involves images on a surface, and all hieroglyphics are cave paintings too since they involve pictures with meaning. So we're all really neolithic people.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? That is a hell of a lot different than what I am claiming. What I'm claiming is that there are more modern ways to implement totalitarianism. You are simply resorting to ridicule. That of course means that you lack a real argument. What kind of intellectual cowardice is this? I would expect this from a right-winger, not a leftist. Perhaps I am mistaken in believing that the left has a powerful monopoly on intellectual integrity. Here I thought I was part of a movement that actually was capable of honesty in debate. Oh well.

I'm sure it's way easier to argue with a weak version of your opponents argument that you wish they were making instead of their actual argument.

Tim Cornelis

27th June 2014, 22:59

When did I say an excavator was a spade. Please provide that quote.

However we could argue that an excavator is a more advanced version of a spade.

Before that you said what we have now is a more advanced version of fascism, which you call... fascism. So, if we have an advanced version of a spade, it stands to reason you call it a spade.

You have absolutely no integrity so you must resort to the cowards tactic of attempting straw man my position. How pathetic. Here I thought you might have been an intellectual in an ivory tower. Clearly you are just in an ivory tower--minus the intellectual.

Is that supposed to be hurtful? I can explain why I gave up arguing, because it felt like talking to a brick wall, and an unreasonable one. You call liberal regimes, more liberal than they were a hundred years ago, fascist and totalitarian. You gave these words completely new meanings, to the point of meaninglessness, and contrary to their actual meanings. And the reasoning you use to justify this is impenetrable.

Why should I even debate an coward who is unwilling to counter-argue. You are the same as the right-wingers you deplore

Wha'? So because I, supposedly, don't counter-argue, I'm the same as right-wingers. There you go again with these irrelevant parallels and non-sequitur.

Simply attempting to straw man a position rather than having the intellectual courage to challenge it. I feel sorry for you.

Feel sorry? Coward? Aren't we being a lil' dramatic? Or was that supposed to be hurtful as well. Come on.

Look, I did challenge it. And you dismissed sound logic with unreasonable arguments about how fascism today (i.e. liberal democracy) is different, different in content, appearance, and everything, yet somehow still fascist because it shares a general common outcome: ruling over people (one that is so general it may as well apply to every state form). As if ruling and subjugating people is somehow not intrinsic to bourgeois forms of government, so it has to be the result of this 'external' evil fascism.

The USA is not fascist, get over it.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? That is a hell of a lot different than what I am claiming. What I'm claiming is that there are more modern ways to implement totalitarianism.

No. As I said, what you're claiming is that you can have totalitarianism without totalitarian rule. That you can strip totalitarian of what makes it totalitarian and you still have totalitarianism. It's absurd.

You are simply resorting to ridicule. That of course means that you lack a real argument. What kind of intellectual cowardice is this? I would expect this from a right-winger, not a leftist.

Because leftists are somehow intrinsically honourable and intellectual honest by extension of being leftist? That's completely irrelevant to being leftist.

Perhaps I am mistaken in believing that the left has a powerful monopoly on intellectual integrity.

Uh yeah.

Here I thought I was part of a movement that actually was capable of honesty in debate. Oh well.

Surprisingly, far-leftists are humans with emotions (as you display) and pitfalls. I can be honest in debate, but there's no debate to be had.

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 23:14

Before that you said what we have now is a more advanced version of fascism, which you call... fascism. So, if we have an advanced version of a spade, it stands to reason you call it a spade.

I call it an advanced version of a spade. Sure, in precise terms it's not a spade. That's fine. The point is though that they attempt to accomplish similar things. That is what matters from a political point of view.

Is that supposed to be hurtful? I can explain why I gave up arguing, because it felt like talking to a brick wall, and an unreasonable one. You call liberal regimes, more liberal than they were a hundred years ago, fascist and totalitarian. You gave these words completely new meanings, to the point of meaninglessness, and contrary to their actual meanings. And the reasoning you use to justify this is impenetrable.

It's just the truth. Only someone that lacks integrity resorts to straw man an argument. If it hurts you, I'm sorry. I'm not going to play nice just because you're a fellow leftist. Clearly you aren't granting me the same leniency. I'm going to call out a lack of integrity when I see it.

Wha'? So because I, supposedly, don't counter-argue, I'm the same as right-wingers. There you go again with these irrelevant parallels and non-sequitur.

No. You are like right-wingers because you lack intellectual courage (in this particular instance). This is a trait that is extremely common among them.

Feel sorry? Coward? Aren't we being a lil' dramatic? Or was that supposed to be hurtful as well. Come on.

I feel sorry for people that lack intellectual courage. It's not meant to hurt. It's just the truth, pal.

Look, I did challenge it. And you dismissed sound logic with unreasonable arguments about how fascism today (i.e. liberal democracy) is different, different in content, appearance, and everything, yet somehow still fascist because it shares a general common outcome: ruling over people (one that is so general it may as well apply to every state form). As if ruling and subjugating people is somehow not intrinsic to bourgeois forms of government, so it has to be the result of this 'external' evil fascism.

The USA is not fascist, get over it.

It's not fascist in the classical sense. However, I think fascism (like communism) changes character--just like all other ideologies do. We have to keep up. That's all I'm saying.

You may not like the fact that I use terms like evil to describe these things. I do take a moral stance here. Fascism is evil. End of sentence.

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 23:16

Surprisingly, far-leftists are humans with emotions (as you display) and pitfalls. I can be honest in debate, but there's no debate to be had.

Yea brah. Cause having emotions is such a bad thing. Emotions are the reason I'm a fucking leftist dude. If I had no emotions I would be a right-wing dirtbag.

Loony Le Fist

27th June 2014, 23:20

Tim Cornelis

27th June 2014, 23:39

I call it an advanced version of a spade. Sure, in precise terms it's not a spade. That's fine. The point is though that they attempt to accomplish similar things. That is what matters from a political point of view.

Right, they attempt to accomplish similar things: maintenance of bourgeois class rule. That doesn't mean they are the same thing. Maintenance of bourgeois class rule is not fascism, it's the defining feature of the bourgeois state.

A train and car accomplish similar goals: therefore they are both cars.... Is your logic.

It's just the truth. Only someone that lacks integrity resorts to straw man an argument. If it hurts you, I'm sorry. I'm not going to play nice just because you're a fellow leftist. Clearly you aren't granting me the same leniency. I'm going to call out a lack of integrity when I see it.

Don't kid yourself. It didn't 'hurt' me.

No. You are like right-wingers because you lack intellectual courage (in this particular instance). This is a trait that is extremely common among them.

You expect leftists to be superhumans, better honoured than inferior right-wingers. That's a mistake.

I feel sorry for people that lack intellectual courage. It's not meant to hurt. It's just the truth, pal.

yawn

It's not fascist in the classical sense. However, I think fascism (like communism) changes character--just like all other ideologies do. We have to keep up. That's all I'm saying.

It's not fascist, period. Like where is the continuity with fascism? There's no ideological continuity, there's no continuity as movement. No continuity.

You may not like the fact that I use terms like evil to describe these things. I do take a moral stance here. Fascism is evil. End of sentence.

k

Yea brah. Cause having emotions is such a bad thing. Emotions are the reason I'm a fucking leftist dude. If I had no emotions I would be a right-wing dirtbag.

Yeah that's not what I meant. It's like you expect Leftists to be supermen that have integrity, honour, and rightists to be untermenschen who are insidious and disingenuous. It's an infantile world view.

Still waiting for you to quote where I said that an excavator was a spade. I won't hold my breath.

I already gave it.

Why are you getting so upset? Jeez.

The USA is not fascist because:
you can freely express yourself online and in public,
you have regular elections
you have an independent judicial branch
you have freedom of association and can join a party of your choosing
you can publicly call the president an idiot without consequence
there are hunderds of political groups
there are various independent trade unions

Loony Le Fist

28th June 2014, 00:01

Right, they attempt to accomplish similar things: maintenance of bourgeois class rule. That doesn't mean they are the same thing. Maintenance of bourgeois class rule is not fascism, it's the defining feature of the bourgeois state.

But a desire to purify the world through American Exceptionalism is.

Don't kid yourself. It didn't 'hurt' me.

Oh. Well, my bad! You are an invincible superhuman! Except, you deny this immediately after! How consistent of you!

You expect leftists to be superhumans, better honoured than inferior right-wingers. That's a mistake.

Ah! So you are now not invincible as you previously claimed. Oh sorry.

I would say that Rosa Luxemburg > Hitler. I don't think you'd disagree.

It's not fascist, period. Like where is the continuity with fascism? There's no ideological continuity, there's no continuity as movement. No continuity.

We could start with a historical analysis of the US and it's role in supporting fascist Germany. However, that's probably going back too far. More recently, the USA is the only country where Creationism and Christian Dominionism is actually taken seriously. It is a dangerous precedent. It is a war against truth which is precisely what fascism is about. A war against truth.

Yeah that's not what I meant. It's like you expect Leftists to be supermen that have integrity, honour, and rightists to be untermenschen who are insidious and disingenuous. It's an infantile world view.

Of course leftists aren't superhuman. I'm just saying it seems that we have the high ground here. If that's the case then why be a leftist? What is even the point?

I already gave it.

No you didn't because I never said it. So you are a liar too. You are right, leftists are far from superhuman in many cases.

Why are you getting so upset? Jeez.

I just speak my mind. Sorry if you can't handle it.

Loony Le Fist

28th June 2014, 00:09

The USA is not fascist because:
you can freely express yourself online and in public,

Yep. Except that's not enough.

you have regular elections

So does fucking Iran dude. So does Saudi Aarabia. Are you fucking serious. Are you serious?

you have an independent judicial branch

Are you fucking serious? Damn you obviously don't live in the US do you? Independent from what? From corporate influence? Please. Stop kidding yourself. Damn you are fucking indoctrinated dude. You are just eating up the neoliberal distortions. You call yourself a leftist! :laugh:

you have freedom of association and can join a party of your choosing

To what end? These parties simply serve the interests of corporatists.

you can publicly call the president an idiot without consequence

What consequence does that have? :laugh:

there are hunderds of political groups

All mostly marginalized except for two major parties. Please.

there are various independent trade unions

Hah! Independent! If by independent you mean infiltrated by the corporatist elites!

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

They are fucking mouthpieces for the corporatists. Ask union members how they love negotiations where they consistently have their benefits cut. Man you are truly out of touch man! It is obvious you don't live in the US. Clearly you aren't qualified to comment.

My god man! Are you a police infiltrator or a leftist? Listen to yourself man? Free elections!

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

PhoenixAsh

28th June 2014, 00:14

The USA is not fascist because:
you can freely express yourself online and in public,

Actually no. The ACLU has released several reports on this. And freedom of speech has increasingly been denied to protestors against the government and police repression under several limiting laws has increased against political positions which are deemed unwanted.

you have regular elections

Fascism recognizes elections as well. And there is technically no reason why a fascist state won't have elections.

you have an independent judicial branch

I hope you do not truely believe this.

you have freedom of association and can join a party of your choosing

See piont 1

you can publicly call the president an idiot without consequence

Except the one where you get on the NSA watchlist

there are hunderds of political groups

True.

there are various independent trade unions

All being repressed currently.

Here are 14 defining characteristics of fascism.

1. Poweful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections

Here is how the Dutch define Fascism:

1. Opponent of traditional left and right wing politcal parties
2. Disdain for contemporary conservative institutions
3. Idolation of power and violence
4. Authoritarian structures and charismatic leadership
5. Strives towards political dictatorship and supremacy
6. Strives for complete social and cultural life
7. Extreme nationalism
8. Continued struggle and warfare
9. Depends on the middle class
10. Strives towards class collaboration

Depending on which definition you use the US can be considered fascist. The main reason why it is not is because the state is still classical bourgeois and led by traditional political parties which at best could be described as autoritarian bourgeois.

It is however getting increasingly Bonapartistic and can develop into fascism....which would be the traditional linear development in Marxist canon.
you could say the US is fascistoid...sharing some aspects of fascism.

I want to point towards the Fascist manifesto (in dutch btw) http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascistisch_manifesto To show you that some of your counter points do not mean a state is or isn't fascist necesarilly. Nor that fascism currently fits any of the definitions out there point-by-point. It is more of a rating system.

Loony Le Fist

28th June 2014, 00:24

PhoenixAsh, I know you aren't trying to have my back here, but I appreciate the insight. Just saying. :grin: Hardcore points brah. If I could thank your post twice, I would.

motion denied

28th June 2014, 00:25

It seems that you're confusing bourgeois state with fascism. As long as capital rules, courts, unions (hell, their existence only makes sense within capitalism) etc will be under its interference/control.

In Brazil we're pretty much stuck with two or three parties (at least on a National level) as well. People believe in Creationism etc. Am I unknowingly living in a fascist state?

Fascism as a 'war against truth'. You have a distorted view of what fascism is... Your definition doesn't mean anything at all.

I'm basically repeating Tim's words because it's frustrating to read such non-sense.

EDIT:The fact that the US have some similarities to fascism was noted by Lukács in later works, btw. Similitude don't identity make.

Loony Le Fist

28th June 2014, 00:37

It seems that you're confusing bourgeois state with fascism. As long as capital rules, courts, unions (hell, their existence only makes sense within capitalism) etc will be under its interference/control.

I might be. Frankly I don't see a whole lot of difference. It's all some oppressive shit that I want to get rid of. Maybe I'm loose with definitions. That's probably representative of my hatred of authority of all forms.

In Brazil we're pretty much stuck with two or three parties (at least on a National level) as well. People believe in Creationism etc. Am I unknowingly living in a fascist state?

Maybe you ought to tell me more about Brazil. You guys have some leftist parties in power. We don't have anything close to that in the states. Though my problem with the leftist parties in Brazil is they tend to be anti-abortion, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Fascism as a 'war against truth'. You have a distorted view of what fascism is... Your definition doesn't mean anything at all.

I sort of get you. You're a good guy and I feel that. Fascism is a sort of war against truth. Scientifically things like racism are bullshit. That's how I mean that. You know?

I'm basically repeating Tim's words because it's frustrating to read such non-sense.

Right. I get that. Fascism is a highly overused term. I don't mean to use it loosely here. I apologize if that's how it's coming off.

EDIT:The fact that the US have some similarities to fascism was noted by Lukács in later works, btw. Similitude don't identity make.

Right. That's true. Similarity doesn't mean identity. But similarity means that it could become that identity if not checked.

Redistribute the Rep

28th June 2014, 00:51

A lot of people have noted that Americans are too dogmatic toward democracy. However, it's actually not an uncommon opinion that "democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" or the arguably even more facepalm inducing idea that America is NOT, at least nominally, a democracy(OK, I realize that moneyed interests have a lot more influence than the people, so it's debatable whether it's actually a democracy, but at least nominally it is). With that being said, this doesn't really mean these people are against democracy from a fascist standpoint, it's more of an idea held by Republicans/libertarians who are so ideologically committed they can't handle anything associated with the Democratic Party. Also, while a lot of people seem to be inseparable from "MUH FREEDUMS," a lot of people selectively apply things like freedom of speech, an example being the fact that polls showed the majority of Americans supported McCarthyism and loyalty laws that allowed employers to fire workers associated with Communist affiliated unions. Ironically, Americans supported these clear violations on the basis of maintaining freedom by fighting communism. Actually in pretty much every major war personal liberties have been severely curtailed: in the Civil War Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus and imposed martial law; in WWI thousands of leftists were jailed like Eugene Debbs or even executed like Sacco and Vanzetti; in World War II 110,000 Japanese citizens (2/3 of whom were born in America) were sent to internment camps. In the cases of the two world wars, the public supported these blatant violations in part due to anti immigrant sentiment. While this certainly is not fascism, I don't think it's necessarily the case that Americans love their liberal democracy so much, and Americans can definitely be trusted to fall prey to fearmongering.

BUT, I don't think that this means we will see it turn fascist in the near future, as there aren't really any popular fascist movements at the moment. Nationalism is strong though, and many laws enacted in fascist countries have support here(although the purpose and context of these laws were different in fascist countries, as other users have pointed out). With all this being said, while it probably won't happen in the near future, I think it's possible Americans would support a fascist movement should one arise. It wouldn't be able to use the swastika or call itself fascist, as those have negative connotations, but subtract that and keep the same rhetoric of the Nazis, I don't think American conservatives would actually have a negative reaction to it.

Loony Le Fist

28th June 2014, 01:11

A lot of people have noted that Americans are too dogmatic toward democracy.

IMO, there is no such thing as being too dogmatic towards democracy. I believe in the majority's right to construct law. However, it is the intellectual distortions created by the bourgeois that shape the result of democracy. So if
distortions are allowed to shape democracy, the question becomes do these distortions allow a true democracy to exist? Democracy requires clarity. Without clarity we have no democracy.

However, it's actually not an uncommon opinion that "democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" or the arguably even more facepalm inducing idea that America is NOT, at least nominally, a democracy(OK, I realize that moneyed interests have a lot more influence than the people, so it's debatable whether it's actually a democracy, but at least nominally it is).

Absolutely. If real democracy does not exist, what differentiates it from totalitarianism?

I think it is up for debate as to whether the US really a democracy.

With that being said, this doesn't really mean these people are against democracy from a fascist standpoint, it's more of an idea held by Republicans/libertarians who are so ideologically committed they can't handle anything associated with the Democratic Party. Also, while a lot of people seem to be inseparable from "MUH FREEDUMS," a lot of people selectively apply things like freedom of speech, an example being the fact that polls showed the majority of Americans supported McCarthyism and loyalty laws that allowed employers to fire workers associated with Communist affiliated unions. Ironically, Americans supported these clear violations on the basis of maintaining freedom by fighting communism. Actually in pretty much every major war personal liberties have been severely curtailed: in the Civil War Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus and imposed martial law; in WWI thousands of leftists were jailed like Eugene Debbs or even executed like Sacco and Vanzetti; in World War II 110,000 Japanese citizens (2/3 of whom were born in America) were sent to internment camps. In the cases of the two world wars, the public supported these blatant violations in part due to anti immigrant sentiment. While this certainly is not fascism, I don't think it's necessarily the case that Americans love their liberal democracy so much, and Americans can definitely be trusted to fall prey to fearmongering.

Thank you for offering intelligent insight into the discussion. You're own insight of course offers us the idea that the population is easily manipulated into accepting a sort of neo-fascism.

BUT, I don't think that this means we will see it turn fascist in the near future, as there aren't really any popular fascist movements at the moment. Nationalism is strong though, and many laws enacted in fascist countries have support here(although the purpose and context of these laws were different in fascist countries, as other users have pointed out). With all this being said, while it probably won't happen in the near future, I think it's possible Americans would support a fascist movement should one arise. It wouldn't be able to use the swastika or call itself fascist, as those have negative connotations, but subtract that and keep the same rhetoric of the Nazis, I don't think American conservatives would actually have a negative reaction to it.

With all respect to your opinion, I feel that we very much may turn towards fascism. Even you accept this possibility. Quote " With all this being said, while it probably won't happen in the near future, I think it's possible Americans would support a fascist movement should one arise." I don't mean to use your words against you. I mean this with all respect. We have seen how easily US citizens are turned against one another. Just look to 9/11 for a perfect example of this. What is to say this won't continue into the future.

Redistribute the Rep

28th June 2014, 01:12

IMO, there is no such thing as being too dogmatic towards democracy.

I didn't mean it that way, I meant too dogmatic towards democracy to support fascism, as others have implied

To summarize my argument, I don't think there's any existing fascist movements and I don't think the government is shifting towards fascism, but if any of that were to happen, the American people (as they are in their present state) I think would be susceptible to it

Trap Queen Voxxy

28th June 2014, 01:44

Screw it, lets just have one word which can be used to describe everything.

We already do, it's called fuck. Anything can be described or that is or whatever you're trying to convey can be summed up simply by 'fuck.'

Loony Le Fist

28th June 2014, 01:49

I didn't mean it that way, I meant too dogmatic towards democracy to support fascism, as others have implied

To summarize my argument, I don't think there's any existing fascist movements and I don't think the government is shifting towards fascism, but if any of that were to happen, the American people (as they are in their present state) I think would be susceptible to it

Damn straight. They fell for that War on Terrorism bullshit. What makes one think they wouldn't be susceptible to more bullshit from dat govt? :laugh:

Fucking conservatives think they are fighting for small govt. Fuck that shit. Leftists are for real small govt.

The Modern Prometheus

28th June 2014, 02:26

While America has gotten more Authoritarian it is not a Fascist state by any means or Totalitarian. Fascism to me means a actual ideology not just a word thrown around at any authoritarian government. The US government may have a domestic and foreign surveillance program in place that would have made the Stasi green with envy and does apply brutal methods to people deemed threats to the state (the paramilitary style policing during OWS protests, gitmo and drone strikes being good examples) the US is still nowhere near the sheer brutality of Fascist leaders and governments in say Europe or Latin America.

The US is still at the end of the day a bourgeois democracy. The government is there to support the interests of the bourgeois and also to stop the people from getting to pissed off at the bourgeois. Fascism on the otherhand has a tendency of wiping out the old existing bourgeois and instead form a dictatorship dedicated solely to whatever chosen group is for the leader's of the totalitarian state. In other words a new bourgeois forms due to the total lack of any sort of democracy.

America does have a inherent nationalism to it but so do many countries. It is only the few Ultranationalists you see that would really fall into the Fascist category. There have been groups in Canada that i would call both white supremacist as well as Neo-Fascist so id imagine it's the same case in America. Granted most of the groups up here only have very limited support by a few very misguided and very stupid people in certain areas known for being really Conservative as well as being very white. Their support is so small here that it's not really worth a mention though Harper has sort of brought in this idea of a Canadian identity which is a retarded idea as it is completely invented to shore up Canadian nationalism.

America is just another Liberal bourgeois democracy. All the countries that fall into that category use pretty much the same tactics to control their citizens just to varying degrees. Even models of how Capitalism should work according to more left wing capitalists such as the much touted Nordic countries will resort to the same tactics the US are using if their Capitalist system is threatened. Canada is just as much of a police state now as America is in some ways.

Marshal of the People

28th June 2014, 03:03

American corporations have to much power for America to become economically fascist, unless their was some kind of military coup (which is unlikely to go against the corporations).

However I do believe that America could possibly get even more right-wing (economically and socially). However there is only so much the American people will take before they have had enough of their oppression.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

28th June 2014, 04:51

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? That is a hell of a lot different than what I am claiming. What I'm claiming is that there are more modern ways to implement totalitarianism. You are simply resorting to ridicule. That of course means that you lack a real argument. What kind of intellectual cowardice is this? I would expect this from a right-winger, not a leftist. Perhaps I am mistaken in believing that the left has a powerful monopoly on intellectual integrity. Here I thought I was part of a movement that actually was capable of honesty in debate. Oh well.

I'm sure it's way easier to argue with a weak version of your opponents argument that you wish they were making instead of their actual argument.

Ugh ... I was ridiculing you because you basically ignored my argument. Tim and I are trying to draw an analogy between the way you define fascism (which is basically as any bourgeois state would be defined) and defining X as Y, even when X is different from Y. It's not a strawman, it's an analogy. If you disagree with the analogy, you can explain how its different instead of getting defensive.

It's not fascist in the classical sense. However, I think fascism (like communism) changes character--just like all other ideologies do. We have to keep up. That's all I'm saying.

Except fascism and communism always refer to something specific, even if some historical contingencies might change. For instance, communization of property is essential to communism, regardless of when in history it is. And the existence of a singular, central institution like a party or a military junta is essential to fascism.

So does fucking Iran dude. So does Saudi Aarabia. Are you fucking serious. Are you serious?

Iran and Saudi Arabia aren't fascist states though. So the fact that they hold elections doesn't show that the US is fascist.

Are you fucking serious? Damn you obviously don't live in the US do you? Independent from what? From corporate influence? Please. Stop kidding yourself. Damn you are fucking indoctrinated dude. You are just eating up the neoliberal distortions. You call yourself a leftist! :laugh:
He means independent of the domination of a single ruling party. The Nazi party could intimidate any judge it wants, economically or physically. No political party or business can do that to the judges in the US. Instead, the judiciary remains loyal to business because the laws themselves are written to favor businesses.

To what end? These parties simply serve the interests of corporatists.
First, corporations are distinct from corporatists. Second, yes every major party is funded by corporate interests, but that only comes from the fact that it is a bourgeois state, not from being "fascist". Were it fascist, it would have a single set of corporate interests united by a single ruling party. Corporations which resist these interests would get destroyed, instead of just financing the other party.

All mostly marginalized except for two major parties. Please.
Fascists didn't just marginalize other parties though, they sent brownshirts to intimidate them, and usually ultimately had them arrested or even killed.

Hah! Independent! If by independent you mean infiltrated by the corporatist elites!

They are fucking mouthpieces for the corporatists. Ask union members how they love negotiations where they consistently have their benefits cut. Man you are truly out of touch man! It is obvious you don't live in the US. Clearly you aren't qualified to comment.

My god man! Are you a police infiltrator or a leftist? Listen to yourself man? Free elections!
As someone in an American union, I resent this overly simplistic generalization. Unions are weak in the US, they are not "mouthpieces for the corporatists". They are also largely liberal, not revolutionary, which is a legitimate criticism but not the one you are making.

Actually no. The ACLU has released several reports on this. And freedom of speech has increasingly been denied to protestors against the government and police repression under several limiting laws has increased against political positions which are deemed unwanted.

"free speech" has never been universal in the way liberal states promise. I would never claim that any of us face the kinds of risks Communists and Anarchists faced in actual fascist states however.

Anyhow, free speech plays an important role in liberal society, as the liberal exchange of ideas is necessary for both the political and economic functions. Meanwhile, in a fascist society, the control of speech plays a similar function in allowing the state to mandate uniformity.

Fascism recognizes elections as well. And there is technically no reason why a fascist state won't have elections.
Fascists use elections to take power and disregard them as soon as they need to.

Except the one where you get on the NSA watchlist
I'm sure you can see the categorical difference between the NSA recording phone calls and Gestapo thugs throwing a person in jail.

All being repressed currently.
American elites shut down unions by passing laws that inconvenience them until they cease to exist. Fascist elites shut down unions the way Colombian elites do. Look up what's happening in Colombia to union activists.

Here are 14 defining characteristics of fascism.

1. Poweful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
These are vague and many if not most exist to varying degrees in every Capitalist country. For instance, #1 could be attributed to any nation, as could #5. The United States isn't more sexist than any other country on earth, and nationalism is quite mundane on its own as well. Fascist nationalism is different, functionally, than mundane nationalism. Or #13 - that is as mundane and common as you get. Cronyism exists everywhere, so it does not distinguish fascism in any way whatsoever.

It should be noted that some do not exist in the US, or actually in some historical fascist states for that matter. Take #4 - the military was supreme in Spain, but it certainly was not in Italy or Germany. The party/Fuhrer was supreme. As for the US, the military is not "supreme" whatsoever. It serves the government and private business interests. Or #8 - religion and government are not intertwined, either in the contemporary US or in fascist Germany and Italy. Of course, politicians use religious rhetoric for populist purposes, but archbishops/ministers/rabbis and politicians are institutionally independent of one another.

Depending on which definition you use the US can be considered fascist. The main reason why it is not is because the state is still classical bourgeois and led by traditional political parties which at best could be described as autoritarian bourgeois.
Yes and according to one of those views, every capitalist state is fascist. You are watering down the definition to the point that it is meaningless.

It is however getting increasingly Bonapartistic and can develop into fascism....which would be the traditional linear development in Marxist canon.
you could say the US is fascistoid...sharing some aspects of fascism.
The US is not getting "increasingly Bonapartistic", and fascism has historically developed out of failing or deeply endangered Capitalist states.

And again, every Capitalist state has aspects of fascist societies.

I want to point towards the Fascist manifesto (in dutch btw) http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascistisch_manifesto To show you that some of your counter points do not mean a state is or isn't fascist necesarilly. Nor that fascism currently fits any of the definitions out there point-by-point. It is more of a rating system.Essential to all fascist states is the existence of a single, central authority which seeks to unite the whole nation state with its singular identity, helping Capital which serves the state and destroying Capital which doesn't and usually creating a mass movement. Such a group doesn't exist in the US.

PhoenixAsh

28th June 2014, 12:28

"free speech" has never been universal in the way liberal states promise. I would never claim that any of us face the kinds of risks Communists and Anarchists faced in actual fascist states however.

Anyhow, free speech plays an important role in liberal society, as the liberal exchange of ideas is necessary for both the political and economic functions. Meanwhile, in a fascist society, the control of speech plays a similar function in allowing the state to mandate uniformity

Free speech as a defining unit of fascism is questionable at the very best as there is not direct correlation between the two as opposed to other forms of government; but more importantly the level of repression of freedom of speech is a subjective measurement.

Fascists use elections to take power and disregard them as soon as they need to.

Italy held elections for another 12 years...

There is absolutely no reason why fascist regimes won't and can't hold elections

I'm sure you can see the categorical difference between the NSA recording phone calls and Gestapo thugs throwing a person in jail.

No. Carefully explain it to me how the operation of one government semi-secret agency with extra judicial powers is completely different with another semi-secret agency with extra judicial powers. Except of coure the NSA doesn't have any arrest capability. The link between that spying and FBI, DEA, local police arrests is already extensively been covered.

American elites shut down unions by passing laws that inconvenience them until they cease to exist. Fascist elites shut down unions the way Colombian elites do. Look up what's happening in Colombia to union activists.

Yeah, you do know that Italian fascism relied on unions don't you? So bashing unions....not really a defining feature of fascism. And when it happens it usually happens because unions are aligned with left-wing parties.

These are vague and many if not most exist to varying degrees in every Capitalist country. For instance, #1 could be attributed to any nation, as could #5. The United States isn't more sexist than any other country on earth, and nationalism is quite mundane on its own as well. Fascist nationalism is different, functionally, than mundane nationalism. Or #13 - that is as mundane and common as you get. Cronyism exists everywhere, so it does not distinguish fascism in any way whatsoever.

Yeah....not really sure why you are arguing this. But the point of my posts was to make clear that the arguments going back and forth about what is and isn't fascism are based on defintions of what fascism is. There are a shit load of definitions of fascism.

Here....have a few more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

So depending on which definition you want to follow the US either is or isn't a fascist state.

This list is based on extensive research into the three historical forms of fascism. I would walk you through the list I originaly posted with links and quotes, but I can't be bothered. Of the 14 points the US conforms to some varying degree but there are only 4 points where it arguably doesn't conform strongly.

It should be noted that some do not exist in the US, or actually in some historical fascist states for that matter. Take #4 - the military was supreme in Spain, but it certainly was not in Italy or Germany.

ehhh.

The influence and power of the military in both social and economic life aswell as political in both the US and Nazi-Germany is clearly beyond dispute.

The point explained by the one making the list:
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

The party/Fuhrer was supreme. As for the US, the military is not "supreme" whatsoever. It serves the government and private business interests.

Yeah...you use a really, really narrow definition here. But since both the US and Nazi fuhrers are also head of the armies and commander in chiefs...we could apply the same narrow definition and say this is still applicable.

Or #8 - religion and government are not intertwined, either in the contemporary US or in fascist Germany and Italy. Of course, politicians use religious rhetoric for populist purposes, but archbishops/ministers/rabbis and politicians are institutionally independent of one another.

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

^ actually how this point is explained by the one who created the list.

Yes and according to one of those views, every capitalist state is fascist. You are watering down the definition to the point that it is meaningless.

Nope. I am not doing anything. I am providing you with two of themost used defintions of fascism in the academic/political world attm. As you can also see...I do not particularly agree with either of them.

I see you have completely failed to provide a definition of fascism which is not meaningless however.

The US is not getting "increasingly Bonapartistic", and fascism has historically developed out of failing or deeply endangered Capitalist states.

To pretend the US economy isn't threatened and under increased and mounting pressure is kind of not seeing the big neon-signs in the dark.

And again, every Capitalist state has aspects of fascist societies.

You really, really are invested in the US not being classified as a fascist or fascistoid state.

Essential to all fascist states is the existence of a single, central authority which seeks to unite the whole nation state with its singular identity, helping Capital which serves the state and destroying Capital which doesn't and usually creating a mass movement. Such a group doesn't exist in the US.

Like the federal government trying to exert its control over state governments with increasing success.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

28th June 2014, 21:05

Free speech as a defining unit of fascism is questionable at the very best as there is not direct correlation between the two as opposed to other forms of government; but more importantly the level of repression of freedom of speech is a subjective measurement.

Control of speech, especially in the media, by the central authorities existed in every fascist country - Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal and so on. The need to control speech was something advocated for by all sorts of fascists or pro-fascist thinkers.

Italy held elections for another 12 years...

There is absolutely no reason why fascist regimes won't and can't hold elections
Those elections were nothing more than controlled referendums on fascism. They were not free, multiparty elections.

No. Carefully explain it to me how the operation of one government semi-secret agency with extra judicial powers is completely different with another semi-secret agency with extra judicial powers. Except of coure the NSA doesn't have any arrest capability. The link between that spying and FBI, DEA, local police arrests is already extensively been covered.
The NSA is certainly secretive and often extra-legal, as are US policing forces. Nobody would deny that. The fact that the NSA doesn't break anyone's door down and arrest them just for being a member of a disliked ideology does make them somewhat distinct from historical fascist police. The NSA is a giant data vacuum cleaner - a disgusting apparatus certainly, but no gestapo. In fact, equating it to the gestapo is an unreasonable conflation of the kind of terror we face, and the kind of terror that Communists in Chile, Nazi Germany and Italy faced. What we go through is nothing like what they went through.

It should be emphasized though that gestapo policing exists outside of fascist countries too, so it is not even really a very distinctive feature of fascism.

Yeah, you do know that Italian fascism relied on unions don't you? So bashing unions....not really a defining feature of fascism. And when it happens it usually happens because unions are aligned with left-wing parties.
Insofar as there are unions in a fascist society, they were run by the party or military junta. Unions in the US are not. Of course, unions in the US are, unfortunately, overly attached to the Democrats, but it's not like the DNC listens in on union management and meetings. And even if the Democrats did, the Republicans are eager to destroy those unions. So there is no central party authority which determines what will happen with America's unions. Instead, we just get a classical liberal situation where different parties struggle to impose their own policies on unions.

Yeah....not really sure why you are arguing this. But the point of my posts was to make clear that the arguments going back and forth about what is and isn't fascism are based on defintions of what fascism is. There are a shit load of definitions of fascism.

Here....have a few more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

So depending on which definition you want to follow the US either is or isn't a fascist state.

This list is based on extensive research into the three historical forms of fascism. I would walk you through the list I originaly posted with links and quotes, but I can't be bothered. Of the 14 points the US conforms to some varying degree but there are only 4 points where it arguably doesn't conform strongly.
There are multiple definitions of "communism" too though, including in the academic world. Every accurate definition of communism however includes the nonexistence of class, the non-alienation of property and communization of political/economic affairs. Of course, this does not stop American and European academics referring to Russia or China as "Communist". Those academics are just *wrong* though. So that common definition of fascism, like the common definition of communism, is factually inaccurate, or at least too vague to be useful.

ehhh.

The influence and power of the military in both social and economic life aswell as political in both the US and Nazi-Germany is clearly beyond dispute.

The point explained by the one making the list:
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
Except the "domestic agenda" in the US isn't neglected. Sure, health care, pensions and transport is neglected, but any part of the domestic agenda regarding the efficient management of Capital is of central importance.

Yeah...you use a really, really narrow definition here. But since both the US and Nazi fuhrers are also head of the armies and commander in chiefs...we could apply the same narrow definition and say this is still applicable.
That doesn't make sense though, because a lot of countries, including the US well before fascism EVER came into existence, have a head of state who is commander in chief. The idea of a Fuhrer is very different from a commander in chief. The Fuhrer literally embodies the will of the nation. Obama, Bush, Clinton, all the way back to Washington never had that kind of authority. So if having a Commander in Chief makes a country fascist, then America was fascist before fascists existed - which makes no sense.

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

^ actually how this point is explained by the one who created the list.
Yeah I'm just really ambivalent about that because every state has politicians who do that to some degree. It is also made problematic by the fact that Protestants, Catholics and Jews all have significant political power in the US. There is no single sect which dominates the US.

Nope. I am not doing anything. I am providing you with two of themost used defintions of fascism in the academic/political world attm. As you can also see...I do not particularly agree with either of them.

I see you have completely failed to provide a definition of fascism which is not meaningless however.
No I have not failed to provide a definition of fascism which is not meaningless. I have said it before in this thread, but fascism is a movement which exists around a single party or junta who unifies all major national institutions or works to destroy those it cannot appropriate, and uses state power to impose unity justified by some (theoretically) singular sense of common historical rootedness and purpose. Moreover, fascism has a great sense of eschatological, historical purpose which no liberal society has. Even the wikipedia link you sent me acknowledges its millennial vision.

I think Benito Mussolini himself says it best in the link you gave regarding "definitions of fascism":

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.

Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.

Simply put, these characteristics are alien to a liberal society. In liberalism, there is no central authority that determines meaning, everyone is "free" to do it in the marketplace. Of course, this is dangerous and reactionary in its own way, but in a way which is unique and different to fascism.

If you look at the classic fascist regimes, their policies, and their ideologists, they all have these elements. I think Heidegger's rector speech is also a great place to see how fascists view liberalism, and how they see their own movement as different.

To pretend the US economy isn't threatened and under increased and mounting pressure is kind of not seeing the big neon-signs in the dark.
The US is not under threat the way that, say, Weimar Germany was, or Italy, or Allende's Chile. In those countries, liberal capitalism was facing an actual existential crisis. American Capital is more profitable and powerful than it has ever been in history right now. Of course, everyone is sick of the two major parties, and there are serious problems facing wall street, but those problems are simply not comparable.

You really, really are invested in the US not being classified as a fascist or fascistoid state.
No, I'm just very tired of seeing the sloppy use of the term "fascism" to describe any regime which uses state violence, has some culturally conservative figures and that we don't like. It's the left wing version of calling Obama a socialist/marxist/communist. It's intellectually sloppy and it prevents us from criticizing countries like the US, Britain and Western European countries for the right reasons.

It's the intellectual equivalent of calling the US "feudalism". If we think of the US as "feudal", first, we cannot relate to the working class as workers but peasants. We cannot think in terms of surplus value extracted from workers in factories, but of lords collecting rent.

As much as anything else we need to be able to distinguish between the people getting the shit kicked out of them by Antifash in Europe and the morons running our government. For one thing, those fascists have a vision of what the world should look like which differs profoundly from mundane liberalism, which is precisely why they get their teeth kicked out by anarchists and communists. People know that if those fascists took power, they would build a mass movement which would crush them and any people who possess an identity which the State is not sympathetic to.

I don't think its inexcusable to mistake every liberal government for a fascist one, and its certainly not uncommon. I see people doing it all the time. Conflating contemporary neoliberalism with fascism, however, (1) blinds us to the actual strategies we need to take to change the system, (2) prevents us from seeing how the suffering of antifascist activists in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were very different from the struggles we face, and (3) waters down our taxonomy of political ideology.

PhoenixAsh

28th June 2014, 21:48

Control of speech, especially in the media, by the central authorities existed in every fascist country - Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal and so on. The need to control speech was something advocated for by all sorts of fascists or pro-fascist thinkers.

Yet the same level of control exists in the current bourgeois societies, hence why I am saying that free speech is not a identifying measure of fascism. Free speech is free speech. It is a liberal notion.

Those elections were nothing more than controlled referendums on fascism. They were not free, multiparty elections.

Fair enough but there is nothing in Fascism which would not allow elections. The fact that there are elections is not a sign of a state being fascist or not.

The NSA is certainly secretive and often extra-legal, as are US policing forces. Nobody would deny that. The fact that the NSA doesn't break anyone's door down and arrest them just for being a member of a disliked ideology does make them somewhat distinct from historical fascist police. The NSA is a giant data vacuum cleaner - a disgusting apparatus certainly, but no gestapo. In fact, equating it to the gestapo is an unreasonable conflation of the kind of terror we face, and the kind of terror that Communists in Chile, Nazi Germany and Italy faced. What we go through is nothing like what they went through.

Actually the NSA does break electronic barriers and in cooperating with other agencies has the exact same mission as the GESTAPO: find, monitor and fight foreign and domestic threats to the security of the state.

It should be emphasized though that gestapo policing exists outside of fascist countries too, so it is not even really a very distinctive feature of fascism.

Exactly.

Insofar as there are unions in a fascist society, they were run by the party or military junta. Unions in the US are not. Of course, unions in the US are, unfortunately, overly attached to the Democrats, but it's not like the DNC listens in on union management and meetings. And even if the Democrats did, the Republicans are eager to destroy those unions. So there is no central party authority which determines what will happen with America's unions. Instead, we just get a classical liberal situation where different parties struggle to impose their own policies on unions.

Abnd this is why I don't call the US fascist....yet: the class dynamics. It is in my first post. Which you argued against.

There are multiple definitions of "communism" too though, including in the academic world. Every accurate definition of communism however includes the nonexistence of class, the non-alienation of property and communization of political/economic affairs. Of course, this does not stop American and European academics referring to Russia or China as "Communist". Those academics are just *wrong* though. So that common definition of fascism, like the common definition of communism, is factually inaccurate, or at least too vague to be useful.

Hence why I specifically included the class dynamics in my original posts and you are indeed now breeching the argument I was making to Tim.

Except the "domestic agenda" in the US isn't neglected. Sure, health care, pensions and transport is neglected, but any part of the domestic agenda regarding the efficient management of Capital is of central importance.

O...so you meen the hordes of people who are homless, the prison population, the police repression, the army of working poor. Yes. This is exactly what they mean. The domestic agenda is on the backburner when it comes to the comparison between that and the army.

That doesn't make sense though, because a lot of countries, including the US well before fascism EVER came into existence, have a head of state who is commander in chief. The idea of a Fuhrer is very different from a commander in chief. The Fuhrer literally embodies the will of the nation. Obama, Bush, Clinton, all the way back to Washington never had that kind of authority. So if having a Commander in Chief makes a country fascist, then America was fascist before fascists existed - which makes no sense.

It is not a single point that makes a country fascist. It is the combination of points and the level in which they are present.

Yeah I'm just really ambivalent about that because every state has politicians who do that to some degree. It is also made problematic by the fact that Protestants, Catholics and Jews all have significant political power in the US. There is no single sect which dominates the US.

Quite true. But don't forget that Italian Fascism only very late into the game started to go for cultural and religious uniformity.

No I have not failed to provide a definition of fascism which is not meaningless. I have said it before in this thread, but fascism is a movement which exists around a single party or junta who unifies all major national institutions or works to destroy those it cannot appropriate, and uses state power to impose unity justified by some (theoretically) singular sense of common historical rootedness and purpose. Moreover, fascism has a great sense of eschatological, historical purpose which no liberal society has. Even the wikipedia link you sent me acknowledges its millennial vision.

True except that this completely ignores the class dynamics and has several problems of its own. Communism for one...would completely fall under this definition.

I think Benito Mussolini himself says it best in the link you gave regarding "definitions of fascism":

Simply put, these characteristics are alien to a liberal society. In liberalism, there is no central authority that determines meaning, everyone is "free" to do it in the marketplace. Of course, this is dangerous and reactionary in its own way, but in a way which is unique and different to fascism.

If you look at the classic fascist regimes, their policies, and their ideologists, they all have these elements. I think Heidegger's rector speech is also a great place to see how fascists view liberalism, and how they see their own movement as different.

Yes. But the elements need to be alligned. And we are not liberals...we are communists. So we have a more thorough analysis of when a country becomes fascist. That analysis requires class dynamics (although anarchists will probably focus more on the state level of power)

The US is not under threat the way that, say, Weimar Germany was, or Italy, or Allende's Chile. In those countries, liberal capitalism was facing an actual existential crisis. American Capital is more profitable and powerful than it has ever been in history right now. Of course, everyone is sick of the two major parties, and there are serious problems facing wall street, but those problems are simply not comparable.

I think the American financial situation is at its weakest it has ever been before and it is getting weaker. I think in another 50 years or so the US markets will have either collapsed or they will have been taken over by foreign capital.

Currently the Chinese would be able to bankrupt the US in about 5 minutes. They won't...because they would suffer too. But when the Chinese decide to dump their dollars...the US would basically become an economic wreck within a night.

No, I'm just very tired of seeing the sloppy use of the term "fascism" to describe any regime which uses state violence, has some culturally conservative figures and that we don't like. It's the left wing version of calling Obama a socialist/marxist/communist. It's intellectually sloppy and it prevents us from criticizing countries like the US, Britain and Western European countries for the right reasons.

Hence why I said they weren't fascist. But what you are forgetting is that capitalism will develop into fascism...it will do so naturally without a revolution. And the US is pretty far along that line. It might not be there yet, but it is close. And it may not be classical European fascism,...but it will be fascism.

It's the intellectual equivalent of calling the US "feudalism". If we think of the US as "feudal", first, we cannot relate to the working class as workers but peasants. We cannot think in terms of surplus value extracted from workers in factories, but of lords collecting rent.

As much as anything else we need to be able to distinguish between the people getting the shit kicked out of them by Antifash in Europe and the morons running our government. For one thing, those fascists have a vision of what the world should look like which differs profoundly from mundane liberalism, which is precisely why they get their teeth kicked out by anarchists and communists. People know that if those fascists took power, they would build a mass movement which would crush them and any people who possess an identity which the State is not sympathetic to.
See my first post

Sinister Cultural Marxist

28th June 2014, 23:07

Yet the same level of control exists in the current bourgeois societies, hence why I am saying that free speech is not a identifying measure of fascism. Free speech is free speech. It is a liberal notion.

I would not consider fascism a liberal ideology. On the contrary, it is illiberal capitalism (the only exceptions to this seem to be in the Netherlands with the party of Wilders, though it is unclear to me whether he is a fascist or just a mundane nationalist liberal, the initial support liberals gave to Mussolini, or the support of international neoliberals to quasi-fascists like Pinochet). And I don't think the same mechanisms of controlling speech and thought exist in bourgeois societies. There is always some level of control of free speech, which is one of the contradictions inherent in liberalism, but speech is not managed by a single, central authority.

Fair enough but there is nothing in Fascism which would not allow elections. The fact that there are elections is not a sign of a state being fascist or not.
OK I don't think fascism would allow for an election which endangers their central authority, however. Mussolini would have been unlikely to allow for an election which risked the rule of his party. The Democrats and Republicans, however, don't care that much, since their interest is more in preserving bourgeois rule as such, and not uniting the national bourgeoisie under their own authority.

Actually the NSA does break electronic barriers and in cooperating with other agencies has the exact same mission as the GESTAPO: find, monitor and fight foreign and domestic threats to the security of the state.
It has a similar mission, but the NSA is not beholden to a particular political party. It won't spy on the GOP on behalf of the Democrats, or vica-versa. The gestapo was thoroughly partisan. This prevents the unrestrained state violence utilizing the kind of information the NSA holds. Yes, there is still state violence, but it is more contained, and not enacted against people of all classes and ideologies which do not behave themselves in accordance with the central partisan authorities.

Abnd this is why I don't call the US fascist....yet: the class dynamics. It is in my first post. Which you argued against.

Hence why I specifically included the class dynamics in my original posts and you are indeed now breeching the argument I was making to Tim.
Perhaps I misunderstood you? I'm not sure, anyhow, my main point is that the mechanisms of class rule differ between liberalism and fascism. My main disagreement is with loonyleftist though.

O...so you meen the hordes of people who are homless, the prison population, the police repression, the army of working poor. Yes. This is exactly what they mean. The domestic agenda is on the backburner when it comes to the comparison between that and the army.
Those groups are marginalized in all Capitalist societies though, except perhaps the most advanced social democracies.

It is not a single point that makes a country fascist. It is the combination of points and the level in which they are present.
I think there are a number of characteristics, and one essential feature. The list of 14 you included seem to be a list of characteristics, but not the essential defining feature of fascism. The essential defining feature is working to overcome or limit class conflict through the central, authoritarian mechanisms Mussolini described and ultimately enacted.

Quite true. But don't forget that Italian Fascism only very late into the game started to go for cultural and religious uniformity.
I think such tendencies increased, but it was always there. The reason Mussolini disagreed with socialism was its internationalism, after all, because it failed to preserve the Italian national identity.

True except that this completely ignores the class dynamics and has several problems of its own. Communism for one...would completely fall under this definition.
I don't think Communism would fall under that definition - Communism seeks a revolution to overturn these institutions, it does not seek to control them for the sake of preserving them.

I think the American financial situation is at its weakest it has ever been before and it is getting weaker. I think in another 50 years or so the US markets will have either collapsed or they will have been taken over by foreign capital.

Currently the Chinese would be able to bankrupt the US in about 5 minutes. They won't...because they would suffer too. But when the Chinese decide to dump their dollars...the US would basically become an economic wreck within a night.
It's hard to predict the future - certainly America will see more financial explosions and will be challenged in new ways by countries abroad. It's hard to predict that China will be in a position to collapse America's financial system without doing undue harm to itself, or would have an interest in doing so, or would even be able to overcome its own internal contradictions.

Hence why I said they weren't fascist. But what you are forgetting is that capitalism will develop into fascism...it will do so naturally without a revolution. And the US is pretty far along that line. It might not be there yet, but it is close. And it may not be classical European fascism,...but it will be fascism. I don't think Capitalism inevitably moves towards fascism. The British Empire collapsed without resorting to fascism, in part by finding new ways of profiting from liberalism that made more sense with its diminished status.

I'm not saying it won't or can't happen, but there's no reason to think it's particularly likely in the next decade or two. On the contrary, Capital seems to be doing decently with the international liberal order as is.

Revolver

30th June 2014, 01:18

At the risk of re-igniting this debate I'm going to make the following points, to address some of what was stated in response to my posts and some of the others I've seen throughout the thread.

1. Roger Griffin is a) a liberal not a leftist and b) not the only theorist of fascism out there. In fact his focus on the ideological components of fascism is anti-Marxist, since the ideological features he is concerned with are the stated and *subjective* positions of fascists themselves. This position is, of course, not a Marxist one and as you can see from his writing this failure to assess fascism’s meaningful objective conditions results in at best intellectual confusion.

To understand how absurd it is to take this seriously, consider that his "fascist minimum" denies Phalangist fascism among the Maronites of Lebanon. This is particularly revealing because the Maronite reactionaries thought of themselves as fascists and only abandoned the terminology after it became extraordinarily unpopular to be associated with the European fascist movement. According to Griffin, however, the Phalangists are not fascist because Lebanon is insufficiently secular and insufficiently populist. Yet the Phalange focus was on Maronite nationalism, not pan-Arab nationalism. At its height, the Phalangist Kataeb Party had a membership of over 50,000 people, the vast majority Maronite Christians who despised Palestinians and famously (with the help of the Israelis) massacred Palestinians living in refugee camps after their beloved leader, Bachir Gemayel, was killed by a rival Lebanese faction. Note that Bachir also ordered the execution of his competitors within the Lebanese Front in an event known as the Safra Massacre , or alternatively “The Day of the Long Knives.” The alternative term for the Safra massacre is an allusion to similar events in Nazi Germany, when potentially disruptive elements within the SA were purged.

The Phalangists were ethnocentric extremists who killed their internal political competitors and sought to remake the Lebanese state and society in the interests of Maronite nationalism in a time of revolutionary fervor. They were modeled after a more or less explicitly fascist movement, the Falange of Spain. Yet Griffin denies that they are fascists. Presumably, he would also deny that the Zionist movement is (or can be) fascist, notwithstanding the fact that it meets his criteria. Using Griffin’s definition, one would be hard pressed to deny that Zionism satisfies all the criteria. Surely “the emphasis on the deeply mythic palingenetic component of fascism which assumes a dialectical relationship between decay and renewal, death and rebirth” is found in Zionist discourse. The anti-bourgeois sabra, or “New Jew,” was celebrated precisely because he was a healthy, militantly Jewish modern man who fought “existential threats” to the Jews of Israel. One leading Israeli New Historian, Benny Morris, who considers himself a leftist, praised the ethnic cleansing of over 700,000 Palestinians as a necessary precondition to establishing a healthy Jewish state. He also says that “Palestinian society is a very sick society” that “should be treated the way we treat individuals who are serial killers… Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another.”

There’s also the refusal to label the French National Front, the Italian Lega Nord or the Austrian Freedom Party fascist, for being insufficiently paligenetic or ultranationalist. There’s the refusal to consider the possibility of religious fascism, even though one of the few fascist movements outside of Europe that Griffin identifies is Ossewabrandwag, an Afrikaner group that supported Nazi Germany. Griffin is willing to concede that these Afrikaners were fascists simply because they can invoke a “national phoenix myth” in the form of the Great Trek, the movement of the Boers into the interior. The rest of Africa, however, is denied the possibility of a fascist movement because the liberated colonies do not have sufficiently developed nation states or national identities.

To call this a warped (and potentially Eurocentric) view is an understatement in light of the Hutu power movement, which had a “national phoenix myth” referenced in the Hutu Ten Commandments, a statement of the Hutu Power Movement. The Hutu Power movement embraced the Hamitic myth of the Belgian colonial administrators but inverted it, casting the Tutsi as a parasitic alien force, the rule of the Tutsi having been overthrown during the 1959 social revolution and their monarchy upended with the 1961 referendum. The appeal to 1959 was an important element directed at the Hutu middle class, which gained the most from it, as well as those elements within Rwandan society (such as urban poor and the peasants) who aspired to the comparative wealth of the Hutu middle class. But the radical elements of the Hutu Power movement also idealized the “pre-invasion” Rwanda, a time of Hutu dominance that the Tutsi subverted with their arrival. This narrative just assumes that the mythos of the Belgian colonial administrators is true, and I have no idea if they were inspired by the volkisch theorists, but their belief system certainly had more than a few parallels to it. The Hutu Ten Commandments reads very much like a fascist statement of principles, but under the Griffin thesis, and the somewhat modified version used in this thread, it somehow falls short of the “ideal” type.

Yet much of the history of the Rwandan genocide reads very much like a fascist origin story. There is a high profile event in the form of an assassination of the Hutu presidents of Rwanda and Burundi (Reichstag fire), and the Hutu radicals assign blame to the Tutsis. As with the Reichstag fire, subsequent investigations place blame on radical Hutus, not the Tutsi. Following the assassination, Hutu radicals then proceeded to systematically execute moderate Hutu politicians, and to get to those politicians they executed Belgian UN peacekeepers by cutting their Achilles tendons, castrating them and finally murdering them by making them choke on their own genitalia. These same radicals also commandeered radio stations, placing blame on the political crisis on the Belgians and the Tutsi army.

There was a political and economic crisis that preceded these events. In 1989, the International Coffee Agreement broke down, and the global price of coffee plummeted. This had a catastrophic impact on the coffee producers who made up the bulk of Rwanda’s export economy, and the state intervened on their behalf which created a budget crisis. In response, the Rwandan government agreed to a structural adjustment program that involved the usual austerity round for the public sector. This was interpreted in ethnic terms because the Rwandan government had an ethnic patronage system in place, which tended to incentivize private sector employment for the Tutsi.

There was a corresponding political crisis as well. Demands for multiparty elections had been growing between 1989 and the time of the genocide, bolstered by the “reform agenda” in international development that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. By 1991 the government allowed parties to register in anticipation of multiparty elections. Just prior to that, the state party began circulating the paper Kangura, which began circulation in response to the invasion of the Tutsi-backed rebel group, the Rwandan Patriotic Front. While it was affiliated with the ruling MRND party, it became the mouthpiece of the CDR when the latter was founded in 1992. The CDR, the Rwandan Coalition for the Defence of the Republic, was affiliated with the MRND but was decidedly more extreme and called for an ethnically pure Hutu state.

The thaw of one party rule led the MRND to create the Interahamwe by 1992, conceived as a youth wing that would compete with the youth wings developed by other political parties. The CDR had its own youth wing, the Impuzamugambi, which was formed in 1992. The Interhamwe was led by operatives within the MRND, while a founder of the CDR, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, led the Inpuzamugambi. But Barayagwiza was clearly a member of the Rwandan Hutu elite; he was an attorney but, more importantly, he was the Director of Political Affairs for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In October of 1993, both CDR and MRND elites hosted a joint rally of over 15,000 people, including the paramilitary members. When the president was killed in April, Barayagwiza and others were distributing arms for genocidal purposes within mere days, and after the coordinated execution of the remaining Hutu moderates. Both Kangura and the radio network that promoted the genocide were financed by Félicien Kabuga, a Rwandan multimillionaire who was also accused of providing arms and logistical support to the Interahamwe. He has successfully evaded prosecution by hiding out in Kenya.

Hutu Power extremists, particularly within the CDR but also in the MRND and other groups, had used newly created political freedoms to stoke ethnic tension. Even before the CDR was founded, the Kangura editors were calling for the extermination of the Tutsi as early as 1991, with a machete placed alongside the question “What tools will we use to defeat the Inyenzi once and for all?" Articles in Kangura also exaggerated the Tutsi participation in the commercial sector, particularly Tutsi control over lending. The paper also accurately predicted the assassination of the Rwandan president, by January of 1994 claiming that the president would be assassinated by March of that year (the actual date being early April). There were allusions to this by senior MRND officials, who spoke at rallies and warned that the paramilitary units would not allow the Tutsi forces to get away with assassinating the president. The paper also carried a familiar line of perceived Tutsi dominance in the private marketplace, which made it easy to recast both the economic crisis and the austerity from structural adjustment in ethnic terms. And throughout this crisis there was of course mass mobilization of Hutu, emphasizing ethnic consciousness while at times promising redistribution of Tutsi wealth, provided the would-be beneficiaries of the genocide assisted the paramilitary units.

Despite the façade of mass mobilization, this was a movement that was cultivated by the ruling class of Rwanda. The elite within the government, including those within the military, had very real, material interests threatened by democratization: loss of the patronage system. The loss of the elite’s control of the state threatened their access to income from, for example, the system of bribery and smuggling that had developed prior to the crisis. This is the context in which the Kangura was being circulated, and it is also the context in which the most extreme Hutu Party, CDR, was formed by breakaway elements of the MRND in 1992.

Now there are a number of differences between what happened in Rwanda and what happened in Germany, but there are far more important similarities than differences, including the elite support for the extremist CDR and the anti-moderates within the MRND, which can be compared to the support for the Nazi Party by key economic factions and elements of the ruling conservative party. And the subjective ideological statements are very familiar. But according to Griffin, you cannot call this mass Hutu movement “fascist” because Africa does not have the necessary conditions. This is unsurprising, because, using Griffin’s model or the modifications of the same present in this thread, the class dynamics in Rwanda are irrelevant and the only basis for ascertaining whether or not the Hutu Power movement was fascist is the testimonial evidence and other subjective indicia of their “ideology.”

2. As is demonstrated in this thread, skeptics of fascism apparently believe that there are other core features of fascism that are simply never going to materialize in the U.S. Notably, the restrictions on freedom of speech and the single party state. What is fascinating about this “essential elements” argument is that the celebrated Griffin , invoked to define fascism’s parameters, denies those are core components of fascism. For Griffin, there are a number of elements found in the interwar fascist movements that are historical products, including paramilitary organization, corporatism, the leader cult, theatrical politics and even territorial expansionism. It isn’t hard to see why Griffin would relegate these features to the interwar period, because they also materialize in non-fascist mass movements of the period. But it also demonstrates that the other features Griffin identifies must be removed in order to preserve the “fascist ideal” that he has developed. That ideal is rooted in fascist self-understanding, and the other features accompany too many authoritarian movements that do not embrace “populist palingenetic ultranationalism.” To reach the “ideal” fascist, you have to distill actually existing fascism of the unnecessary elements.

There are other problems with the limitations discussed in the thread, however. The single party state is a feature of a number of regime types. And while the Nazi regime was a de jure single party state, which is to say that the law prohibited the formation of other political parties, there are a number of regimes that are de facto single party states. Singapore is effectively ruled by a single party, even though voting is compulsory and there is universal suffrage.

More importantly, the single party states emerged in response to multiparty intransigence. This intransigence developed well ahead of successful fascist mobilization, particularly in Germany. In fact it was the reason that the Weimar president began experimenting with emergency decrees in the form of the “presidential government.” Additionally, in Italian and German fascism anyway, the single party state is the result of fascist consolidation of power, not fascist mobilization. Third, the states that transitioned from multiparty parliamentary systems to single party fascist rule were actually multiparty states that had truly national legislative elections, which is something that the United States does not have and will not have in the absence of a seismic constitutional shift. If you are willing to extend fascism to encompass the Hutu Power movement, you will find a shift from single party rule to multiparty democracy actually laying the foundations for the mobilization of a fascist movement. While the existence of some political freedom may be a necessary precondition for this mobilization, labeling the Hutu movement fascist undercuts the claim that single party rule is a necessary element. Similarly, the greater freedom of speech that allowed Rwandan extremist radio and newspaper sources to disseminate hate propaganda suggests that curbing speech may not be necessary, at least not during the mobilization stage.

3. The points made about the NSA, mass surveillance, the carceral state and the general drift towards authoritarianism and the growth of executive branch power are not meant to illustrate that the US is currently a fascist society or experiencing fascist mobilization. It illustrates that there are objective conditions that would support the development of fascist mobilization and consolidation of power in the event of crisis. Again, that does not mean that a fascist movement would be successful; neither social movements nor politics is teleological and nothing is inexorable as long as you discard the habit to see inevitable patterns when looking to history.

No one is conflating bourgeois parliamentarianism with fascism. The question posed was not whether the United States is a fascist regime, the question was whether it could evolve into one in the near future. And there is good reason to believe that it could, but it would probably require a crisis that played out over a number of years or, alternatively, a singular crisis (i.e., a nuclear strike or similar mass catastrophe, perhaps biological or environmental) that created the conditions necessary to wipe out the existing liberal democracy. And even then it would almost certainly build off of existing developments in the current regime, so the assertion that fascism is “not a secret or incremental process of a liberal democratic government developing some authoritarian-leanings” is at best half true.

Redistribute the Rep

30th June 2014, 01:30

Dude, eyesore. Separate it into paragraphs

Revolver

30th June 2014, 01:34

Dude, eyesore. Separate it into paragraphs

I had to remove formatting problems because it was written on word.

Jimmie Higgins

30th June 2014, 03:25

It may have been said, but in the u.s., the conflation of regular liberal democratic repression and fascism comes in part from a WWII era propaganda and post-war ideology counterposing "true populist democracy" of the u.s. State (which it isn't any of those things) and totalitarian repression of fascism. Rulers in the u.s. And uk were perfectly happy with Mussolini and hitler as long as they were crushing revolutionaries and working class rebellions, the u.s. Was also perfectly happy to see it's main competitors in industry fight eachother in Western Europe. But the u.s. Couldn't convince the population to go to war on the basis of a good chance for u.s. Capital to grab the top spot in manufacturing and imperial influence, so fighting a populist war against evil fascism and imperial japan was a much more effective way to sell it, get the help of the Communists, etc.

Liberal democracy can put people in concentration camps, and has and does, it can drop atomic weapons or burn cities and working class neighborhoods to the ground, it can support the mass slaughter of unionists by dictators, it can marginalize whole sections of the population and establish them as a lower caste, etc. state capitalism can also do these things and that's how libertarians conflate the USSR with fascism as well.

But fascism only becomes really viable when liberal democracy is no longer able to accomplish these things and keep society whole. Spain: an impasse between successive liberal and conservative governments on the one hand and a revolutionary movement unable to take power leads to the military leaders siding with fascist movements to repress rebellions. Germany: failed revolutions, but a liberal democracy unable to hold stable order leads to working class dissolution meant on the one hand and bourgeois backing of middle class thugs to maintain order on the other.

Greece today seems like the classic recipie for legit fascism. The "regular" state is unable to "solve" the crisis on bourgeois terms (forcing austerity down people's throats) the workers are as yet unable to provide an alternative solution (class revolution and self liberation) and so both disillusioned workers and the middle classes turn to the golden dawn as an alternative to working class rebellion or liberal inability to settle the crisis.

The kkk and the redeemer-era Democratic Party are probably the closest thing to fascism in power in the u.s., but even then it was short lived and once "order was restored" they could just have a Jim Crow system control people and the fascist-like terrorism was only needed in times of increased rebellion. While fdr's administration did many things that fascists also did, it was done within "legal" government. There were real u.s. Fascists at that time, that organized and killed unionists, immigrants, and reds and even tried a couple of half assed coups to control cities. But liberal democracy, aided by a class movement influenced by the cp who wanted class peace in order to allow the u.s. To aid Russia, was able to solve the crisis through normal capitalist means: Bombing the shit out of whole populations, capturing new markets and colonies, coopting and silencing dissent, repressing militants.

Cani

30th June 2014, 03:47

This will be my introductory post, as I don't believe in delay, I'll get right to it.

I wished to make a short statement in support of the mental work that is being done in this thread.

As far as I am aware, there is no widely agreed upon, finite and descriptive definition for a fascist state. There are examples that are paraded, and even these tend to vary widely from one another: In this way, the unifying principles of several fascist states may then be so general as to become applicable across a wide range of observable forms of government.

I'm surprised that no one here, as far as I have read, has spoken of the etymology of the word in an attempt to elucidate the meaning. Fascism originates, if we go far enough back, from fasces. Rods wrapped around an axe, a ceremonial symbol of power for the Roman magistrate.

It is ironic that the very symbol at the heart of fascism originates in the days of the Roman Empire, as does the root of the word; and yet, we fail to denote some level of fascist authority in Rome's elitist totalitarian state.

I believe the point was raised earlier, by implication of absurdity, that the Romans were not totalitarian in governance. I think it is self-evident that they were. Almost all manner of life had to meet with imperial approval, or it was anti-Roman. This, one might say, is fascism. That the state believes strength lies in unity, and those that differ from this unity, so carefully wrought into the social fabric, are anti-state.

To me, this is the most basic meaning of the word, and from here it was then evolved into its role in Italy, Germany, and beyond.

There is no science to politics. Only theory, but never pure and sterile. Furthermore, each may theorize and pontificate at length about his own view of a system; a word, no less.

I think we should be less concerned with the exact denotative meaning of the word fascism, and more concerned with the underlying conditions that people here are attempting to attribute to it.

Whether it is neo-fascist, semi-totalitarian, or brutally authoritative; this country exercises controls which the government is not entitled to under law. It is an illegally restrictive and, I argue, an immorally restrictive government.

I conclude my monologue with this, by what right does our government claim it's existence? There is a definitive answer to this question.

This republic claims it founds it's legitimacy to operate and even exist soundly and solely in the consent of the governed. This is what was set to differentiate our nation from monarchic rule. Rule that was, in popular rhetoric, immoral for the scope of its authority and the lack of its credibility.

I think there is totalitarianism, and there is democracy. The two are at odds. Left and right.

Revolver

30th June 2014, 06:42

It is certainly possible for non-fascist states to accomplish the violent ends you are referring to, but that is not what the disagreement in this thread stems from. The disagreement stems from an understanding of what fascism is, and whether fascism is defined by its subjective or objective factors. Roger Griffin is cited for the purpose of providing a definition of fascism that emphasizes its subjective factors. That is, Griffin and others define fascism based on the stated aims of the fascists themselves. Of course in practice these theorists are more restrictive; Griffin refuses to label Phalangists fascists even though they self-identified as such because according to Griffin they were insufficiently secure (since they were Maronites and supported Maronite nationalism, cloaked as it was in appeals to some nebulous "Lebanese" nationalism based on Phoenicia or Syria, as the case may be) and because they were insufficiently populist (even though they had tens of thousands of party members from a broad range of Lebanon's Maronites and were mobilized against competing factions within Lebanon as well as Palestinian refugees). Similarly, Griffin denies that Africa can produce a fascist movement because there are objective conditions that are not present, but this just demonstrates how incoherent his theory is. If there are insufficient objective conditions, then Griffin's definition of fascism, which omits any reference to them, is meaningless and needs to be scratched. And if there are objective conditions that determine the "fascist minimum," then there are ways of examining existing conditions in different societies to determine if they are present.

The point of the Hutu example was to show how conditions in African nations can support similar political movements, and also to demonstrate the ways in which the elites are actually responsible for organizing this response to economic crises. When you examine the Maronites, you see that the Phalangists were organized by prominent Christian families and that the mobilization followed a similar trajectory. In both cases, the parties were stridently anti-communist but they were also seeking ethnic (Hutu) or ethnoreligious (Maronite) rejuvenation, claiming to be forward looking movements that sought to secure the interests of their ethnic/ethnoreligious group against crisis events.

There is some irony here, because if you examine the history of the Maronites you can see that their dominant position was secured by the French in 1860, when they intervened on behalf of the Maronites for supposedly Christian or "humanitarian" reasons. The Druze were busy slaughtering a bunch of "Christians" (Maronites) who were in the midst of a peasant rebellion against their Druze overlords. The French interest was in the Silk Road and the silk trade, and they were competing with other states that were sponsoring minorities within the Ottoman Empire at the time, most notably the British, who supported the Druze. But the end result was Maronite dependence on the French not only for the continued political support of their autonomous zone within the Ottoman Empire but also through trade. The French became the patrons of the Maronites, and their material support, including their support of the Maronite Church, became a tool that could be used to pressure favorable economic policies. So in the 1880s, for example, the governor of the Maronite autonomous region found himself at odds with the Maronite clergy and the French Consul when he wanted to impose taxes on foreigners involved in silk production. The French calculus changed a little over the years, but following World War I they were given the League Mandate for Lebanon and Syria and by the time the League mandate ended (during WWII), the Maronites had emerged comparatively rich and politically well positioned, securing their position in the political pact that ended the Mandate. Phalange influence among the Maronites reached its height when their control over the Lebanese state was threatened by a sudden influx of Palestinian refugees and by rising consciousness among the other two major confessional groups, along with pan-Arabism and, ultimately, the leftist Lebanese National Front, the PLO and other factions. When the Phalange emerged as a militant force that was protecting the material interests of the Maronite elite, they were responding to a revolutionary crisis. The same is true of the Hutu ultranationalists who formed the CDR and the militant wing of the fragmenting ruling party.

I think that the real question posed by this thread is, ironically, not about fascism, but about whether there will be crisis conditions within the near future. The United States clearly has proto-fascist elements in the right wing, and those elements have the support of economic elites when they believe that they can be used to counter threats to their own interests. But you cannot control fascism when it is unleashed, it has a logic of its own. It doesn't threaten the private property of its elite patrons, at least not initially, but its response to crisis conditions creates a cascade effect that is not subject to the ordinary controls of the ruling class. And its operations are dramatic precisely because the crisis is dramatic.

Does the United States face a crisis event in the near future? I think that it is possible, if not probable. But a fascist mobilization here will not look the same as it did in other countries. The Cliven Bundy episode is particularly disturbing, because we saw the mobilization of the militia movement in opposition to the federal government, an action that was initially embraced by the broader conservative movement. We've also recently witnessed the conservative establishment infighting result in a deposed majority leader in Congress and the campaign of a neo-confederate in Mississippi narrowly thwarted through the use of Democratic voters by an establishment faction. This is taking place in period of remarkable right wing political intransigence (or as well call it, partisan gridlock). There are important qualifiers, of course: for now the champions of Christian fundamentalism have lost some of their foothold within the conservative establishment, the Tea Party is made up of disparate elements which include radical libertarians as well as racialists and social conservatives, and the most powerful elements of the economic elite are not firmly connected to any of these movements (in fact they are pretty much hostile to all of them). But again, a crisis event can shift the political field of vision dramatically. You don't even need to look back very far to see how this can reorient American policy along authoritarian lines: the September 11 fallout resulted in indefinite detention, torture apologia, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, a sharp spike in militarization and renewed mobilization of the Christian right. And whatever else it was, 9/11 was not a crisis in the sense that I am talking about. It was political violence that involved some powerful imagery, but it did not threaten the economic security (or the lives) of the vast majority of Americans. A true crisis event, whether it is an escalation of the economic stagnation we are experiencing today or a different kind of catastrophe altogether, will be an entirely different animal.

Cani

30th June 2014, 15:55

Revolver, I believe you are right in clarifying the issue. We should speak less of fascism, thereby spending energy creating a divide in this discussion; and spend more time discussing the crisis conditions of some autocratic state that may arise (or, as some argue, has arisen) and cause a calamity to fall on the people.

Revolver

2nd July 2014, 19:28

I think that's right Cani. Ultimately, what is being discussed is the possibility of a qualitative shift in the nature of the US regime, and whether you call that shift fascist, autocratic or something else altogether is not as important as an analysis of the underlying dynamics behind it. We are in the midst of some kind of shift, that much is certain. How that shift unfolds remains to be seen, but we can see that there are very important authoritarian trends.

I think that much of this can be attributed to the inherent instability of the neoliberal project. It takes a great deal of state intervention to enforce market logic into every area of social relations, and the result is that the state is not only present everywhere, but so is the private firm. And more to the point, corporations. Accordingly, the line that separates the sphere of the public and the sphere of the public (which is ironically the line that the liberals behind the anti-Keynesian movement were set out to protect and reinforce against central planning) begins to collapse, particularly in times of crisis. As technocratic fixes fail to prop up economic growth, including the brief flirtation with Keynesian stimulus, the political struggles began to take on a familiar character. And so we see, unsurprisingly, that the Tea Party and similar elements were stoked by segments of America's ruling class to foment populist anger against the social state, the Democratic Party's return to economic populism rhetoric, etcetera. But the post-2008 crisis has been a slow burn, and the socialization of the ruling class debt was only transformed into anti-working class austerity in the states after the ascension of conservatives in 2010. The appearance of Occupy signaled the emergence of American class consciousness in ways that I have never seen in my lifetime, and we should not be surprised to discover that the military industrial complex is also preparing for a storm, in the form of NSA surveillance, Pentagon studies of civil resistance movements, etcetera. And now we have nativists organizing in the Southwest, opposing the federal government's regulation of white farmers' use of state property while demanding that undocumented immigrants be seized, tried, convicted and deported. Or worse. History may not repeat, but it rhymes.

Ocean Seal

2nd July 2014, 19:34

For all those either crying "fascism" or "you don't know what fascism is," I'd like to say that I don't know what fascism is, but it sounds remarkably close to capitalism across a series of measures. Its a pretty useless and rhetorical term (which should be employed by exclusively fascists). Regardless I challenge anyone to give me any set of characteristics set in any of the fascist countries, and I could probably find them in a country you don't consider fascist. Fascism = capitalism in decay. It is a continuous stream from capitalism.

exeexe

2nd July 2014, 19:56

This video pretty much explains what fascism is but triggerwarning since its a pro fascist video.
BkQyfuhlNQs

Psycho P and the Freight Train

3rd July 2014, 05:00

Exeexe, no offense, but that video was terrible, lol. That did not explain fascism at all. :unsure:

But anyway, I actually do think we should come up with a good definition for fascism. I honestly couldn't say what exactly it is. That Griffin guy's definition seemed good though. But that makes me have even more questions.

I think Tim or someone said that the conditions for fascism only existed in Germany, Italy, Finland, and South Africa? Why the last two though? South Africa because of its apartheid? Because Israel is doing the same thing, but nobody is calling them fascist. Presumably because they technically have multiple parties? But if a state has multiple parties and the parties serve the exact same goal, isn't that a bit too similar to just having one party?

Also, explain Finland. What happened there? I am generally pretty good with history, but I thought Finland was experiencing the Winter War around 1939. How was it fascist? (I guess these questions are more directed at Tim.

Also, wouldn't these definitions make North Korea fascist?
-Claims to have withered a terrible storm and risen from the ashes in the face of nearly being destroyed.
-Claims to get their authority from the will of the people.
-Ultra nationalist.

Thoughts?

Sinred

3rd July 2014, 06:11

I dont live in the US so i i am not sure.
But with the police state and extreme nationalism, justice system, the removal of civil rights and an incorperated economic elite in the power positions. I would already call it fascist.

Loony Le Fist

3rd July 2014, 13:03

School loans were exempted only in the last decade from bankruptcy protection in the US--long before the student loan crisis. I wonder what would happen if overdue debt became covered by criminal law instead of tort law. Considering the sheer amount of unpaid loans that will occur in the future, I have an idea that this might be the plan.

Go back to sleep though. Fascism isn't happening, kids. It's ok. It can't happen in the US because we have such a great uncorrupted functional political system that always works 100% of the time.

Zukunftsmusik

3rd July 2014, 14:49

Go back to sleep though. Fascism isn't happening, kids. It's ok. It can't happen in the US because we have such a great uncorrupted functional political system that always works 100% of the time.

So basically your argument has been destroyed and therefore you you turn to this childish flailing.

Cani

3rd July 2014, 19:42

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

3rd July 2014, 21:09

If I may be so bold, I would like to share the perception I have of the connotation that seems normative regarding 'fascism'.

Fascism is the the merger of government and the corporation. Fascism is ultra-right authoritative power screaming that the end of family values is upon us and a crisis of unprecedented, yet vague, severity will befall us all if we don't forfeit thought and freedom to the state.

This is not the case whatsoever. Fascism's understanding of a "corporation" is NOT the American legal form of company. This cannot be stressed enough, as american's get so bloody confused by this naming practice.

The "corporation" of fascist theory is a merger of a union and a industry-wide conglomerate; this is to effective the management and quell social disharmony, and partially derives also from fascism's splitting off certain syndicalist thought. In practice, this was never truly adopted by the Mussolini government to its full extent, but the government would consistently buy out failing private enterprise and reorganise them into these new "corporations" - often under the same management, but under nominal state ownership and with public support.

Fascism is the rich ruling in oligarchic, polyarchic fashion under a seemingly united banner. Fascism is the state spying on the citizens without merit. Fascism is Orwell's 1984. The death of dissent, the illegalization of difference. The mockery of anything failing the state line.

It's not.

The use of brutality and militancy to suppress non-violent movements. The relegation of the masses to the equivalence of serfs. The image that we are united when we are more divided than ever.

It's not.

Black folks experienced this type of autocratic and unjustified brutality in the States for centuries. Natives did as well. The labor struggle experienced armed resistance. The more recent Black Panthers experienced COINTELPRO. The poor orphans experienced MK-ULTRA. The prisoners experienced Tuskegee. The free man experiences taxes without due representation.

That's not fascism. That's colonialism and racism. Taxes are not justified by "due representation".

The last I justify by the image I perceive that we are a one-party state, and only that party is ever elected. Therefore elections fail to be representative.

It's not a one party state. It's a capitalist state. This is capitalism. The ruling institutions serve capitalism. Elections will never be representative, nor is there any value to them being so; popular values and opinions are, as you must surely know, so very easily manipulated by both conscious and unconscious causes. This world is a one-party state insofar as capitalist rulers are united in their dedication to maintaining the status quo that exist and that they benefit; but this does not mean that capitalist government is monolithic.

Communist rule, however, will be. There will be no dissent, no multitude, and there can be nothing outside of the reach of the Party.

exeexe

4th July 2014, 01:24

But if a state has multiple parties and the parties serve the exact same goal, isn't that a bit too similar to just having one party?

If the state allows there to be two parties who by circumstances share the same policy, then what what would prevent people from creating a 3rd party with a policy that is unique?

So my answer is no because there is inherited freedom in that kind of society if and only if society obeys to its own rules.

Loony Le Fist

4th July 2014, 02:23

So basically your argument has been destroyed and therefore you you turn to this childish flailing.

Interesting you bring that up. I am actually still waiting for someone to present an argument. So far all I've gotten is that the US is such a great country where bad things don't happen. Or that I don't understand fascism, because fascism is a label that can only be applied to Germany, Italy or Spain at specific times in history.

Speaking of childish flailing, are you going to offer a rebuttal, or are you going to continue to pretend that someone telling me that the US is essentially too good for bad things to happen counts as a rebuttal?

Jimmie Higgins

4th July 2014, 02:58

Interesting you bring that up. I am actually still waiting for someone to present an argument. So far all I've gotten is that the US is such a great country where bad things don't happen. Or that I don't understand fascism, because fascism is a label that can only be applied to Germany, Italy or Spain in specific times in history.

Yeah I don't think we need be be calling each others arguments childish, at the very least it is counterproductive to discussion. At any rate, my perspective is that worldwide in capitalism, there is a shift against the democratic reforms of the post war era (in some places these reforms never really existed and in some places this rollback began decades ago). But more specifically with the re-emergence of crisis and intensification of competition among capitalist states, there is a need to put greater pressure on the populations (to increase exploitation due to competition among capitalists, and ensure popular acceptance of the "new normal"). So in Europe, for example, the austerity needed by the capitalists also requires clearing the path politically and this means eliminating any meger levers of popular dissesnt that still exist. In the u.s. Increasing exploitation and cut backs after a generation of "cutting the fat" means demoralizing the population more. For china to continue to grow, dissent of workers needs to be prevented. So even anemic liberal democracy has to be held in check and I think that why were are seeing an increase in authoritarian means and increased restrictions on bourgeois "norms".

That is not the question to me: capitalism in this austerity mode needs pinochettes, needs a passified population. Capitalism and even the kind of "democracy" that existed for the last two generations are incompatible in this era.

But is this fascism? I don't think so. I think the capitalists will try and accomplish this without thugs on the streets, if possible. In Greece, however, governments that have attempted to push this program have stalled and become illegitimate an unable to function. What are the capitalists to do then? This is when fascism in power becomes a real possibility. When class and popular resistance can't be contained within the legal norms, that's when fascism becomes not just a threat on the streets by gangs of reactionaries, but could become favored as the order of the day.

Loony Le Fist

4th July 2014, 04:15

[whole bunch that I agree with]

That is not the question to me: capitalism in this austerity mode needs pinochettes, needs a passified population. Capitalism and even the kind of "democracy" that existed for the last two generations are incompatible in this era.

Quite.

But is this fascism? I don't think so. I think the capitalists will try and accomplish this without thugs on the streets, if possible. In Greece, however, governments that have attempted to push this program have stalled and become illegitimate an unable to function.

I think that there are forms of fascism present that have a very obvious and hideous face, such as the problem in Greece with GD, as you pointed out. However I think that fascism is evolving. I think there is a far more insidious form that has taken over the levers of power, more so in the anglosphere (USA, UK, Australia). I suppose Mussolini said something I find quite prescient.

Mussolini
Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. ... National pride has no need of the delirium of race.

What are the capitalists to do then? This is when fascism in power becomes a real possibility. When class and popular resistance can't be contained within the legal norms, that's when fascism becomes not just a threat on the streets by gangs of reactionaries, but could become favored as the order of the day.

I think that we might not necessarily need reactionaries in the streets if we already have them at the helm. I would say the US has some of the most insane politicians, and they also happen to be wielding some rather formidable weaponry. Police have been granted massive amounts of power since the whole SWAT revolution of the 90s. There is also infinite federal funding available through police laundering it through their SWAT teams calling it community policing. Now we find ourselves caught in a massive web of surveillance. That really concerns me.

Maybe we aren't there yet. Or maybe we have just become accustomed to the idea. For example, I wish I could tell you my real name. I have made posts where I am honest about my personal life, but I wouldn't want anyone to find out where I work, or any of my client's names, let alone my own name. While privacy is a right everyone should have under any system, I shouldn't have to hide things because I'm afraid to lose my livelihood.

Zukunftsmusik

4th July 2014, 08:24

Interesting you bring that up. I am actually still waiting for someone to present an argument. So far all I've gotten is that the US is such a great country where bad things don't happen.

No on is saying this. Have we been reading the same thread? Arguments have been given, but apparantly not the same arguments you think have been given. This is why I called you childish - either you haven't read the arguments or you have misunderstood them (and when you write the strawman above I get a feeling it's on purpose).

IOr that I don't understand fascism, because fascism is a label that can only be applied to Germany, Italy or Spain at specific times in history.

As a spesific form of the capitalist state, then yes this is fascism (plus a few other states - where to draw the line is up for debate). As a political movement it does however exist today. You can correctly call Golden Dawn fascist, but the US state? No.

I think that we might not necessarily need reactionaries in the streets if we already have them at the helm. I would say the US has some of the most insane politicians, and they also happen to be wielding some rather formidable weaponry. Police have been granted massive amounts of power since the whole SWAT revolution of the 90s. There is also infinite federal funding available through police laundering it through their SWAT teams calling it community policing. Now we find ourselves caught in a massive web of surveillance. That really concerns me.

But these are characteristics of any modern state. "Insane politicians" doesn't make fascism.

IMaybe we aren't there yet. Or maybe we have just become accustomed to the idea. For example, I wish I could tell you my real name. I have made posts where I am honest about my personal life, but I wouldn't want anyone to find out where I work, or any of my client's names, let alone my own name. While privacy is a right everyone should have under any system, I shouldn't have to hide things because I'm afraid to lose my livelihood.

See, you always come up with these anecdotes to back up your points. That doesn't hold. On the other hand you have people in this thread who have out forward arguments about the specific characteristics of fascism. What is described above is good security culture in any modern state, but again it doesn't grapple at all with what fascism really is, neither as a political movement or as a specific form of state. That's why people have told you you don't understand what fascism is. All you have mustered as counter arguments are either anecdotal or inclusive to all capitalist states. That, or stuff about how people who disagree with you need to "wake up" or "open their eyes". And that, frankly is childish.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

6th July 2014, 21:06

I know this is in poor taste to say this, but can someone answer my question? Page 4, 4th post up from the bottom. I'm extremely curious about this.

EDIT: Post number 77.

PhoenixAsh

6th July 2014, 21:28

Post numbers would be better. not everybody has the same settings. This thread only has 3 pages for me as I have set the number of displayed posts per page to a higher number.

Or simply restate your question.

I am assuming you ask about your questions in #77 :

1). Why Finland is fascist
> I don't think it was but it collaborated with the Germans against the Russians.

2). Wouldn't North-Korea be considered fascist
> I think it should be

Psycho P and the Freight Train

6th July 2014, 21:33

Loony Le Fist

6th July 2014, 23:28

No on is saying this. Have we been reading the same thread? Arguments have been given, but apparantly not the same arguments you think have been given. This is why I called you childish - either you haven't read the arguments or you have misunderstood them (and when you write the strawman above I get a feeling it's on purpose).

Well how else would you describe someone essentially saying that the US has political safeguards in place to prevent fascists from taking over? I'd say that implicit to that idea is the assumption that the US political system is somehow the greatest one. There is nothing exceptional about it.

As a spesific form of the capitalist state, then yes this is fascism (plus a few other states - where to draw the line is up for debate). As a political movement it does however exist today. You can correctly call Golden Dawn fascist, but the US state? No.

Interesting discussion point. Do you see capitalism as a particular evolution of a fascist state? I'm curious to know if you see capitalism becoming fascism, or does it work the other way around too?

But these are characteristics of any modern state. "Insane politicians" doesn't make fascism.

Perhaps not in general. I would say insane politicians that have political agendas with fascistic traits do.

See, you always come up with these anecdotes to back up your points. That doesn't hold. On the other hand you have people in this thread who have out forward arguments about the specific characteristics of fascism. What is described above is good security culture in any modern state, but again it doesn't grapple at all with what fascism really is, neither as a political movement or as a specific form of state.

Earlier in the thread I provided some bullet points on what I perceive are the characteristics of fascism. I was told these are traits of capitalist systems too. I agree. However, I'm saying it is an inclusive list of the minimum number of traits necessary. Having only a couple doesn't really count. I don't really know what you mean about these anecdotes. As if expressing oneself in a personal way was somehow bad, or something. Is it not professional enough? :P.

Probably what you are calling security culture, I am calling a reboot of fascism.

That's why people have told you you don't understand what fascism is. All you have mustered as counter arguments are either anecdotal or inclusive to all capitalist states. That, or stuff about how people who disagree with you need to "wake up" or "open their eyes". And that, frankly is childish.

Well you pointed out this security culture earlier on. Perhaps eyes are open, the problem is the words aren't on the same wavelength and we are all talking past one another.

exeexe

6th July 2014, 23:56

EDIT: Post number 77.
I dont think you can call North Korea fascist. Its just a dictatorship with mostly centrally planned economy. In Fascism you have a (controlled) market.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

7th July 2014, 00:57

I dont think you can call North Korea fascist. Its just a dictatorship with mostly centrally planned economy. In Fascism you have a (controlled) market.

Well see that's another discussion I want to get started too. Does fascism have anything to do with economics? Well of course it does. I guess I should say, are there any economic policies that define a nation as fascist?

LuÃs Henrique

9th July 2014, 02:21

What else would you call the roman empire? It was a fucking totalitarian fascist state.

And in that case, what is not a raping totalitarian fascist State?

Is there any State in this planet, as of 2014, that is not fascist, by your definition? Sweden, perhaps?

Now let's look at the Roman Empire.

Was it a bourgeois State, for starters? If so, how do we explain that there was no capitalist production in it? If not, how does it qualify as "fascist"?

Was it a police State? Was it established by a collusion between professional anti-working class rioters and the police?

What was the Roman Empire fascist party? How was there any party, for starters?

Did the Ancient Rome fascists persecute Ancient Roman communists, or social democrats?

Was there any scapegoating of non-productive capitalists?

If we look at how the Roman Empire actually functioned, and compare it with how fascist Italy worked, we will see very little similarity, and any number of differences we want to see.

See, the problem with your definition of fascism is that it doesn't distinguish fascism from anything else. Hitler? fascist. Stalinism? fascist. British colonialism? fascist. Perón/Vargas brand of nationalist populism? fascist. American liberal democracy? fascist. Nordic style social democracy? fascist. And to complete that, the Roman Empire? fascist. The Gracchi opposition to the Roman Empire? fascist. The Greek city-States? fascist.

And what is the point of a label that does not distinguish the contents of the bottles into which it is applied? What is the use of labeling bottles "stuff", for instance? Or, more to the point, what is the use of labeling bottles "poison", regardless of if they contain cyanide, DDT, alcohol, or water, because any of these substances may kill you?

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

9th July 2014, 02:27

Screw it, lets just have one word which can be used to describe everything.

Stuff.

Stuff is stuff. Stuffing stuffy stuff, which stuffs stuff with stuff.

Now prove me wrong. Or some stuff.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

9th July 2014, 03:05

But anyway, I actually do think we should come up with a good definition for fascism.

The problem is that this is quite circular.

If I consider Germany, Italy, and Japan to have been fascist, I will come up with a definition that matches Germany, Italy, and Japan, but not Spain (probably one that includes foreign expansionism/adventurerism, for instance). If I consider Germany, Italy and Spain to have been fascist, I will come up with a different definition (probably one that includes some semblance of party rule, perhaps).

I think Tim or someone said that the conditions for fascism only existed in Germany, Italy, Finland, and South Africa?

I wouldn't call Finland or South Africa "fascist" by no means. Not that their regimes didn't sympathise with aspects of fascism, which they evidently did, but they functioned in quite different ways. Finland shared geopolitical goals with Nazi Germany, but the regime was structured in a much different way. South Africa shared the overt racism of Nazi German, but was a parliamentary regime, quite differently from Germany (and even its racism was quite different from that of Nazi Germany - they wanted to enslave Blacks, not to eradicate them).

Why the last two though? South Africa because of its apartheid? Because Israel is doing the same thing, but nobody is calling them fascist. Presumably because they technically have multiple parties?

So did South Africa. Arguably even more, since one of their parties actually opposed apartheid, while I don't see any Israeli party (well, unless we count the "Arab" parties) doing anything like that. And Israel is no fascist State (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2637378&postcount=12), by no stretch of imagination.

But if a state has multiple parties and the parties serve the exact same goal, isn't that a bit too similar to just having one party?

I doubt very much that there are going to be two different parties (or even different tendencies within a party) that serve the "exact same goal", unless we have a very lax definition of "exact same". Yes, all bourgeois parties share a common goal of maintaining bourgeois order. No two bourgeois parties have the "exact same" understanding of what "bourgeois order" is (does it include legal abortion or free press, for instance?), and so their goals are always going to be slightly (or even not so slightly) different. This is what causes them to be parties, for starters.

**************************

It is one thing to call conservatives, cop-lovers, scabs, warmongers, authoritarians in general, "fashos", or "fascistoids". Those are political insults, that those people usually quite deserve. But in doing political analysis we are going to be wrong if we mistake them for fascists, for they will do things that fascists don't do, and won't do things that fascists do.

Luís Henrique

Psycho P and the Freight Train

9th July 2014, 03:23

The problem is that this is quite circular.

If I consider Germany, Italy, and Japan to have been fascist, I will come up with a definition that matches Germany, Italy, and Japan, but not Spain (probably one that includes foreign expansionism/adventurerism, for instance). If I consider Germany, Italy and Spain to have been fascist, I will come up with a different definition (probably one that includes some semblance of party rule, perhaps).

I wouldn't call Finland or South Africa "fascist" by no means. Not that their regimes didn't sympathise with aspects of fascism, which they evidently did, but they functioned in quite different ways. Finland shared geopolitical goals with Nazi Germany, but the regime was structured in a much different way. South Africa shared the overt racism of Nazi German, but was a parliamentary regime, quite differently from Germany (and even its racism was quite different from that of Nazi Germany - they wanted to enslave Blacks, not to eradicate them).

So did South Africa. Arguably even more, since one of their parties actually opposed apartheid, while I don't see any Israeli party (well, unless we count the "Arab" parties) doing anything like that. And Israel is no fascist State, by no stress of imagination.

I doubt very much that there are going to be two different parties (or even different tendencies within a party) that serve the "exact same goal", unless we have a very lax definition of "exact same". Yes, all bourgeois parties share a common goal of maintaining bourgeois order. No two bourgeois parties have the "exact same" understanding of what "bourgeois order" is (does it include legal abortion or free press, for instance?), and so their goals are always going to be slightly (or even not so slightly) different. This is what causes them to be parties, for starters.

**************************

It is one thing to call conservatives, cop-lovers, scabs, warmongers, authoritarians in general, "fashos", or "fascistoids". Those are political insults, that those people usually quite deserve. But in doing political analysis we are going to be wrong if we mistake them for fascists, for they will do things that fascists don't do, and won't do things that fascists do.

Luís Henrique

Hey, thanks for your response! Just a few things.

Very true, people will probably morph the definition to include obviously fascist countries. But, the question still stands, is there a universal definition? So many people are throwing around traits of fascist countries, but nobody can seem to agree on an actual universal definition. Socialism has a universal definition that can be applied like a formula to find out if a place is socialist. What is this formula for fascism?

Also, about bourgeois parties. We can look at some platforms of the more conservative ones and say that they have different stances on some small issues. But in actual implementation, it does not work that way. They all generally follow the same path. Yeah, other parties can run, but none that can challenge the status quo. But then again, under fascism, the state is totalitarian in that NO activity exists outside of the party. But then again, that can be applied to non-fascist states as well right?

I guess my question is, how would you define fascism? (I know that's like the whole point of the thread but still. Haven't gotten a concrete answer except from that Griffin thing, but even then some people debate that.)

LuÃs Henrique

9th July 2014, 03:31

Well how else would you describe someone essentially saying that the US has political safeguards in place to prevent fascists from taking over?

It has.

So had Weimar Germany.

Those failed in the latter case; they haven't failed in the former. Not yet, in any case.

I'd say that implicit to that idea is the assumption that the US political system is somehow the greatest one. There is nothing exceptional about it.

I don't think that such implication holds. The US has political safeguards in place to prevent fascists taking over; such safeguards will work very well as long as there is no actual fascist political movement to challenge them. When such challenge is posited, then such safeguards might quite plausibly crumble under the pressure.

And this has nothing to do with exceptionality. Each and every liberal democracy has such safeguards. So do each and every non-fascist dictatorship in the world. It is indeed the rule, or at the very least a very common feature.

Interesting discussion point. Do you see capitalism as a particular evolution of a fascist state? I'm curious to know if you see capitalism becoming fascism, or does it work the other way around too?

Fascism is not an alternative to capitalism. Capitalism is a mode of production; fascism is a kind of political regime. Every fascist State is necessarily a capitalist State; the converse is not true.

Perhaps not in general. I would say insane politicians that have political agendas with fascistic traits do.

"Sane" politicians with fascistic political agendas will have as much to do with fascism as "insane" politicians. Fascism is not a result of individual psychopathology, it is a social phenomenon.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

9th July 2014, 04:14

Hey, thanks for your response! Just a few things.

You are welcome. :)

Very true, people will probably morph the definition to include obviously fascist countries. But, the question still stands, is there a universal definition?

I don't think so. People will use different definitions because they oppose different traits of such regimes (or don't oppose any, in the case of fascists). A socialist will consider them bourgeois regimes and oppose them, among other reasons, because they are bourgeois. To liberals, those terms and phrases don't make sence, so they will oppose those regimes for different reasons, but not because they uphold the bourgeois order (indeed, if they even use the term "bourgeois", they will probably deny that those regimes are bourgeois at all).

Socialism has a universal definition that can be applied like a formula to find out if a place is socialist.

It actually hasn't. There is a definition that is agreed among socialists, but liberals or conservatives or fascists won't agree with it. And even among us, you can see the word fights that arise each time we discuss whether "socialism" is a synonym of "communism" or if it denotes a transitional phase between capitalism and communism.

What is this formula for fascism?

To me (and I draw heavily from Poulantzas here), it is a bourgeois regime (thus excluding the Roman Empire, the CSA or any given feudal State, up to Louis XVI's) characterised by a one-party rule (thus excluding Israel or apartheid South Africa for having too many parties, and Vargas' Brazil or Pinochet's Chile for having too few), where that party is a political instrument to physically harass and destroy working class organisations (even if those are reformist or corrupt) in collusion with police (thus excluding the Soviet Union). Or a movement to establish such a regime, and so necessarily a movement that at least tries to reach a collusion with police, and that initiates physical violence against working class organisations with or without legal support.

Also, about bourgeois parties. We can look at some platforms of the more conservative ones and say that they have different stances on some small issues. But in actual implementation, it does not work that way. They all generally follow the same path.

First, if those were "small issues", we wouldn't be banning or restricting people if they hold the wrong position on them.

There are several reasons why a political party may be unable to implement its platform, varying from unwillingness to actual legal impediments that would require them shedding off legalities that they might have not the strength do dispense with. Sometimes those things even compound: why don't the Republicans repeal Wade vs Roe? Perhaps because they would have to revamp the Judicial Branch in an inconstitutional way, and haven't the actual power to perform such coup d'Etat; perhaps because it would cost them an easy rallying point and an easy way to appear rebellious against a conspiracy of sorts. Or more probably because of both, the impossibility allowing them to blame "the system" or shadowy forces for their unwillingness, the unwillingness allowing them to keep such comfortably blameable impossibility in place...

But anyway, remove such impediments, and you will certainly have illegal abortion in the US.

Yeah, other parties can run, but none that can challenge the status quo.

They can't, but is that impossibility due to rules that prevent them from that, or from the fact that they cannot gather enough support do it? In the US, is it forbidden to put up a socialist party, or a monarchist party, or an anti-war party? Or is that while all those things are perfectly legal, they cannot get more than a few ten thousand votes, where they would need several millions to make an impact?

But then again, under fascism, the state is totalitarian in that NO activity exists outside of the party. But then again, that can be applied to non-fascist states as well right?

It can, otherwise we would need to consider the Soviet Union, or present day China, fascist, which I think is sheer abuse of the word. On the other hand, you can have such feature without fascism, but I don't think you can have fascism without such feature (reasonably defined - it is quite clear that many activities do exist outside of the party even in a fascist dictatorship, from sexual activity to economic exploitation of workers).

I guess my question is, how would you define fascism? (I know that's like the whole point of the thread but still. Haven't gotten a concrete answer except from that Griffin thing, but even then some people debate that.)

I hope I offered an alternative above; if it is one you can't agree with, then you could at least point out why or where it is uncompelling...

Anyway, I think "fascist" is not a synonym to "evil", "authoritarian", "dictatorial", "totalitarian", "anti-worker", "illiberal", "undemocratic", "policiac", "racist", "reactionary" etc. It is all of those things (except "evil", that is not a political concept) but all of those things can be, and most often are, unrelated to fascism.

Luís Henrique

--Navarro--

23rd July 2014, 23:44

American elites shut down unions by passing laws that inconvenience them until they cease to exist. Fascist elites shut down unions the way Colombian elites do. Look up what's happening in Colombia to union activists.

No, Colombian government employs mainly the first way (laws). Direct violence against unionists is marginal.

happytrot

5th August 2014, 17:32

The US is already fascist just look anyone well informed on fascism and that knows the signs could easily spot it

Geiseric

7th August 2014, 19:25

Fascism is specific, there is no such thing as "signs of fascism" a la robocop. That is a liberal interpretation of fascism which is an ideology specifically geared at ending the class struggle in favor of the bourgeois. The tea party is brazen in their hatred of minorities and unions, and contains ACTUAL fascists, so I wouldnt be surprised if they contained the embryo of the future fascist movement.

The Red Star Rising

7th August 2014, 20:19

There's no chance of America going collectivist, but I think it will go further right, more laissez-faire, more backward and just generally become more of a shithole. Maybe America'll have some kind of weird isolationist fascism where they share the fascist belief of one type of person being inherently better than another but believe in the supremacy of the individual and the supposed right of the corporate fat cat to do whatever they want while some people starve to death.
LmWQd8zhEg4

There are a disturbing number of people in America who seriously agree with Armstrong's political beliefs.

Even though a rational person should find them horrifically insane.

I also like Metal Gear Rising for showing that nascent core of brutal social darwinistic dystopia lying at the heart of laissez faire economics and the American right in general.

America going to hell would likely involve either the NSA expanding further and the Government cracking down on anything that doesn't agree with apple pie and the big businesses lining it's pockets, or sliding into a hell of lolberterianism like Somalia on a far larger scale.