Log in

View Full Version : The Fascist Republic of The United States



MarxistPC
11th January 2015, 01:15
A few months ago I posted, Rise of The Reactionaries, on this thread and I have recently finished the second of three that will be released. If you want to, please tell me where the argument skips around is incoherent or needs strengthening. Enjoy!


The Fascist Republic of the United States

Fascism isn't a slur to be used against policies and political parties that are reactionary. It actually means something. It is an ideological position that states that the rulers of capitalism, not capitalism itself, is above all else in government, society, and even the health of the planet. In June I wrote about how the basis of a fascist movement has brewed within the United States, by exploring the origins of the Tea Party, and how this base has solidified the station of the economic elite in government. The Tea Party have effectively put into power the heads of industry; beyond public reproach due to their obscure presence to the voter, they control and manipulate the system by their whim. Effectively silencing the American people’s attitudes and opinions on nearly every policy question. As a Princeton study showed in 2014 the United States is no longer a democracy but an oligarchy; in studying 1,779 policy issues to come before the Congress they found that the majority of the American people had no impact on whether or not they would pass or fail. In other words, for over eighty percent of the United States population, democracy does not exist. However as you move up the wealth and income brackets, the rich simply get what they want. As Karl Marx said over 150 years ago, “the bourgeoisie, in the modern representative state, has achieved exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”.

Since June, much has happened within American politics to make clear for all those who are willing to look hard enough, to see that the American government is now a fascist state. Government is controlled completely by its corporate masters, that fund every campaign and endorsement for the collective 545 people in the Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court, who run this country. Though differing with past forms of fascism in that the government has not been fundamentally changed, i.e. through it’s constitution, but by judicial decisions, unlimited campaign donations, economic and political blackmail, along with blatant threats, the economic elite have usurped government power, and therefore the will of those it governs. Creating, as Marx would also say, “a world after it’s own image”, the towering heights of the economy have created a system by which they are in total control of, yet wholly unaccountable to. From massive tax breaks and huge subsidies, to a sprawling criminal justice system and a great sense of injustice, to more money than ever before to more poor than ever before, to endless unjustified war with no peace, to torture with no prosecution, American society seems to have been inverted.

Fascism is not an easy charge to make as it’s meaning is so skewed and, for obvious economic and political reasons, it’s historical background is opaque. In an effort to better understand the meaning of fascism I began with the definitive works on the matter, a series of letters known as Fascism: What It Is and How To Fight It by Leon Trotsky. While living in Turkey from 1929 to 1934 he detailed the rise of fascism in Italy as Mussolini took power. Describing fascism as, “A plebeian movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses”, Trotsky prolifically defined the most dangerous political ideology of the modern era as a power grab by the rich by using the upper classes to take over society.

Describing this phenomenon in the form of the Tea Party, in my piece Rise of the Reactionaries, I analyzed that they are what Trotsky described as the "petty bourgeoisie". In the modern economic climate they are our managers, supervisors, and large-small business owners. They are those who survived the transition to finance capital, but didn't experience the sheer wealth grab that the financial elite did. The Tea Party are, as Trotsky describes the petty bourgeoisie, "an exploited and disenfranchised class... They regard the bourgeoisie with envy and hatred". They are used by the bourgeoisie, "as a battering ram against the proletariat". Finance capital, through political, racial, and religious illusions, have turned the Tea Party against those they manage; blaming the worker for the gains they did not see.

After this successful exploitation of the petty bourgeoisie, Trotsky states that, “finance capital (banking and the credit economy) directly and immediately gathers into it’s hands, as in a vise of steel, all the organs and institutions of sovereignty: the executive administrative and educational powers of the state together with the military, the municipalities, the universities, the schools, the press, and the trade unions”. Over the past forty years all of this has gone on, leaving the middle and working classes abandoned and destitute. The economy has undergone structural changes resulting in the financialization of everything: housing, healthcare, childcare, automobiles, consumer electronic devices, college education, the military, the prisons, even basic needs such as water are not beyond its grasp. By commodifying, or taking something that had use value (housing or child care) and transforming it into exchange value (something that is available to the public only by whim of the economic elite and their goals, i.e. pricing), American society, along with every movement and motive within it, is controlled by one question: what return can it produce for the master’s of finance capital? (i.e. financial institutions and the largest of corporations)

The ideal of, “gain wealth, forgetting all but self”, is a harsh reality placed in front of the worker today. From childcare to healthcare they have been reconstructed as financial decisions for ourselves, i.e. solutions that we must find in “the free market”, instead of political choices that we as a community should consider implementing. This “financialization” as it’s known has bankrupted our parents generation with nearly 50 percent of all American living at or below the poverty line. Between health care costs, college tuition, and housing, this system of what is called “privatization”, is nothing more than class war. In the media it is portrayed positively or even as a “normal” progression of “the market”. However this “normalcy” has been systematically and methodically constructed for nothing more than finance capital’s gain. By taking from the commons and instilling “private ownership”, finance capital has made it all but impossible to survive for most of the population and simultaneously entangles us all with their fatal fate. “Accumulation by dispossession” as Marx put it, by transforming housing from a place of equity into a bondage of debt by means of financialization, coupled with a rapid change in workplace organization through technology that reduces wages to the same low levels, and the wholesale destruction of unions that paid for college tuition, maintained pensions, and upheld worker’s rights; finance capital has usurped control over the entire economy. However in this finance capital controlled economy, not even the good of the economy or the capitalist system as a whole is taken into consideration when massive short term profit is on the line.

The housing crisis of the United States in 2007-2008 demonstrates finance capital’s pathology clearly. Banks, instead of providing a stable source of income in the housing market, through deregulation and explicit promises of protection by the United States government, financialized it. By penning mortgage deals whose interest rates ballooned out of control, causing families to bankrupt themselves to pay for housing, and simultaneously selling these aforementioned mortgages as if they were stable and safe to municipalities around the world; finance capital demonstrated not only what we might identify as “greed”, but seemingly a total lack of care for the system that provides for them. Demonstrating their negligence in a Senate Banking Committee Meeting by (D) Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, where Warren took to task the head regulator of the Federal Housing Finance Agency for not fulfilling their legal obligation to, “implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners, and take advantage of current programs to prevent foreclosures”, the head of the agency replied, facetiously. that one of their obligations is to protect the assets of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack banks, Warren notes that and goes on to quote a CBO (Congressional Budget Office) study that found if the banks were to agree to, “a modest principal reduction plan it would help over 1.2 million under water homeowners, prevent 43,000 defaults, and save Fannie and Freddie $2.8 Billion dollars”. So why then, if a stable return on capital is what these companies seek, would they not reduce the amount the debtor owes? It is because when finance capital assumes control of the economy, capitalism no longer has “making a profit” as an end, it has become a means to an end. In a word: capitalism is no longer about the return on capital, but about exploitation. The exploitation of everything, by commodifying everything, from worker’s pensions to everyday necessities and housing, finance capital is feudal in character. It consumes and subjugates everything in it’s sight.

Surely, however, through the State the working classes can take vengeance and try to console themselves, by taking their votes to break up, regulate, and dissolve the power of finance capital. The working class could take into their hands the reins of power and nationalize or put into the worker’s hands, the healthcare industry, transportation, child care, college education; outlaw private prison operations and abolish the military industrial complex. However this is impossible in our current system. Not that the working class does not have the votes or the political will to do as it pleases, but the system has been completely reconfigured so that finance capital, it’s masters, and those who do it’s bidding are immune from justice. Whereby the worker cannot vote away the power of his oppressor because the law and the State have been transformed to protect what finance capital does, and claim it’s legitimacy under the guise of “profit”, “efficiency”, and “private property”. As Trotsky says in his essay,The Only Road for Germany, “The bourgeoisie is incapable of maintaining itself in power by the means and methods of the parliamentary state created by itself; it needs fascism as a weapon of self-defense”. In a word: finance capital needs control.

The election process for our government officials demonstrates a major part of this control. Heralded as the best and most fair system of elections in the world, it is the antithesis of democracy. Drenched in corruption, dripping with money and privilege, it is the most anti-democratic electoral process in the western world. As shown in a recent study by one of the most respected political scientists in the United States, the candidate who raised the most money in an election won 97 percent of the time, this system has been contorted to allow for what is known as the, “money primary”. In recognizing these facts we realize just why it is paraded as the best system: it works exactly for those it’s designed for. In this “money primary” those whom the party officials, financiers themselves in most cases, think can raise the most money from finance capital are able to get into the primaries and then go on to be selected based on the wants and needs of finance capital. A famous example of this was during the 2012 presidential race, as many Republican primary stations closed themselves down and even struck Ron Paul’s name from the ballot, as a way to ensure the figurehead of finance capital in that election, Mitt Romney, would gain the nomination. Becoming nothing more than an auction house, the primary and election process amounts to a bidding process for finance capital. Finance capital, in this “money primary”, gathers the election process into a stranglehold, choking out the voter’s choice and will.

The second strategy that finance capital wields is demonstrated in the silence in the case of Ron Paul in the 2012 Presidential race, among the many other issues that are present in our world, meanwhile simultaneously having the air-time to distract us with missing planes and mindless celebrity gossip. The media, unlike what the right-wing rave about, is an institution that is corporate owned and controlled. it has one aim and one aim only: to make as much profit as possible. The way it is seen through the lens of the mega media corporations such as NBC and Time-Warner Cable, it’s that you are the product they are delivering to their advertisers. The more viewers, the more and higher paying advertising spots will be bought. Now there is a double-whammy to this motive: 1. not only do major media companies then put on spectacles such as singing pageants and talent shows to garner and distract more viewers, but 2. the media company is extremely unlikely to take a view of the world that is not in it’s advertisers or it’s own interests. Couple that with that fact that the same financial elite who own the banks also own or are closely tied to the major media conglomerates, i.e. NBC, Disney, and Time-Warner, the view that “the market” is a neutral and even desirable factor of life is promulgated on the airwaves without end.

All of this culminates into a media that distracts and entertains as much of its audience as it can, away from the major issues that they care about and affect them directly. Meanwhile for those they can’t distract with Jerry Springer or the NFL, they present a very fixed corporatized view of the world. Ranging from the topics that are discussed, how the debates are carried out, the time and content restraints, those who come on the program, and the agenda that is set, the corporate media control and virtually frame the way the population thinks. For example, if our only option was to bomb Afghanistan, because it just so happen to be the country that Osama Bin Laden was in when 9/11 was carried out, then we will buy into the propaganda and cow in fear. However if it was discussed that we had in fact trained Bin Laden just a decade prior to 9/11, funding him to the tune of billions, and pointed out, rightly, that Saudi Arabia played a much larger role in financing the terror operation, not to mention that had the media told of the simple fact of Afghanistan’s willingness to capture and turn over Osama bin Laden in exchange for peace (which was reported everywhere else in the world except for the United States); then the relatively pacifist population might have made the “wrong decision” and opposed the war, as they did so powerfully in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq.

However in a democratic society, since control can’t be taken over people’s actions, i.e. the state using force, then it must be taken in what the population is presented with and allowed to think. Corporate media fixes this problem through projecting a world view that most often is not a deliberate system of coercion, staff from the White House don’t go onto the set of NBC, write the script, and hold a gun to the reporter’s head, but reflects the interests of the powerful institutions and people that they work for. General Electric is the world’s leading maker of weapons for the United States government and it just so happens to own MSNBC and NBC, both of which, during the lead up to the Iraq War, beat the drums of war at a fever pitch (nothing to do with the billions in weapons contracts that GE stood to make, I’m sure).

Killing the electoral process, meanwhile keeping the workers along with the petty bourgeoisie bound up in political illusions, leaves power completely seized in the hands of finance capital. In doing this, it uses it’s power of illusion to create in the public mind a view of the world that is greatly skewed. Through it’s owning of the press, both educational and informative, it creates an image that says, “The market has always been here, and always will be. It is a static constant of life that is neutral in the world.” By lulling the worker, through the media, the press, and the educational system, with the idea that the market is the one place that you can remedy your problems that the government refuses or is outright incapable of solving. It becomes one that is a fundamental assumption of all economic, political, cultural, and social orders. By destroying the unions, controlling the political process, and owning the press, finance capital creates a world where it is everywhere and nowhere; where it controls everyone and everything.

This exploitation by finance capital can only be described as one thing: Fascism. The complete taking over of the state, control of the entire economy, coupled with turning human relations between people (in the personal sphere and political) into financial decisions that, by proxy, enrich finance capital, while simultaneously alienate the workers from one another, all culminate into a fascist society. Finance capital cannot abide a limit, it must look everywhere for new exploitation opportunities in government, in the environment, in human relations, etc. Even consuming contemporary business, as it bulldozes all those who refuse to assimilate to it, it hollows out the economy from the inside; eventually it will destroy itself. As one of the most respected financial commentators in the world, Martin Wolf, stated in the London Financial Times,”(finance capital) is eating out the modern market economy from inside, just as the larva of the spider wasp eats out the host in which it has been laid.”

This fascism, that has attacked and ultimately taken over our government, is best demonstrated in the politics behind and the passage of, The Cromnibus Spending Bill of 2014. Through the election that they bought, that I described in my June article, finance capital immediately used its power to manipulate a provision into the spending bill which would provide them the ability to trade in derivative swaps. The same derivative swaps that were so destructive, yet so profitable, in the 2008 financial crisis, have been legalized yet again for the gain of finance capital. In fact out of $1.1 trillion dollars, it contains over $600 billion dollars in subsidies to private industry, a provision to allow over ten times the amount current amount of 32,500 to $325,000, for donations to the national Democratic and Republican parties, along with cutting $350 million dollars to the IRS, which in a CBO study found that for every $1 you cut you add $7 to the deficit. All culminating into a political and financial extortion by the big banks (i.e. Citigroup; whom the American taxpayer bailed out to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars). Through pressuring the legislators whom they financed and will hire after their stint in the Congress, and by having President Obama, (the president they elected by being his biggest funders in 2008), tell the CEO of Citigroup to call members of Congress instructing them to pass the bill, they have shut out the workers voice. Though all of this might demonstrate control of the government and the media, in it’s failing to report any of this, where does the exploitation come in? Sneaking secret clauses into spending bills is nothing new; why worry about this one?

In this provision of the bill, not only were 70 of the 80 lines written directly by Citigroup, but the money that will be used to gamble in the derivatives market will be your money. Congress gave authorization to the largest banks to use your bank account balance as capital for their bets. Not only do these banks have more money than they know what to do with, but now they want yours as well. If any losses were to occur with that money, the FDIC will be forced to reimburse the banks with taxpayer dollars; ensuring the banks massive profits and none of the risks. Though the theme of: all the profits go to us and all the costs onto you is common theme in American capitalism, this level of exploitation, so brazen and craven in nature, goes above and beyond what was previously thought of as tolerable for the Congress to approve and the media to ignore.

To see fascism in action on the proper scale, that is involving the state, the military, the media, coalescing in the interests of finance capital, the prospect of “terrorism” is our mark. I put this in quotes not only because of it’s dubious meaning but also because of it’s even more hypocritical application, especially within the media and the government. The State Department’s definition of terrorism: politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agent; could and, in fact, should be used to describe nearly every militaristic and covert operation the United States has undertaken since it’s signing of the United Nations charter in 1945. None of the countries. i.e. Korea, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, Lebanon, Haiti, Cambodia, Laos, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, etc, posed, what the United Nations Charter calls an, “imminent danger” to the United States. In fact those countries are so far away and so militaristically insignificant, most people within the United States, if polled, wouldn't be able to point them out on a map.

Mentioning these invasions and acts of terrorism as such, instead of “humanitarian” and “liberating missions” is unthinkable. In high society, generally comprised of those who have internalized the values of power and finance capital, there are things that it just wouldn’t do to say. Pointed out by George Orwell, “in Britain (generalizing to the western world) the truth can be suppressed without the use of force”. In those cultures and communities in which news is produced, the newsrooms and the universities that produce the journalists, the thought that the United States could be subverting peace or actively working to create chaos in the world is just unthinkable. In fact a media study done by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman in the book Manufacturing Consent, showed that when a “peace process” was discussed in the media the United States backed and supported it 100 percent of the time.

But what is meant by terrorism is what “they” (our enemy at the time) do to us (the United States and it’s allies). Often the actions of those who are crazed fanatics with obvious mental issues, “lone-wolves” as their known, are characterized by the media as the single greatest threats to United States in history. The facts and statistics don’t bear that out, however what is shown are the disparities between the “different” acts of terror that are perpetrated. I put different in quotes because in the media not only are our acts of terror benevolent and even humanitarian, but depending on your skin tone and religion your motivation in killing mass numbers of people are stark and drastic. If nuance is there, between Christian’s who commit acts of terror and Muslim’s who commit acts of terror, it’s extremely subtle and often non-existent. However there is a divide created by the media to fulfill the narrative that brown men from foreign lands want to hurt you, and that narrative is very useful in stirring up fear and support for militaristic actions in the Middle East. However those acts of terror committed by white Christians are insignificant due to their uselessness in finance capital’s goal of exploitation of what is calls, “one of the greatest material prizes in world history”, i.e. the Middle East oil reserves.

Take for example the terror attack perpetrated in January of 2015, as the headquarters of the famous Charlie Hebdo newspaper in France were raided by, seemingly, a group of Islamic radicals who were allegedly seethingly outraged at the newspaper’s portrayal of Muhammad. The right wing within the United States had a field day with this, incidentally, and had wall to wall coverage for days. all explaining how this should justify an even more aggressive and phobic stance against Muslims and Islam. Fox News immediately zeroed in on the, alleged, religion that the attackers had, Islam, and demanded that the White House denounce the act as “Islamic terrorism”, in order to serve the purpose I outlined earlier. With calls by the panelists on national television for the continued and in fact accelerated militarization of the police, greater arming of the American public (where we already have more guns for every man woman and child, outranking Yemen and Serbia where Civil Wars are or have recently taken place), along with one stating that, if it already wasn’t clear enough, “We know they were speaking unaccented French and had ski masks on… we don’t know what color they were, what the tone of their skin was, what if they didn’t look like typical bad guys”.

This fascism, this coordination and driving of the public agenda and politic by finance capital through the media, has created a feeding frenzy on our fears and our insecurities for the better part of fifty years. Culminating in the allowance of extremely racist, xenophobic, and islamophobic remarks to be said on the largest cable news station in the world. This is exploitation at it’s finest point, done to us, through the media, using tragedies to stir up public hatred and fear of contrived false images of an “other” in order to achieve a goal on behalf of the powerful. Driving us to war and conflict, while ignoring and intensifying the pain here at home, via “budget cutbacks” and “austerity” which has thrown millions of the already struggling into crushing, grueling poverty. War actually means something, just like Fascism does, it means to perpetrate massive acts of violence, pain and misery on your fellow human beings. It’s not that our bombs somehow hurt less and save lives, which the statistics show ours are far more destructive and devastating, but to go to war in a Fascist state is not only to declare it on others but ingrain in ourselves. War becomes something that is an everyday occurrence, you just hear it in passing on the news or are scared into committing it and then cut to your favorite singing competition. As Smedley Butler, a retired Marine and Medal of Honor recipient, once said, “war is a racket and always will be. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, and surely the most vicious”. Fascism must be undone, through organizing and popular struggle. Not only is the fate of our democracy on the line but the fate of our world.


Throughout the 2014 mid-term elections the Republican ticket, which was for the third time funded almost entirely by the oil billionaire Koch Brothers, they promised to create jobs, help the working class, and “take our (their) country back”. Well that all went away on the first day of the 114th Congress and we learned exactly who the “we” they were talking about was; they immediately set to work on the issues that mean most, not to their voters or districts, but to their funders. The Koch Brothers own Koch Industries and I highlighted their role in the 2012 elections in Rise of The Reactionaries, as the main donors of the Republican party, to the tune of $500 million dollars. Newly elected Republicans in the Senate passed a bill onto the House, whereby the Keystone XL would be built. Even though Barack Obama, the political “opposite” of the Koch Brothers, has promised to veto the construction bill if it comes to his desk, this matters little to the henchmen of finance capital. Already having betrayed their base with fantasies of change and replacing John Boehner with a Tea Party candidate, they have set also set to work on cutting Social Security and Medicare, which their base along with the American people, strongly oppose, but their donors (leaders) strongly endorse.

The Kochs own the company, TransCanada, who is currently trying to ram through the Keystone XL pipeline that would run through the heartland of America, and they have pushed very hard to make it a reality. Through the media in 2014 and beyond, they have launched an all out assault with commercials, radio & internet advertisements, along with having representatives go onto television whenever the construction of the project came up. In fact according to Media Matters, a fact checking group, overall the media endorsed the pipeline an overwhelming 61 percent of the time, not singling out Cable news which topped the charts at an astounding 75 percent endorsement to 7 percent opposing viewpoint. This has culminated and, I would argue directly correlated with the the spot on 61 percent public support for the pipeline. Promising jobs and “energy security” and Barack Obama glowing in his announcement that “under his presidency they had built more than enough oil pipeline to cross the world three times over, the unsuspecting viewer couldn't help but wonder, “Why not build one more pipeline?”

Unfortunately the facts regarding the Keystone XL and it’s environmental impact is just written off and never discussed, because in the media, “the climate debate it not over yet”, and their high-paying advertisers such as the Kochs would not approve of that messaging. However the effect of this pipeline are real and have been captured by a photographer, Garth Lenz, who says in his TedTalk, “The mining efforts being taken upon are amongst the most devastating the world has ever seen before… The large nature of these mines and the need to dig as deeply as possible, leave most mines being larger than that of Victoria, British Columbia. There are ten of them, and another forty of fifty in the approval process, and no mine has been rejected for approval, it’s nothing more than rubber stamp. The oil that is eventually produced is the most greenhouse gas emitting fuel available on Earth, at the same time destroying the world’s largest and amongst it’s last carbon sinks.” These oil sands that TransCanada and the Koch Brothers want to exploit must be ripped from under some of the most precious wetlands and forests in the world: the Boreal Forests in Alberta, Canada. They among few others, are considered by scientists to be the last remaining, “carbon sinks” (places where carbon dioxide is inhaled and oxygen is burped out) in the world. In fact a NASA scientist was quoted as saying, “If the Keystone XL pipeline is built, it’s game over for Earth”.

All of this exploitation of the environment, to the point of exhaustion, is done purely for reasons of profit. The Koch Brothers, according to BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast, are looking to cut out the Venezuelans out of the oil market, where the United States gets a substantial amount of it’s oil and they want to prevent the same from happening in developing countries like India and Russia. So they decided to build this pipeline, first to the Pacific, however the native American populations have said no and kicked them out, now they've turned to the Gulf of Mexico. They are planning to ship it out to markets like China and other developing countries where it will be sold there. What are the returns we see? As far jobs go there will be likely fifty or so long term jobs, and just a few thousand construction jobs for a little over a year. However with the environmental impact it will have, will likely ring through the next century, leading to even more rapid and destructive climate change, most likely sealing our fate. Meanwhile in the contemporary the pipeline will spill, as all pipelines do, however due to the size of it, the EPA estimates the Keystone XL will have to spill well over 12,000 barrels a day, or (503,000 gallons of heavy crude oil) all over the floor of some of the last freshwater reservoirs and fertile farmland in the United States. However none of these costs or stakes are taken into account by the politicians, the media or the the Koch Brothers when this pipeline is being built. In fact the only time the Koch Brothers would take these devastating facts into consideration would be to account for all of them and then ensure that they don’t have to pay for them, or “externalize” them. What’s a sustainable future for your children and grandchildren when short term profit is on the line?

Once again we come back to the exploitation and control of everything under it’s eye. Fascism implements these changes on behalf of the financial elite to ensure that it’s profits are made and it’s hands are clean of the mess afterwards. As Karl Marx described the pathology of the rich 150 years ago, “first me, then come the floods”; the fate of the planet is threatened and even pushed to the brink when finance capital has it’s sway over the state, the media, and the military. All along the way slowly but surely dragging us down into their milieu of deranged greed and selfishness. This time however the price won’t come with world war, but most likely, if the course continues, with the wholesale destruction of the Earth, the only place we have ever called home. This time the consequences won’t be paid with the blood of soldiers and the screams of war, but with the lives of our grandchildren and everything that lives on this planet. This time we must win, and defeat them once and for all.

Creative Destruction
11th January 2015, 01:37
You make a couple of fatal errors: 1.) Trotsky's definition is crap. Fascism is not just a "plebian" movement that is "financed by capitalist powers." It's incredibly vague, because it basically describes petty-bourgeois capitalism. Of course, if we actually look at the fascist powers, this isn't an adequate enough definition to describe those regimes and movements. Basing an entire essay on this faulty definition just introduces all sorts of errors and what not that probably can't be repaired unless you start from a different, more specific, formulation. 2.) You are making the mistake in assuming that this was a democratic system to begin with, or that democracy should exist with capitalism, when it doesn't have to be. Capitalism without democracy (or republican democracy) does not automatically mean fascism.

MarxistPC
11th January 2015, 02:01
You make a couple of fatal errors: 1.) Trotsky's definition is crap. Fascism is not just a "plebian" movement that is "financed by capitalist powers." It's incredibly vague, because it basically describes petty-bourgeois capitalism. Of course, if we actually look at the fascist powers, this isn't an adequate enough definition to describe those regimes and movements. Basing an entire essay on this faulty definition just introduces all sorts of errors and what not that probably can't be repaired unless you start from a different, more specific, formulation. 2.) You are making the mistake in assuming that this was a democratic system to begin with, or that democracy should exist with capitalism, when it doesn't have to be. Capitalism without democracy (or republican democracy) does not automatically mean fascism.

I fully understand ewjat you mean, but I hope you understna dthat this is written for a specific audeince who are no ideological heads like us. Plus, I have sutided cho.sky and anarchism and understand all the nuances you are trying to convey.

However I will say that capitalism without the state doesn't automaticaly mean fascism because capitalism requires the state in the real world, as detailed by Chomsky and David Harvey, and number two is that philosophically and ideologically speaking Capitalism requires the state in order to force itself.

On top of this, Trotsky is the only Leftist to describe Fascism in plain terms with a coherent structure. Yes he was broad n some instances as you point out, but not only is his description valid to our current political climate but the events he is describing are very similar to our political climate. This is a social science, you're never going to get precision and you rarely get concrete examples, writers like Zizek and others use what's called "theory" to etch out there analyses. Which is nothing more than grandiloquent and often convoluted and confusing language to describe simple social phenomena. As Chomky says, "There isn't anything in the social sciences that couldn't be understood by a 15 year old in high school".

But did you find anything that you liked about it?

Creative Destruction
11th January 2015, 02:17
I fully understand ewjat you mean, but I hope you understna dthat this is written for a specific audeince who are no ideological heads like us. Plus, I have sutided cho.sky and anarchism and understand all the nuances you are trying to convey.

However I will say that capitalism without the state doesn't automaticaly mean fascism because capitalism requires the state in the real world, as detailed by Chomsky and David Harvey, and number two is that philosophically and ideologically speaking Capitalism requires the state in order to force itself.

On top of this, Trotsky is the only Leftist to describe Fascism in plain terms with a coherent structure. Yes he was broad n some instances as you point out, but not only is his description valid to our current political climate but the events he is describing are very similar to our political climate. This is a social science, you're never going to get precision and you rarely get concrete examples, writers like Zizek and others use what's called "theory" to etch out there analyses. Which is nothing more than grandiloquent and often convoluted and confusing language to describe simple social phenomena. As Chomky says, "There isn't anything in the social sciences that couldn't be understood by a 15 year old in high school".

The thing of it is, those nuances are important (and they're not really nuances, either. There are key factors that distinguish fascism from merely being a petty-bourgeois movement financed by capital. That kind of thing has been around even before fascism.) Without them, the word "fascism" becomes useless as a signifier. And since you're using that definition to characterize movements that decidedly have nearly nothing in common with actual fascist movements, I think it's an important and fatal error. We have concrete examples of what fascism is. And we have fascists telling us what it is. This isn't like some social model that hasn't come to pass and we can only theorize about. It was a material movement.

And if no leftist you can find can adequately define what fascism is, then don't use leftist sources. Find some other sources and create an argument of your own from those, from your perspective. You don't have to let Trotsky speak for you. There's nothing saying that you are beholden to leftists only for your definitions. Sometimes it's perfectly adequate to go straight to the source itself and see what they say about themselves. If you find dishonest arguments or contradictions, then point them out. Fascism wasn't an entirely rational ideology. Much reactionary ideology isn't rational in their thoughts or their actions and can't be boiled down to a soundbite. But using Trotsky here isn't good because he gets it wrong, first, and he really wasn't that smart of a guy anyway. Maybe he was a brilliant military strategist, but he was a mindless opportunist through and through and if you dig into his works, you're going to find a ton of crap. This isn't any different.


But did you find anything that you liked about it?

Well, no, not really. I mean, you write clearly and concisely, so that's good. But the entire basis for this essay is faulty and leads you to the conclusion that the Tea Party are fascists. They're not -- not in word, deed or what have you. They're an ultraconservative movement that uses the ostensibly democratic principles of the constitutional writers as their basis. That's wholly different than Mussolini's fascism or Franco's falangism, which outright, in word and deed, did away with any semblance of democratic policy and expressed outward hostility toward the very idea itself, whether in its direct or representative form. Otherwise, the only thing you're expressing here, as far as I can tell, is capitalism. And capitalism is a total system -- it's not any surprise or aberration that capitalists, when not restricted, will try to move and sway policy toward their goals and aims. It's not any surprise that the petty-bourgeoisie, acting in their class interest, might accept help -- monetary or ideological -- in forming movements that advocate for the capitalist class interests as a whole. That's why they're not a revolutionary class to begin with.

MarxistPC
11th January 2015, 02:57
I think we'll simply have to agree to disagree because I think that you're conception of Fascism is different than mine, I have provided evidence and thought behind them. You seem to think that Fascism is exactly what was in Germany, Italy, and Spain, whereas I tried to conceive it as what we are now. To explain more clearly I mean that with the surveillance state we are the most monitored people on the face of the planet, there is a fascist movement (i.e. the Tea Party) that have been stirred up, that aren't "conservative" by ANY historical standard and aren't recognized as such by "conservatism's" rank and file (why I mentioned the Financial times and other "conservative leaders". I also mean that what I described before combined with mass incarceration of well over 2 million people (and growing) that is mainly along racial lines, along with our foreign wars that have very suspicious beginnings and causes but demonstrate clear and blatant pathologies of finance capital, along with the fact that gov't is run by and for corporations with massive public subsidy to guarantee their profit (think Mussolini's Italy where he dissolved parliament and created the parliament of fascist corporations, and the way that correlates to the 97 percent figure combined with the fact of the military and therefore the military-industrial complex are in nearly every congressional district, both senate and house, and how policy is based on that) make this society resemble and in fact imitate other fascist societies in very serious and, I think, clear ways. To make myself concrete, I think that the circumstances that I outlined before aren't a coincidence or a part of a "ultraconservative" "free-market" movement. They are intricately connected within the corporate-capitalist system and feed off one another not just ideologically to create fascism but also financially and politically to create fascism.

I did not say however that Trotsky didn't have a clear view of what Fascism is, he watched it rise, and after looking around for quite a while, I couldn't find anyone who was more clear and concise and insightful about what that system is.


But you say that these movements (Tea Party and the like) have nothing to do with "real" fascist movement? Really? I suggest you read my first essay, Rise of The Reactionaries where I explain in detail m EXACTLY how these movements almost MIRROR fascist movements of the past and contemporary ones in Europe like Golden Dawn.
They are reactionary elements who have confused an extreme and disfigured version of their religion with "free-market" ideology, which is rammed down their throats by their corporate masters and is used to the same affect as fascism in Germany, Italy, and Spain. They also are the "petty-bourgeois" who aren't disenfranchised. And I think this is where you and I don't see each other clearly. You see Fascism as describe by leftists in "theory", Trotsky described it AS IT HAPPENED before his eyes. Analyzing it clearly and now I'm using that, after having read and analyzed it myself, because I see an extreme similarity between fascism as it existed and how it has reared it's head in the American economy and society since the second world war. Chomsky also recognizes this similarity but doesn't emphasize it nearly as much as I do because he has better things to do than to point out the obvious.
However thank you for saying that it was concise and clearly thought out, I feared that my overarching point was lost. However due to our debate I see that it founds it's mark exactly.

Creative Destruction
11th January 2015, 04:18
I think we'll simply have to agree to disagree because I think that you're conception of Fascism is different than mine, I have provided evidence and thought behind them.

You provided evidence and thought based on an incredibly faulty definition. I'm not arguing that the evidence doesn't conform to your (thus, Trotsky's) definition of fascism -- the problem is your definition of fascism is wrong.


You seem to think that Fascism is exactly what was in Germany, Italy, and Spain, whereas I tried to conceive it as what we are now.

No, not "exactly" because fascism wasn't an "exact" ideology. It was often contradictory, as I told you above. Mussolini outlined his ideas about fascism, and they were different from what the Nazis thought and were different from what Franco thought. There were different strands that held them together, and sometimes they made extremely uneasy alliances. But none of them have much in common with the ultraconservative movements in the United States, except, maybe, for the actual neo-nazis and fascists.


To explain more clearly I mean that with the surveillance state we are the most monitored people on the face of the planet, there is a fascist movement (i.e. the Tea Party) that have been stirred up, that aren't "conservative" by ANY historical standard and aren't recognized as such by "conservatism's" rank and file (why I mentioned the Financial times and other "conservative leaders".

This is just a no-true-scotsman fallacy. You're not actually basing this argument on what is considered conservatism in this country, but rather you're citing conservatives who don't want to be associated with the Tea Party, which is pretty much what the conservatives end up doing who try to say that the Tea Party aren't conservative.


I also mean that what I described before combined with mass incarceration of well over 2 million people (and growing) that is mainly along racial lines, along with our foreign wars that have very suspicious beginnings and causes but demonstrate clear and blatant pathologies of finance capital, al]ong with the fact that gov't is run by and for corporations with massive public subsidy to guarantee their profit (think Mussolini's Italy where he dissolved parliament and created the parliament of fascist corporations, and the way that correlates to the 97 percent figure combined with the fact of the military and therefore the military-industrial complex are in nearly every congressional district, both senate and house, and how policy is based on that) make this society resemble and in fact imitate other fascist societies in very serious and, I think, clear ways.

So, this seems to come from a concrete misunderstanding of the differences between "corporations" as we know them in this country and what "corporations" meant in fascist Italy. The "corporation" of fascist Italy was meant to be a top-down organization that represented every little bit of life under fascism, and relations were to be mediated through those corporations. The corporations of our time, in our country, are different; it's basically a tax designation within the IRS code that comes with some extraordinary legal protections. It's not an intermediary organization meant to be negotiative entities with the central state controlling or overseeing everything. If that is actually what corporations were in the United States then I'd figure we'd see something closer to, oh, I dunno, the fascist Italy that we're talking about.

The government of the United States is, of course, run for and by capitalist interests. It's always been this way. Any capitalist state is going to be run like this. Unless you're prepared to mount an argument that, some how, the United States was a fascist state from its beginning -- before there was something called fascism or even proto-fascism -- then your argument becomes completely incoherent when you try to relate it back to what we actually know as fascism.


To make myself concrete, I think that the circumstances that I outlined before aren't a coincidence or a part of a "ultraconservative" "free-market" movement. They are intricately connected within the corporate-capitalist system and feed off one another not just ideologically to create fascism but also financially and politically to create fascism.

Look, if your argument was that fascism might be popular with capitalists, then you'll get no argument from me. That's not what your thesis is, though. It completely goes off the rails with contentions that don't support your overall argument. It is in fact wrong.


I did not say however that Trotsky didn't have a clear view of what Fascism is, he watched it rise, and after looking around for quite a while, I couldn't find anyone who was more clear and concise and insightful about what that system is.

Well, he was clear and concise. He wasn't insightful. That's the problem, and that's what I was telling you above: if Trotsky is the closest you can find to a leftist who concisely describes fascism, then don't use leftist sources, because Trotsky is completely off the mark. Whether he "watched it rise" or not is irrelevant. He saw the USSR rise, as well, from Mexico, and still wrongly regarded it still as a kind of worker's government, when it clearly wasn't.


But you say that these movements (Tea Party and the like) have nothing to do with "real" fascist movement? Really? I suggest you read my first essay, Rise of The Reactionaries where I explain in detail m EXACTLY how these movements almost MIRROR fascist movements of the past and contemporary ones in Europe like Golden Dawn.

If you want to link me to that essay, then I'll read it. But that's going to be a hardpressed argument to make. Rank-and-file in Golden Dawn are actually admitted fascists and openly affiliate with ideological Nazi and fascist movements.


They are reactionary elements who have confused an extreme and disfigured version of their religion with "free-market" ideology, which is rammed down their throats by their corporate masters and is used to the same affect as fascism in Germany, Italy, and Spain.

Why are you putting "reactionary elements" in opposition to "free-market ideology"? Free-market ideology is reactionary. You're starting to step into the territory of liberals, which leads you to some extremely messed up conclusions.


They also are the "petty-bourgeois" who aren't disenfranchised.

So what? Petty-bourgeoisie aren't disenfranchised to begin with, so I do not know what the point is of pointing this out in relation to this discussion. Organizing in their class interests doesn't make them fascists. It makes them petty-bourgeois organizing in their own interests. This is Marxist class analysis 101.


And I think this is where you and I don't see each other clearly. You see Fascism as describe by leftists in "theory", Trotsky described it AS IT HAPPENED before his eyes.

No, I'm telling you to look at fascism in fact, and not through the eyes of an incredibly politically stupid man. Arguing that Trotsky saw it "AS IT HAPPENED" isn't a cogent argument. It means absolutely zilch. He can see what's happening before him and still interpret it incorrectly, which he apparently did.


Analyzing it clearly and now I'm using that, after having read and analyzed it myself, because I see an extreme similarity between fascism as it existed and how it has reared it's head in the American economy and society since the second world war. Chomsky also recognizes this similarity but doesn't emphasize it nearly as much as I do because he has better things to do than to point out the obvious.

Chomsky probably recognizes some surface similarities and doesn't spend too much time on it because he realizes that the Tea Party isn't actually a fascist movement. I read that he sees "echoes" of fascism in the Tea Party movement, and that may be right, because there are going to be echoes of whatever in far-right movements. It is a mistake, in fact, to say, definitively, that this constitutes fascism or a fascist movement. Romantic, authoritarian to an extent, reactionary, revanchist, maybe, but there are key aspects missing that would disqualify it as "fascist." It's a different beast. The only reason to push the line that they are fascists is so you can launch a polemic against them. And polemics are fine, but it seems like you're trying to earnestly analyze the movement. The problem is that you're starting from wrong assumptions, and being lead by the assumptions posited, wrongly, by Trotsky.

Sasha
11th January 2015, 10:25
Moved to politics subforum, deleted the double thread.

Tim Cornelis
11th January 2015, 12:39
Your definition is as wrong as it is vague, to be blunt. This can be prevented by beginning with a discussion of different approaches to fascism by scholars. Some vague accidental parallels are taken to be the essence of fascism and applied to the United States.

Fascism was birthed as a particular form of petty bourgeois reaction, preoccupied with national humiliation and decline, and seeking to remedy this by staging a totalitarian (authoritarian regime invited controlled mass political participation) national rebirth. It is an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-Enlightenment ultranationalist movement and ideology. None of this exists in the United States. Under no credible definition of fascism is there fascism in the United States.

PhoenixAsh
11th January 2015, 13:02
Not to be nit-picking but you just described the US sentiments of large swats of the country.

I think we had the debate before. The US is vast on its way to a Bonaparte state with fascist tendencies. I don't agree with Trotsky 's definition of fascism but I do agree with large parts of his analysis of the inter relation between bonapartism and fascism.

OP's article us structurally and argumentatively sound. I like it and think it is a very good start. The problem is that it is based on, and I agree with you there, a faulty definition.

Tim Cornelis
11th January 2015, 13:18
I don't understand where you get 'Bonapartism' from this development. The argument that the USA is fascist or headed toward fascism is always that there is corporate control over politics, as OP also argues (no longer a democracy), often based on a misinterpretation of Mussolini's "merger of corporate and state power". This is in direct conflict with Bonapartism: direct control over the state as in "corporatism" (misused phrase); versus the capitalist class abdicating control over the state to save itself.

MarxistPC
11th January 2015, 13:57
You provided evidence and thought based on an incredibly faulty definition. I'm not arguing that the evidence doesn't conform to your (thus, Trotsky's) definition of fascism -- the problem is your definition of fascism is wrong.



No, not "exactly" because fascism wasn't an "exact" ideology. It was often contradictory, as I told you above. Mussolini outlined his ideas about fascism, and they were different from what the Nazis thought and were different from what Franco thought. There were different strands that held them together, and sometimes they made extremely uneasy alliances. But none of them have much in common with the ultraconservative movements in the United States, except, maybe, for the actual neo-nazis and fascists.



This is just a no-true-scotsman fallacy. You're not actually basing this argument on what is considered conservatism in this country, but rather you're citing conservatives who don't want to be associated with the Tea Party, which is pretty much what the conservatives end up doing who try to say that the Tea Party aren't conservative.



So, this seems to come from a concrete misunderstanding of the differences between "corporations" as we know them in this country and what "corporations" meant in fascist Italy. The "corporation" of fascist Italy was meant to be a top-down organization that represented every little bit of life under fascism, and relations were to be mediated through those corporations. The corporations of our time, in our country, are different; it's basically a tax designation within the IRS code that comes with some extraordinary legal protections. It's not an intermediary organization meant to be negotiative entities with the central state controlling or overseeing everything. If that is actually what corporations were in the United States then I'd figure we'd see something closer to, oh, I dunno, the fascist Italy that we're talking about.

The government of the United States is, of course, run for and by capitalist interests. It's always been this way. Any capitalist state is going to be run like this. Unless you're prepared to mount an argument that, some how, the United States was a fascist state from its beginning -- before there was something called fascism or even proto-fascism -- then your argument becomes completely incoherent when you try to relate it back to what we actually know as fascism.



Look, if your argument was that fascism might be popular with capitalists, then you'll get no argument from me. That's not what your thesis is, though. It completely goes off the rails with contentions that don't support your overall argument. It is in fact wrong.



Well, he was clear and concise. He wasn't insightful. That's the problem, and that's what I was telling you above: if Trotsky is the closest you can find to a leftist who concisely describes fascism, then don't use leftist sources, because Trotsky is completely off the mark. Whether he "watched it rise" or not is irrelevant. He saw the USSR rise, as well, from Mexico, and still wrongly regarded it still as a kind of worker's government, when it clearly wasn't.



If you want to link me to that essay, then I'll read it. But that's going to be a hardpressed argument to make. Rank-and-file in Golden Dawn are actually admitted fascists and openly affiliate with ideological Nazi and fascist movements.



Why are you putting "reactionary elements" in opposition to "free-market ideology"? Free-market ideology is reactionary. You're starting to step into the territory of liberals, which leads you to some extremely messed up conclusions.



So what? Petty-bourgeoisie aren't disenfranchised to begin with, so I do not know what the point is of pointing this out in relation to this discussion. Organizing in their class interests doesn't make them fascists. It makes them petty-bourgeois organizing in their own interests. This is Marxist class analysis 101.



No, I'm telling you to look at fascism in fact, and not through the eyes of an incredibly politically stupid man. Arguing that Trotsky saw it "AS IT HAPPENED" isn't a cogent argument. It means absolutely zilch. He can see what's happening before him and still interpret it incorrectly, which he apparently did.



Chomsky probably recognizes some surface similarities and doesn't spend too much time on it because he realizes that the Tea Party isn't actually a fascist movement. I read that he sees "echoes" of fascism in the Tea Party movement, and that may be right, because there are going to be echoes of whatever in far-right movements. It is a mistake, in fact, to say, definitively, that this constitutes fascism or a fascist movement. Romantic, authoritarian to an extent, reactionary, revanchist, maybe, but there are key aspects missing that would disqualify it as "fascist." It's a different beast. The only reason to push the line that they are fascists is so you can launch a polemic against them. And polemics are fine, but it seems like you're trying to earnestly analyze the movement. The problem is that you're starting from wrong assumptions, and being lead by the assumptions posited, wrongly, by Trotsky.

Thank you for you incredibly stringent and cutting analysis, as I will need the thick skin and debating chops in order to debate those who disagree with my argument from both the left and the right, however I'm not posting this on stormfront or vdare, for the sake of my life :crying::grin::laugh:

However, I will say that I base my def. of Fascism from what Dr. Chomsky has described in the past, my interpretations of Trotsky's argument, and contemporary politics (after having researched, watched, listened to, debated with, and read everything I could get my hand on from the contemporary right-wing i.e. Tea Party and their right wing news and forum apparatus). Please look up the compliations on YouTube of the Tea Party, I had specific links but I can't post them, but you'll get the picture from any of the compilations that you view. Namely: Disinformation, Fear, And Hate In America; Tea Party Hate: A Month of Ignorance and Fear; are two that I would look at. But there are countless others.

Unfortunately because I don't have enough "post counts" I can't link to you my first piece but I will post in in the comments of this one.
However I begin this with saying that by Chomsky's standards Fascism is just that, a corporate takeover of the state. No gas chambers, firing squads, or racist mobs necessary, though they are definitely helpful according to Trotsky. First of all you say that he described the Soviet Union as a workers paradise from Mexico, that couldn't be farther from the truth unless he was writing propaganda for someone outside the USSR. He was just thrown out by Stalin after years of rangling and was furious with how the Soviet Union had turned out (even though, as Chomsky says, Marxism-Leninism is a right-wing deviation from what a proletariat movement should look like).

This is where I say perhaps I misspoke or should change exactly what I mean. I mean to say that these movement (i.e. The Tea Party) should be looked upon as reactionaries that will put into power Fascists and Fascism. I then go on to say in this piece, The Fascist Republic of The United States, that Fascism could already be in our midsts and I argue in fact that IT IS IN OUR MIDST. If you watch what these movements believe, then go on to see what they write, watch, and think (message boards and forums on vdare and Stormfront) they are what Chris Hedges calls a kind of "neo-fascist movement".

I'm extremely sorry that we can't agree what Fascism is, perhaps it is that Fascism in the mainstream is just incorrect, and the definition that you have set up, which you haven't explained but I understand why (it would take forever to type), is incompatible to my seeing what is going on in the lens of the contemporary (Chomsky warns of Fascism and click on the progressive . org link), with a historical lens of Trotsky, and a meshing of the the latter with Chomsky's view of what Fascism is.

But thank you all for commenting :grin:

Anglo-Saxon Philistine
11th January 2015, 13:58
You make a couple of fatal errors: 1.) Trotsky's definition is crap. Fascism is not just a "plebian" movement that is "financed by capitalist powers." It's incredibly vague, because it basically describes petty-bourgeois capitalism. Of course, if we actually look at the fascist powers, this isn't an adequate enough definition to describe those regimes and movements. Basing an entire essay on this faulty definition just introduces all sorts of errors and what not that probably can't be repaired unless you start from a different, more specific, formulation. 2.) You are making the mistake in assuming that this was a democratic system to begin with, or that democracy should exist with capitalism, when it doesn't have to be. Capitalism without democracy (or republican democracy) does not automatically mean fascism.

(1) Trotsky's definition is more than "a plebeian movement financed by capitalist powers". For Trotsky, fascism is a militant mass movement of the ruined petite bourgeoisie and similar strata, aiming at a Bonapartist dictatorship, used by the bourgeoisie as a terrorist weapon against the workers' movement.

And that, to be honest, is the only definition of fascism I have seen that makes sense. The ComIntern definition is atrociously vague, in part because it needs to cover the eventuality of today's "democratic bourgeoisie" becoming tomorrow's "fascists", and it implies some fairly nonsensical things - that there was no difference between the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera and that of Mussolini, for example. The other definitions are just bad in that they focus on what the fascists thought about themselves. And not only is that idealist, you could gather five fascists in a room and hear seven different opinions.

There is no significant fascist movement in the modern United States. To say that there is is to pretend that the American bourgeoisie is so scared of the American socialists they are willing to let loose the fascists hounds. That's ridiculous. The police, various petit-bourgeois elements that do not have a mass following or aim at a Bonapartist dictatorship, and partly the American socialists themselves (*cough* SEP *cough*), do a good enough job of keeping the socialist movement weak. Keep in mind the bourgeoisie themselves don't particularly want Bonapartism, unless it is necessary. The bourgeois republic is the form of government that divides them the least, and provides them the greatest security.

(2) Yes, of course "this", meaning the US, was a democratic system "to begin with". There are free and fair elections in the US, and therefore the US are a (bourgeois) democracy.

MarxistPC
11th January 2015, 13:59
Modern politics got weird in 2009. The sight of people dressed in colonial era whigs, armed with muskets, parading in Washington D.C., not as a reenactment of the Revolutionary War, but as the most impactful political movement since the Civil Rights struggle of the 20th Century, was jarring to anyone that saw it. 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, they were harangued through talk radio, television, and literature; they were full of grievances and gearing up for a fight. They said they were peaceful and “came unarmed...this time”, but at first sight no one knew what to make of them. Holding signs that read “Tea-Baggin For Jesus”, many in the media took it as a joke. But laughing and mockery soon were replaced by suspicion, calls of racism and fear, as this movement began to grow and investigations into it’s roots began.

Beyond looking like a skit that you might see on The Daily Show, the Tea Party has 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 note for anyone interested in contemporary politics or history. 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 openly fascist movements like Golden Dawn gain steam. Their ability to turn perfectly rational conversations around taxation and health care into ideological rabbit holes filled with boogeymen of communism and totalitarianism is a major impediment to modern political discourse. The Left, having been complicit in the making of these groups, has had no real, tactile opposition to this movement. Being at the mercy of their corporate donors has paralyzed them to take action against these forces. Rendering them impotent against the rising tide of backlash that has been brewing in the American populace for quite some time.

In just the most recent example, bubbling up over the immigration debate, the Tea Party and other affiliate groups have come out in force both ideologically and physically. As the proverbial bubble burst and thousands of children swelled over the Mexican-American border fleeing death squads and crushing poverty in their home countries, thousands of Tea Party activists and protesters flooded small towns in Texas and Arizona screaming at buses filled with young children. Yelling at them that they “aren’t wanted” and to “go home”, stopping them at times. Even more disturbing, however, are the militia groups attached to the Tea Party that have Neo-Nazi and White-Nationalist roots and ties, that patrol the border between Mexico and Texas, shooting whoever crosses: women and children are not exempt. Carrying legal, fully automatic guns that are usually reserved for the streets of Kabul and Baghdad, they see these immigrants as a grave threat to their “way of life”.

So what then is it that we are actually seeing here? Never before in American history have the middle and working classes united behind a right-wing party in an economic recession with such force. In the process of trying to find out how the right came to claim the working class 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 saw that fascism was a grave threat to the Left's vision of a capitalist democracy, so he created social programs such as Social Security and unemployment insurance that garnered such support that they formed 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 in modern history.

But as with all narratives, especially those ideological and historical, there are dark forces lurking in the mist. Feeling robbed of the power that had been taken from them during the New Deal Era, powerful heads of corporations like Milton Steel, the DuPont Family, U.S. Steel and Oil, with professors of economics 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 dissolved, but beginning in the late 1960s and 1970s with the general strikes in the United States 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. Unfortunately for us they won.

They generated an entire political and economic theory called Libertarianism. Far from their European counterparts, they advocate for the “Free-Market” almost as if it were a deity. Believing that markets are the ultimate form of democracy, they wish to implement the idea 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 aside from being a racist, taught the “Chicago Boys” who flew down to Chile after Dictator Augusto Pinochet took power and implemented “Libertarian Principles”, that flushed the population back down to the third world from which they had 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, they leave it 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 “Free Market” 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". Militantly anti-union, against what they call big government, the population has endured a major assault on social spending and unionization. Once again the hypocrisy, markets are good for you but not good for the rich, as unions 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, attend retreats, and enroll in associations such as the American Enterprise Institute, The John Birch Society, The Heritage Foundation, the Chamber of Commerce, and Bilderberg Group; this is just what's best for you.

But how do you get a middle class, that according to the Wall Street Journal have been "pampered for far too long", to vote for the policies that will destroy their lives? Simple; you lie to them and shroud the lies in an already existing well of religious fanaticism. Instead of the working classes 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, as Marx recorded a century earlier, "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". The morphine required to jam these policies down the throats of working people came in the form of the Christian 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. The corporate sector saw an opportunity and melded the seemingly strange bedfellows of the godless "Libertarians" and the Religious Dominionists; 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” of racism and segregation. Convinced that the New Deal style preachers that engaged in the civil disobedience of the 1960s were a part of the problem, they turned to new more reactionary voices. 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 Christian 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. All of this occurring while their communities grew 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.

They revere the American form of democracy like a poisoned chalice. Though beautiful in it’s principles, the ever extending reach of equal and civil rights that characterize it terrifies them with the prospect that certain groups deemed degenerates and undesirables will achieve dignity. Believing that though it is the best form of governance here on Earth, it’s just that, here on Earth. Just as an old Calvinist sect would chant, “We are the pure and chosen few, and all the rest are damned there’s room enough in hell for you, we don’t want heaven crammed”. 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. Clearly this is not a rational response to one of the most dangerous situations that humanity has ever found itself in.

You often hear examples of this as so called “Conservatives” speak to crowds, whose knowledge of history is sparse at best, as they blend the language of the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence, claiming that God was instrumental in the founding of the country. This atmosphere, vomits up the characters such as Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Sarah Palin. Palin recently delivered a speech at the Western Conservative Conference, which was held at the Colorado Christian University Institute, located near the rockbed of Evangelical Christianity in Colorado Springs. Calling to action her fellow Christian warriors she said, “We the People know that our best days are ahead because ‘God shed his grace on thee’ America. He’s given us our freedom to do what’s right. God doesn’t drive parked cars… I think he expects us to take action… to defend these freedoms that are God given”. These so called, “Conservatives”, are nothing more than products of the Christian Right, shown by Sarah Palin who had an exorcism which is viewable on YouTube.

They hold, “God and Country Rallies”, which are so disturbing to those who lived under the threat of the swastika that they are talked about in intellectual circles and in the media throughout Europe very seriously. They pushed free market tenants, the Christian Religion, and fused it with an age old problem in the United States that Forbes has called a "a culture of ignorance... that states my ignorance of the facts is just as valid as your informed opinion". Enemies of intellectualism, internationalism, secularism, and a tolerant open society, they have cast modernism into the fire and are generating their political and social power with.

With their ducks in a row, the corporate sector running the show used this newly found political base to assume control of the Republican Party and radically snatch the American political spectrum to Right. 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”.

Meshing together the Free Market Religion with Christianity 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 characters 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.

The result? Economic policies that have destroyed and alienated the middle class from one another, the hope of an affordable college education for society writ large is over, plundered and exploited 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".

The greatest example of this is the Koch Brothers, who themselves claim to be Christians, and are the conservative poster boys in American politics. They nearly singlehandedly funded the entire Republican/Tea-Party ticket in 2010, 2012, and funded the buses that drew the Tea Party into the nations capital dressed in costumes of Benjamin Franklin. They are 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 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, the Tea Party, from the real dangers in the world, and do so quite successfully.

Case in point, 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 American history, by self-proclaimed Tea Party Candidate David Brat. White, Christian, male, 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 great deal of his success to the Cato Institute, formerly known as The Charles Koch Foundation. According to Thom Hartmann in a piece he wrote for Alternet.com, 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 in recent years, especially during campaign season. Giving over $700,000 to famous right-wing online radio host Mark Levin, who on his show in the months leading up to the primary praised David Brat as the people’s hero. David Brat has said repeatedly that he has done his best to converge his “three guiding principles”: economics, religion, and ethics. 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". Jesus in this manufactured world was a free market guru.

However, I’m willing to wager, 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 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".


Through a slow, gradual moving and morphing of these ideas around, they now form what can only be described as Fascism. Exactly how these forces converge into something that would warrant the label of Fascism is more simple than first thought. The rise of jingoism of the most extreme type, shown in the photo of Holly Fisher with her holding a semi automatic weapon in one hand, a bible in another, and an American Flag as her background, conservatives can no longer be described as such, but as Reactionaries. This ideology is far more extreme than the “law and order” politics that we are so used to hearing from conservatives. It is a complete rebuttal of modernism and a wish for a racist and theocratic utopian past to be reestablished through force. Combine this casuistry with an economic system that has a long history of discrimination, exploitation, and slavery, that has attained a uniquely unregulated period and disaster is sure to ensue.

The Tea Party has emerged from this as a coalition of white, christian, reactionary Americans that have their own news sources that are filled with lies, distortions, loathing, and fear. For years Fox News, The Rush Limbaugh Show, Alex Jones Infowars, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage fed and foddered a disgruntled and increasingly desperate white middle class. Generating conspiracy theories around not only the President’s place of birth, but his plans to dole out reparations for descendants of African slaves some four generations after the Civil War; they perpetuate themselves. In the most recent case the Ebola virus that has plagued every news station in the country, progressive and reactionary, there have been conspiracies surroundings it’s origins, and not just from “birther” and racist sites like WorldNetDaily, but major speakers such as Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin who have espoused horrible ideas some of which include thinking that Barack Obama has purposefully allowed the virus to spread. Why? They say because in Obama’s eyes, “Africa really deserves more of America’s money...because we’re people of privilege... It’s his father’s rage against colonialism”. Later that day that casuistry was making the rounds from radio to the Internet on sites like the Drudge Report, and from the Internet onto prime time television on Fox News.

They come up with new theories, mesh them together with old conspiracies, and then frame it in a way that supports a worldview where society and freedom itself is under grave threat. Creating a moral obligation on behalf of those who believe whatever the conspiracy is at the time, to fight against what they see as a serious affront. Rachel Maddow has discussed this on her her show stating that, “There are consequences for all of us of a Conservative movement that has now spent a full generation telling Americans to not trust the actual news and to instead invent their own conservative version of it”.

We see these consequences clearly, whether on the banners and signs of Tea Party, the right wing press’s statements, or their reaction to any proposal that it put on the political table. Blocking much needed health care reform, gun control legislation, and immigration reform just to name a few, every time an important issue comes into play they are the first to poison the well. Clogging up the political process not only with nonsense, but with big money from corporate donors as they buy up our political process. Creating the opening for ever more elaborate hoaxes to be put on as news in both the right wing world and on the mainstream press, for the powerful elite. Benghazi, Solyndra, and Fast and Furious are just some of the few well-known, and well debunked, efforts by the right wing press to misinform, stir up fear in, and create the pretext for the next “scandal”, for their audience.

Besides the obvious danger of right-wing militias with access to fully automatic weaponry, patrolling the United States-Mexican Border; what are we really losing here by having factions like the Tea Party, Libertarians, and so called “State Militias”? Sure there are a few right wing nuts, we’ve always had those, but what makes these nuts even more dangerous than last set we had? These nuts are well armed, well funded, and vocal in the political arena. Though funny to mock and look at, they shape our political discourse, in who we think we are as a nation, what our past really was, and what our future can be. They distort the image of us as a nation to ourselves by creating a narrative where blacks weren’t actually that bad off in slavery, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a violation of states rights, and that Barack Obama is actually the illegitimate lovechild of Malcolm X. They tear apart any hope that we can have for a rational conversation about what we do in our politics; what is kosher, and what isn’t. From nationalized health care to same-sex marriage to foreign policy, the conversation is immediately pelted with references to communism, fascism, and the worst racial memes around our welfare state.

The radical Christian right wing is nothing new to this country. There has always been a strain of the American public with whom comparison to Iran on religious fundamentalism is not far-off. It’s quite unique to the United States, but perhaps we are so used to it in the form of that aunt or uncle who watches Fox News and takes Rush limbaugh seriously, that we brush them off. They blocked slavery from being outlawed in 1781, were on the front line of slaughtering the Native Americans, fought heavily against the right for women to vote, and went out of there way to violently attack the Civil Rights movement in the American south, bomb abortion clinics and gay night clubs, and are actively trying to bring about Armageddon in Israel by extirpating the Palestinian population. But progress on these issues were all made after slow and painful struggle against these reactionary forces. Now they have not only blocked the ability for Congress to get any menial piece of legislation through, but shut down calm, rational discussion about what we want our country to look like tomorrow and beyond. The decisions about how we want our schools and health care to function, how and when we retire, and when and when not to go to war are all skewed and interrupted by the poisoned wells and strawmen that are constructed by this movement. Our ability to speak to one another about the policies that affect our lives is shut down. Therefore our democracy is a weaker and more useless place because of it.

The foggy political milieu that is created by these groups produces the right blend of fanaticism and passivity on certain parts of our population to give fertile ground for fascism. We as members of our democracy need to recognize this movement for what it is and fight back. Start the dialogue back up, and discuss the issues that matter to you with your family and friends. Leave the axiom, “Don’t talk about sex, religion, or politics” behind. If we don’t open the conversation, we leave it to the zealots like Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, and Mark Levin to frame the debate. Leaving our Tea Party and right-wing friends in their self- sustaining conservative bubble, unable to hear anything that is going on in the real world. Losing friends and even family to this ideological claptrap is scary and depressingly true, but losing our ability to critically think and solve our problems rationally is far worse.

Creative Destruction
11th January 2015, 17:50
First of all you say that he described the Soviet Union as a workers paradise from Mexico, that couldn't be farther from the truth unless he was writing propaganda for someone outside the USSR. He was just thrown out by Stalin after years of rangling and was furious with how the Soviet Union had turned out (even though, as Chomsky says, Marxism-Leninism is a right-wing deviation from what a proletariat movement should look like).

I didn't say "worker's paradise," I said he thought it was some kind of "worker's government." He constantly referred to it, even with Stalin at the helm, as a degenerated worker's government. This was wrong and it led to a split with a couple of his former followers who were developing ideas that the USSR was actually state-capitalist; like CLR James and Raya Dunayevskaya.

New International
15th January 2015, 08:57
People often do throw around "fascist" as an empty slur just like they do "communist." But to call the U.S. fascist is an exaggeration. It would be more accurate to say that the U.S. shares some traits, ideologies and conditions with fascist nations such as extreme nationalism, promotion of religion, the scapegoating of minorities and militarism. These are reactionary pro-Capitalist tendencies.

I'm familiar with Chomsky's material, and he's careful about the claims he makes. As far as I'm aware, he's never claimed that America is fascist. He recently said that America runs the risk of fascism. Specifically, he claims that conditions are similar to late-Weimar Germany, and that some of the rhetoric from the Tea Party sounds like rhetoric of that period. Gore Vidal did once say that we had "imported Fascism" after the war, but he was referring to reactionary anti-Communist tendencies like pledging allegiance, the Red scare and printing "In God We Trust" on money.