14 Points that makes the US...

[Dreckt]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but here is the link:

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

It seems more like a Democratic Party anti-Republican arguments of sorts, but still, it is interesting.

[LSD]

I vehemently disagree with that "14 point" definition of fascism.

It is clearly an attempt to stir up controversy by crafting a defintion based on modern-day America.

From what I can tell, "Dr. Lawrence Britt", the author of these "14 points", is neither a Doctor, nor a political scientist but rather a retired oil executive! Furthermore, it appears that he ripped off his "points" from this site (http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html) of all places, but changed some of the entries to make them more mainstream...

The point is that this definition is hardly authoritative and certainly not "neutral", its a political attempt to newspeak the word "fascism" in order to attack American policy.

Now, I am no fan of the American government and will freely admit that it is one of the scariest in memory, but it is not fascist.

Honestly, this "14 points" definition is awful.

It's ludicrous that this Mr. Britt didn't include that fundamental feature of fascism: social repression. Instead he lists entries such as "Religion and Government are Intertwined", which was not true in Germany; "Rampant Sexism" which was no more marked in Italy than the rest of Western Europe; and "Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts" which was as common among radical communist groups as it was fascist ones.

As a student of history and espcially of the 20s and 30s, I can tell you that Mr Britt does not know of what he speaks.

In short, this is a BAD defintion, and I strongly reject it.

[barista.marxista]

Word. I agree with LSD on this. It's really annoying how "radicals" go around throwing the word "fascist" (or, specifically, the term "Christian fascist") all the time. Fascism is an outdated mode of capitalist accumulation. It's no more relevant than laissez-faire economics -- we can't just "return" to it. What is so brilliant about contemporary capitalism is its flexibility, and its ingenuity -- neither of which fascism had.

[rebelworker]

I think importantly facism is a radical social movment thay very much shadows socialist modes of operation.

Also I America was facist, this web page wouldnt exist. We have it esay people. Dont belittle the freedom that we have, beleive me you will know when it is facism.

[Comrada J]

Flash Version (http://www.ericblumrich.com/14.html)

[Guerrilla22]

you don't have to try to prove this to me. What about the concentration camp in Cuba and the secret CIA prisons?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 12:36 PM
you don't have to try to prove this to me. What about the concentration camp in Cuba and the secret CIA prisons?
And these are hallmarks of fascism how? That is simple old liberal capitalism... nothing more and nothing less.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Apr 20 2006, 12:47 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Apr 20 2006, 12:47 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 12:36 PM
you don't have to try to prove this to me. What about the concentration camp in Cuba and the secret CIA prisons?
And these are hallmarks of fascism how? That is simple old liberal capitalism... nothing more and nothing less. [/b]
I'd say running concentration camps and using secret police is a hallmark of fascism, wouldn't you?

[ComradeOm]

No. They may occur under fascist regimes but are not exclusive to them.

[Guerrilla22]

You could say the same about the other points made by that web site. Wasn't the Soviet Union very nationalist also, didn't they use patriotic propaganda also?

[ComradeOm]

And was the Soviet Union fascist? No. Proves my point really.

[Guerrilla22]

So what does qualify as fascism if all these things are not unique to fascist regimes? An extreme right ideology? Doesn't the US currently have an extreme right political ideology and don't they do things that other fascist regimes have been known to do in the past?

[ComradeOm]

Defining fascism is always a tricky business and would take more time than I have now. Personally I've always felt that a core aspcect has been the master-slave relationship - the notion that some a born to rule and some are born to serve. But the simple fact that the US is not a totalitarian state is enough for me.

[Guerrilla22]

Fair enough. I agree the Us can definitley be described a totalitarian.

[patrickbeverley]

the US is not a totalitarian state


Fair enough. I agree the Us can definitley be described a totalitarian.

[rebelworker]

The US is defenitly not toalitarian, again if it was you couldnt be having this debate, the site wouldnt exists or if you caould access it from overseas an agent would come to your house and take you away if you did.

It dose nothing for our cause to exagerate the enemy. The US govt sucks, bigtime, but it is nowhere near aproaching facist or totalitarian. To say it is is to make a mokery of thoes who suffer from true facist and totalitarian regeims.

Have you been tortured for being an enemy of the state? no? I didnt think so.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 12:56 PM
I'd say running concentration camps and using secret police is a hallmark of fascism, wouldn't you?

The British Empire had Concentration Camps (well the correct terminology is detention camp which is what the Guantanamo Bay is really....though either term is likely sufficient) during some of the colonial conflicts in Africa....the Boer Wars and the Mau-Mau rebellion if memory serves me correctly.

Indeed, based on the back cover of a book I've seen in Waterstones, something like 1.5 million people died during the Mau-Mau rebellion....though I'm quoting from memory there so I could be completely off the mark.

Additionally, MI5 and MI6 have been around for decades....and I think just about every state has a Secret Police of sorts.

Additionally, there are really complex class situations that are thought to lead to fascism....look on MIA for Daniel Guérin's definition of fascism (it's pretty short and pretty decent).

On top of that, every regime that can be legitimately called fascist has dispensed with bourgeois "democracy" and they've also really elevated the role of the State.

So whilst there are similarities between far-right Governments and fascism....similarities is all they are.

On top of that, as ComradeOm mentioned, there's the "born to rule" concept where a "great leader" is promoted....but that again, is not a hallmark of fascism alone, but in the present epoch, it is used more potently in a fascist regime than any other kind of bourgeois regime.

There's so many things to discuss here, but basically, the USA is not "fascist"....cause if it was, as rebelworker mentioned, the American members of this site wouldn't be here right now. They'd either be in hiding or in prison.

[MurderInc]

14 Points Why America is NOT a Fascist Nation:


1. Despite President's Bush's piss poor argument that he was given the "right" by Congress to sidestep the Fourth Amendment, the Bill of Rights is effective and enforced. The secret wire tapping aside, 100's of arrests each day are thrown out by judges (or, actually dropped by the DA or police before arraignment, for lack of 4th Amendment standard of legal search and seizure.)

2. We don't have a dictatprship of any kind. Even with a Republican congress, Bush lost out on social security "reform". It was the centerpiece of 2005. Fascist leaders don't allow "their" legislatures to not support them.

3. Bush has lost about 1/2 of the decisions he supported at the Supreme Court. That doesn't happen in a fascist regime.

4. There are many people who are not nationalistic in their feelings and views. People with anti-Bush bumper stickers are not being beaten by the Thought Police.

5. Prayer is not allowed in public school in a governmental way. (Students may organize it themselves.)

6. Private citizens can own guns. (Of course, many believe that such people would tend to support fascism, but never before in history did such governments allow people to own guns.

7. Freedom of the press (and internet) has not been abriged. This site exists.

8. Films that are anti-capitlist and anti-government have recently made a lot of money (ironically); moreso than any other time in U.S. history.

9. On January 20, 2009, there will be a new president. (Not that they will be anti-capitalist, but they may not be neo-cons or neo-liberal or what have you. They may also announce an end to the secret spying program, and say such things need judicial approval.)

10. Military service is not mandated.

11. For the first time in U.S. history, a state has required equal marriage for homosexuals. (I wrote this because one of the 14 points dealt with homosexuals.)

12. Traveling within the U.S. is nearly unchecked by federal authorities. Except for the check point north of San Diego on I-5, I've never seen a federal officer set up a road block in my life.

13. I continue to get a lot of crap in my mailbox, and the government doesn't stop it.

14. 99% of our elections go off without a hitch. The Electoral College is not a conspiracy, just out of date.

[armedpoet]

It is naive to term our current political system Fascist.

Sure this current global system employs Fascist like tactics, but as pointed out, violent oppression is not limited to ideology. Also Fascism is built on the power of the state, whereas neo-liberalism is built on the power of the corporation.

It can be argued that Fascism is a by-product of Capitalism but Capitalism obviously survived the downfall of openly Fascist regimes and has now 'evolved' into neo-liberalsim. In fact in many ways neo-liberalism could not of existed without fascism (Coke, IBM etc were the real winners of WWII). In other words the elite benefit and learn from Fascism without having to openly adopt it.

So even though modern day Capitalism employs Fascist framework like economic rationalism and tactic like Guantanamo Bay and sedition laws it is not necessarily Fascism.

Arghhh... 2am dribble.

[MurderInc]

I agree with what Armedpoet wrote. Also, Stalin, in the name of socialism, probably single-handedly acted mroe like a fascist (or at least he was more successful) than Musolini or Hitler.

So anyone, regardless of politics, can act like a fascict.

[Dreckt]

Well, at least the US is authoritarian.

[MurderInc]

Someone mentioned above that one needs to live in a truely authoritarian regime to call the U.S. authoritarian.

The word is nebulous.

Is the U.S. authoritarian? Not to my life-history. I'm pretty regular a person, and not once has the U.S. prevented me from doing anything from protesting or having friends from another nation.

I have not been issued a state approved newspaper or television channel. I have never been contacted by any agency of government to show up and place X and explain conduct Y.

I don't know of anyone who has had such an experience.

The word authoritarian implies degrees of sch govt action. I haven't seen any of it.

So what does it mean to be authoritarian?

Yes, the U.S. supports the corporate model, but neither Hitler nor Stalin supported the corporate model and were far more authoritarian than G.W. Bush.

The word is nebulous, and can only be judged on the basis of how other nations react, and the U.S. comes out as ther least "authoritarian" than others.

[piet11111]

MurderInc are you a capitalist by any chance ?

[armedpoet]

I think, or atleast hope, that MurderInc is not a Capitalist, but is simply explaining the nature of neo-liberalism.

Bush, Blaire, Howard etc are not fascists, the regimes (elite) that support them is smarter than that.

Neoliberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:07 AM
MurderInc are you a capitalist by any chance ?
Because he's American and has yet to be arrested and beaten? :huh:

I agree with MurderInc. While the US can be pretty brutal towards those it percieves to be dangers or threats, it has yet to begin the mass forceful repression of its population. The US government today is still very much a liberal regime.

[Dreckt]

Is the U.S. authoritarian? Not to my life-history. I'm pretty regular a person, and not once has the U.S. prevented me from doing anything from protesting or having friends from another nation.

Yes, but this doesn't mean that the state-apparatus is not authoritarian. Demonstrating will not hurt the capitalists so long you don't hurt them, so to speak. And friends from other nations? Authoritarianists don't have to be racists.


I have not been issued a state approved newspaper or television channel. I have never been contacted by any agency of government to show up and place X and explain conduct Y.

No, of course not. The difference between the old authoritarianist regimes who used the state as one big tool, and the ones of today, is that the authoritarians use the very idea of capitalism. You simply can not "live outside" of it - it consumes every single inch of every country.


I don't know of anyone who has had such an experience.

Maybe they are not allowed to talk about it? :D

[MurderInc]

I am, of course, not a capitalist. It would be impossible to call me a socialist (or anyone in America a socialist) because, as some one wrote above, capitalism permiates all aspects of American society.

I use money, enjoy life as best I can, and try and to the right thing.

My "credentials" for being a member of this board is that I believe in those changes that would alter American or world society toward socialist goals.

I would personally prefer that such a revolution be as peaceful as possible, but being an American I was raised with the notion that rebelion and revolution is a nation's birthright, and we'd do well to have some of more of it these days.

But I've seen people die, and it's nearly always a bad thing, especially when they're younger than 50, or over 50 with ten year old kids. Sometimes death is a good thing and a relief, but not usually. So I'd rather have people make radical changes peacefully.

Obviously there are authoritarian means being used by the executive branch of the U.S. government, such as the rendition of suspects to extraterritories and torturing them. Such activities have been discuessed on the Pacifica network and the U.S. has admitted to such.

But there are honorable people involved as well: Some people have resigned from the Justice Dept. under the two AG's Bush has put in. It's not easy to do it, and it's hard to walk away form something without knowing where your family's next dollar is coming from.

I believe the biggest question is how government people will react to a more leftist push in politics. And this can only be tested through a scenario. So, let's discuss one:

OK, Connecticut passes a law in their state legislature that they will have a univeral health coverage and univeral food assistance. This will require a nearly 50% income tax on salaries and corporate profits for those corporations incorporated in Connecticut. After a bunch of law suits, the Connecticut Supreme Court rules it constitutional, within the laws of Connecticut.

The federal government sues because they fear a more socialistic society. (For this to happen, you'd need an executive branch to sue, and for the sake of discussion, let's say you have one.)

There is a problem with this because there needs to be a federal issue, and if you can't find one the federal court will support, the decision of the Conn. Sup. Ct. will stand.

There are incredible problems with this. Eventually you'd have to have the Supreme Court rule that a corporation can only be "taxed so much". That's a nearly nutty occurrence, because there has never been such a ruling of any kind at the state level.

The only choice the president might have is to call out the Nat'l Guard. But to what end? To surround Connecticut and make it lower corporate taxes?

Such an act would be fascist, obviously, and one wonders how people would react to it.

I realize that many here are organizing their minds for a socialist revolutionary push, and an us against them fight. But things rarely go that way in America. Things, in general, usually begin smaller and snowball. That's good because it will give us time to mobilize in Connecticut's favor.

As many others have written here in this thread, the United States of America's executive authorityis many things, but not fascist. And, yes, I believe using that word demeans people who have, throughout history, been seriously harmed by genuine fascism.

[Dyst]

Eh... I think this website was a good one.

Sure, the US might not be fascist, but it does make some good points.

Why do you try to defend it, just because it doesn't look exactly like Nazi-Germany or Soviet did?

What are you trying to prove, and why are you defending the US? :unsure:

[MurderInc]

Keiza wrote: What are you trying to prove, and why are you defending the US?


Keiza,

I believe what I wrote was accurate. If you find something you disagree with in what I wrote, just say so.

Did you see the movie Independence Day? If I were to write, "America does not act like the aliens who invaded Earth," would I be defending the US?

[SocialistGenius]

Fascism, as defined by Mussolini (it's creator), is corporatism or the merging of corporations with the state.

It also has fundamental elements of repression and authoritarian rule, submission of the individual to the state and suspension of civil liberties. Not to mention the fascist doctrine of following one "great leader" who holds all this authority.