Is the Constitution Party (USA) fascist?

[Revy]

I really think they are. Here's some background, they are theocratic Christian nationalists on the far-right. They're homophobic, anti-choice, and anti-immigrant. They're not openly racist, though I think most are racist, openly or not.

Ron Paul endorsed their Presidential candidate. The Constitution Party also has the distinction of being a party on the right that is anti-war, though they base that around the high taxes of war not the morality of war.

I think there may be a theory about fascism that says that fascists take a popular issue (like anti-war) and funnel into a reactionary right-wing ideology, instead of the left. It's funneling anti-war sentiment into xenophobia, homophobia, Christian fundamentalism.

I think it's similar to the BNP. But few people have taken notice like those in the UK did toward the BNP. But the Constitution Party did elect a member of the state legislature of Montana back in 2006. He was running against a Democrat with no Republican in the race.

The Constitution Party likes to call the Republican Party liberal and call itself the true conservative party. Of course, from their perspective anything is liberal.

[Dóchas]

if they are far right does that not mean they are fascist?

[scarletghoul]

They are not fascist. OK they're far right, but they support smaller (federal) government and noninterventionist foreign policy. Not fascist.

[Dóchas]

but how does that not make them fascist? :confused:

[Wanted Man]

I don't know much about this party, but I guess they are more like highly nationalist, religious, isolationalist "paleo-conservatives". They're not similar to the BNP at all, the BNP is a traditionally fascist party that is currently putting on a populist mask.

There are all kinds of parties like this in America, a list of them: http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

[Dóchas]

ok what does isolationist and paleo-conservative mean?

[Le People]

To Rise As One: A far right Libertarian agenda does not mean Fascism in the traditional sense. A lazie Faire economic system inevitbably leads to socail darwinism, which leads to authoritarian dominiation (presumably under a corporation rather than a state). The Constitutional Party is not fascit, but merely a bunch of dumb asses whose policies would lead to fascism.

[The Douche]

They're right wing anti-fascist really.

Its a very USian concept.

I'm on their email list because I find the constitutionalist movement fascinating. I know a lot constitutionalists and some off their ideas are off the walls. There is some crossover between their politics and some elements of the racist right (but only certain sections of that movement, not the fascist section) but most of them are not racist, they're actually anti-racist, and like I said, anti-fascist.

Its hard to explain and I don't think anybody is really that interested in it. But right-wing anti-fascism does exist and is quite a force in the US.

[More Fire for the People]

They're the libertarian stooges who are in reality lackeys for the fascist movement. Fascism and libertarianism are both middle class dreams of a return to feudalism: and therefore, even in opposition, they are united.

[The Douche]

They're the libertarian stooges who are in reality lackeys for the fascist movement. Fascism and libertarianism are both middle class dreams of a return to feudalism: and therefore, even in opposition, they are united.

How, in the fuck, is lassiez-faire capitalism (i.e. classical liberalism, aka, what overturned feudalism) feudalism?

[scarletghoul]

One thing that makes leftists lame is the overuse of the word fascist

[Holden Caulfield]

One thing that makes leftists lame is the overuse of the word fascist
yep,

Orwell:

"the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."

[Melbourne Lefty]

They are not fascist. OK they're far right, but they support smaller (federal) government and noninterventionist foreign policy. Not fascist.

Because fascism at its core is about totalitarian centralised government.

Any movement that is against this cannot be fascist, no matter how racist they are.



One thing that makes leftists lame is the overuse of the word fascist


I used to be one of the people who threw it around everywhere. Its really a bit silly when you think about it.

If a movement is not for a highly controlled society with a huge all powerfull state then it cannot be fascist.

Combine that with 'third way' economics and anti worker policies wedded to anti capitalist rhetoric and you have the core of fascism.

Fascism originally as it grew out of the futurist movement was about the nation as a spiritual concept. It was the nazis who took it and wedded it to scientific racism.

[The Douche]

Any movement that is against this cannot be fascist, no matter how racist they are.

The constitutionalist party and the constitutionalist movement in general are non/anti racist.

[Le People]

How, in the fuck, is lassiez-faire capitalism (i.e. classical liberalism, aka, what overturned feudalism) feudalism?


Because lassiez faire capitalism would not restrict the setting up of a feudal government. Lassiez faire capitalism is not classical liberalism but one of its many bourgeise bastard children

[BobKKKindle$]

Because lassiez faire capitalism would not restrict the setting up of a feudal government

Feudalism is not a form of government, but a mode of production - a stage in the historical development of the productive forces defined by its prevailing relations of production. Under feudalism, peasants were tied to the manor of a feudal lord and the production of foodstuffs was carried out mainly for immediate consumption by the producers and as well as those who owned the land, and those who provided other services for the local community, and commercial activity (i.e. production of exchange values) was limited to a small class of artisans who lived in the urban areas. The destruction of feudalism meant the creation of a free labour market which allowed peasants to migrate to the cities and choose their employers instead of being forced to work for a specific feudal lord. A return to feudalism would require the abolition of the free labour market - something which no classical liberal would ever advocate.

[Le People]

I fucked up stating myself. I know damn well that fuedalism is a mode of production. But riddle me this; in coal country at the turn of the century in America, miners where paid in something we call script, which of course, was only accepted in company towns. The workers were bound to the town due to the fact they could not move out because they had no money. Is this not a tying to the land? America at the turn of the 20th century as largely lassiez faire...perhaps not total feudalism would ensue under a libertarian society, because people would choose their employers. But if they went back to the old company towns and what not, in two generations, majority of Libertarian Land would be serfs. No nobels, just corporation execs

[Chapter 24]

Because fascism at its core is about totalitarian centralised government.

This is a very simplistic definition of the word "fascism". Liberals (not calling you one BTW, just making a point) will usually argue that both the Third Reich and "Stalinist" Russia were totalitarian centralised governments. But obviously the mode of production in each country were different.

[scarletghoul]

Yes, but totalitarian centralised government is a staple of fascism

and not something the Constitution party believes in.

[GPDP]

I think the point is that what ultimately matters is not what kind of society the constitutionalist movement envisions, but what the implementation of their overall plan for society would logically result in. And like others have stated, it seems to me that extreme laissez-faire would result in some sort of neo-feudalism, wherein the major centers of power are private tyrannical corporations, unaccountable to the government or the people, the latter being bound to the land and the factories they work in because they simply have nowhere else to go.

Of course, one could argue that in light of a reduced state apparatus, it would actually be somewhat simpler to organize and struggle against private power than against the massive state that currently keeps the working class in check, not to mention that without any kind of welfare state, people would be more likely to become radicalized.

But of course, arguing any of this is merely intellectual masturbation, and would be akin to lending these idealists more of our time of day than they deserve. As we all know, the ruling class would never surrender their massive state apparatus without a fight, and if they advocate some kind of petit-bourgeois revolution wherein capitalism sort of "resets" and the big corporations are dissolved and many small enterprises take their place... well, we'd be where we were in the 19th century. And look where that led us. Those entrepreneurs would eventually merge into corporations again, and the cycle would repeat. It's futile to even waste time considering the pros and cons of a return to "true" laissez-faire, because that's not how the dynamics of history work.

[Melbourne Lefty]

This is a very simplistic definition of the word "fascism". Liberals (not calling you one BTW, just making a point) will usually argue that both the Third Reich and "Stalinist" Russia were totalitarian centralised governments. But obviously the mode of production in each country were different.


The modes of production were indeed different which is why stalinist USSR was not fascist.

Any movement which is not in favour of a totalitarian centralised police state is not fascist.

For groups that are followers of the 'European New right' [de benoist et all] and dont believe in any state at all [tiny although they are] I would use the descriptor 'post/neo fascist'.

What do others think?

[Rascolnikova]

Forgive my ignorance, but if they want us to base everything on the constitution, how can they not be racist?

[Melbourne Lefty]

Forgive my ignorance, but if they want us to base everything on the constitution, how can they not be racist?

Dunno, what does it say in your constitution?:confused:

[Rascolnikova]

Dunno, what does it say in your constitution?:confused:

That white male landowners (some of them also people owners) get to vote.

Edit: yes, I know that's not actually what it says. Close enough, though.

[The Douche]

That white male landowners (some of them also people owners) get to vote.

Edit: yes, I know that's not actually what it says. Close enough, though.

That is not what it says. It does not specify anywhere in the document who is allowed to vote. Voting laws are determined by states. Which is why women were able to vote and hole public office as early as the 1700s in some states. Federal ammendments were then passed later garunteeing the right of women and blacks to vote. Regardless, the constitution doesn't say anything about gender or race in relation to voting. If you're going to oppose something you ought to know the facts.


Also, there is a difference between constitutionalists and libertarians, it just so happens that most (all) constitutionalists are libertarians, but the fact is constitutionalists want to refocus power back in the hands of state and local government, not federal, so in theory, if we returned to a classical constitutional republic then the certain states could pretty much do as they pleased. (the constitution states that all powers not given to the federal government in the document belong to the state) So you could actually create a socialist state under a constitutionalist setting if you had the voting bloc for it.

[Rascolnikova]

That is not what it says. It does not specify anywhere in the document who is allowed to vote. Voting laws are determined by states. Which is why women were able to vote and hole public office as early as the 1700s in some states. Federal ammendments were then passed later garunteeing the right of women and blacks to vote. Regardless, the constitution doesn't say anything about gender or race in relation to voting. If you're going to oppose something you ought to know the facts.

I do know the facts; that's what that edit was all about.

My assertion would more aptly be applied, not to what the constitution says, but to what it means. Language has meaning only in context; under the context the constitution was authored under, it was very obvious that "citizens" was going to refer to a race, gender, and class restricted group. If we wish to take the document so far out of context as to completely obscure it's meaning, there's no longer a historical platform with which we could also imbue it with the magical superpower of always being able to tell us how to organize a government.


you could actually create a socialist state under a constitutionalist setting if you had the voting bloc for it.This pre-supposes that one can create a socialist state rather than a socialist world, which a lot of Marxists would dispute.

[The Douche]

My assertion would more aptly be applied, not to what the constitution says, but to what it means. Language has meaning only in context; under the context the constitution was authored under, it was very obvious that "citizens" was going to refer to a race, gender, and class restricted group. If we wish to take the document so far out of context as to completely obscure it's meaning, there's no longer a historical platform with which we could also imbue it with the magical superpower of always being able to tell us how to organize a government.


Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about here.

The constitution doesn't even really talk about voting, I suggest you look up the text of the US constitution, you can skim it in about 10 minutes, you will find that all it does is set out the standards by which the electors will be selected (and it does not specify who does this selecting) and how the electors will choose the president/vp (and that is the main focus of the document). There is a reason the constitution doesn't talk much about voting rights (or talk about them at all really), and that is because voting standards were granted to the states. As are all powers not contained in the constitution.


This pre-supposes that one can create a socialist state rather than a socialist world, which a lot of Marxists would dispute.

It would be entirely possible under a constitutionalist system to implement socialist policies in your state. Happy?

Essentially if we had a constitutionalist government which was true to the principles the country was founded on/that constitutionalists advocate the states would have more power than federal government. So one particular state could vote to make all the utility companies into public organizations. ("nationalize" them, if you will, its not really nationalizing them though since its only in the one state) Pretty much, I think if there ever was a return to constitutionalism (which I don't think there will be) that we would end up with a libertarian bloc of states and a socialist bloc of states.

But either way, this system is clearly not racist nor is it "feudalist" (a truly laughable accusation) and also not fascist.

[Rascolnikova]

Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about here.

The constitution doesn't even really talk about voting, I suggest you look up the text of the US constitution, you can skim it in about 10 minutes, you will find that all it does is set out the standards by which the electors will be selected (and it does not specify who does this selecting) and how the electors will choose the president/vp (and that is the main focus of the document). There is a reason the constitution doesn't talk much about voting rights (or talk about them at all really), and that is because voting standards were granted to the states. As are all powers not contained in the constitution.


It doesn't talk about voting rights, but it talks about a jury of peers and it makes quite a lot of references to citizenship with regards to the legislative branch. I've read the constitution; I've been reading US law since I was 13. You should quit being so condescending and go learn something about language theory.

[The Douche]

It doesn't talk about voting rights, but it talks about a jury of peers and it makes quite a lot of references to citizenship with regards to the legislative branch. I've read the constitution; I've been reading US law since I was 13. You should quit being so condescending and go learn something about language theory.

Are you done then?

You made a case that constitutionalists only want white male landowners to vote.

Back that up.

Unless you're done with it or you want to rephrase it or something.

If you've been reading US law since you were 13 (which means nothing to me, considering I was raised in house by somebody who is marginally constitutionalist, so I too was reading US law, namely the constitution and the bill of rights, in addition to the articles of confederation and the anti-federalist papers at a young age as well) then you ought to know that the constitution does not specify citizens as being white male landowners, though many states may have made such distinctions. Regardless of this, you clearly have nothing but the crudest understanding of constitutionalism as a political movement and therefore ought to refrain from presenting yourself as an authority on it.

You asked in your post that we might "forgive your ignorance" but then you carry on defending it...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But riddle me this; in coal country at the turn of the century in America, miners where paid in something we call script, which of course, was only accepted in company towns.

Point of clarity: That lasted long past the turn of the century. My grandfather was paid in script.

As for what is and isn't fascist (and it is important to understand the difference): FASCISM: What it is and how to fight it (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm)

[Rascolnikova]

Are you done then?

You made a case that constitutionalists only want white male landowners to vote.

Back that up.

Unless you're done with it or you want to rephrase it or something.

If you've been reading US law since you were 13 (which means nothing to me, considering I was raised in house by somebody who is marginally constitutionalist, so I too was reading US law, namely the constitution and the bill of rights, in addition to the articles of confederation and the anti-federalist papers at a young age as well) then you ought to know that the constitution does not specify citizens as being white male landowners, though many states may have made such distinctions. Regardless of this, you clearly have nothing but the crudest understanding of constitutionalism as a political movement and therefore ought to refrain from presenting yourself as an authority on it.

You asked in your post that we might "forgive your ignorance" but then you carry on defending it...

It's quite possible that I don't know what I'm talking about here, but my ignorance is nothing so basic as an unfamiliarity with the constitution its self, and to suggest such seemed rude. I don't believe I've presented myself as having any authority to speak on the constitutionalist movement; in fact, I opened with a question about it, and quite agree that my understanding of it--particularly as a political movment--is minimal.

If you are an authority on the constitutionalist movement and do not understand what I have said, it's quite clear that constitutionalism and semiology have never crossed paths, and there's really nothing more for me to say.

Edit: I should have said, something as basic as having ever read the constitution.

[redSHARP]

there are not facist but pretty sketchy!