Is america becoming fascist?

[HarmlessRabbit]

Scary article, especially this part:

Hitler never won clear majorities (his ascent to power was facilitated by the political elites), and yet once he was in power, he crushed all dissent; consider the parallels to the fateful, hair-splitting election of 2000 and its aftermath. Hitler took advantage of the Reichstag fire – the burning of the German parliament, which was blamed on communist arson – to totally reshape German institutions and culture; think of 9/11 as a close parallel.

http://adbusters.org/magazine/49/art...ng_fascis.html

Is America Becoming Fascist?

Is America becoming fascist? Since mainstream media refuse to seriously ask this question, the analysis of where we are heading and what has gone wrong has been mostly off-base. Investigation of the kinds of underhanded, criminal tactics fascist regimes undertake to legitimize their agenda and accelerate the rate of change in their favor is dismissed as indulging in “conspiracy theory.” If the f-word is uttered, observers are quick to note the obvious dissimilarities with previous variants of fascism. American writers dare not speak the truth.

The blinkered assertion that we are immune to the fascist virus ignores degrees of convergence and distinction based on the individual patient’s history. The New York Times and other liberal voices have been obsessed in recent years with the rise of minority fascist parties in the Netherlands, France and other European countries. They have questioned the tastefulness of new books and films about Hitler, and again demonized the icons of Nazism. Max Frankel, former editor of the Times, quotes from biographer Joachim Fest in his review of Speer:

The Final Verdict: “how easily, given appropriate conditions, people will allow themselves to be mobilized into violence, abandoning the humanitarian traditions they have built up over centuries to protect themselves from each other.” Is Frankel hinting at his anxiety about the primal being that has arisen in America? The pace of events in the last two years has been almost as blindingly fast as it was after Hitler’s consolidation of fascist power in 1933. Speed stuns and silences.

To pose the question doesn’t mean that American fascism is a completed project; at any point, anything can happen to shift the course of history in a different direction. Yet after repeated and open corruption of the normal electoral process, several declarations of global war, adventurous and unprecedented military doctrines, selective suspension of the Bill of Rights and clear signals that a declaration of emergency is on the horizon, surely it is time to analyze the situation differently. Several of the apparent contradictions in the Bush administration’s governance make perfect sense if the fascist prism is applied, but not with the usual perspective. Fascism is home, it is here to stay, and it better be countered with all the resources at our disposal.

American fascism taps into the perennial complaint against liberalism: that it fails to provide an authentic sense of belonging to the majority of people. America today wants to be communal and virile; it seeks to overcome what many have been convinced are the unreasonable demands of minorities and women; it wants to reinvigorate ideals of nation, region and race in order to take control of the future; it seeks to overcome the social divisiveness of capitalism and democracy, remolding the nation through propaganda and leadership.

We can notice obvious differences from the German or Italian nationalist traditions, of course – we have our own nationalist myths. In the near future, America can be expected to embark on a more radical search to define who is and who is not a part of the natural order: exclusion, deportation and eventually extermination might again become the order of things. Fascism can occur precisely at that moment of truth when the course of political history can tend to one direction or another. Nazism never had the support of the majority of Germans; at best about a third fully supported it. About a third of Americans today are certifiably fascist; another 20 percent or so can be swayed around to particular causes with smart propaganda. The basic paradigm remains more or less intact.

Capitalism today is different, so are the means of propaganda, and so are the technological tools of suppression. But that is only a matter of variation, not opposition. With all of Germany’s cultural strength, brutality won out; the same analysis can apply to America. Hitler never won clear majorities (his ascent to power was facilitated by the political elites), and yet once he was in power, he crushed all dissent; consider the parallels to the fateful, hair-splitting election of 2000 and its aftermath. Hitler took advantage of the Reichstag fire – the burning of the German parliament, which was blamed on communist arson – to totally reshape German institutions and culture; think of 9/11 as a close parallel. Hitler was careful to give the impression of always operating under legal cover; note again the similarity of a pseudo-legal shield for the actions of the American fascists, who stretch the Geneva Conventions by redefining prisoners of war as “unlawful.” One can go on and on in this vein.

If we look at historian Stanley Payne’s classical general theory of fascism, we are struck by the increasing similarities with the American model:

A. The Fascist Negations
Anti-liberalism.
Anti-communism.
Anti-conservatism.
B. Ideology and Goals
Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state.
Organization of a new kind of regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic structure.
The goal of empire.
Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed.
C. Style and Organization
Emphasis on aesthetic structure, stressing romantic and mystical aspects.
Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style, and the goal of a mass party militia.
Positive evaluation and use of violence.
Extreme stress on the masculine principle.
Exaltation of youth.
Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command.

With American fascism, the first two negations are obvious; the third may seem unlikely. But fascism is not conservatism, and it takes issue with conservatism’s anti-revolutionary stance. Conservatism’s libertarian strand – an American staple – would not agree with fascism’s “nationalist authoritarian state.” Reaganite anti-government rhetoric might have been a precursor to fascism, but free market and deregulationist ideology cannot be labeled fascist.

Continuing to look at Payne’s list, we note that the goal of empire has found open acceptance over the last couple of years.

[ctembreull]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
A. The Fascist Negations
Anti-liberalism.
This should be obvious. The message from every branch of the federal government and from the news media is a rejection of liberalism, usually without sound cause or factual basis. In other words, it's a rightward swing based on rhetoric and heat, rather than any recognized intellectual principle.

Anti-communism.
Telling, isn't it, that Ann "Thrax" Coulter has only recently published a book seeking to turn Joseph McCarthy from forgotten ideologue to modern-day hero. Anything that even begins to touch upon redistribution of power from the ruling elite to the common man is ruthlessly derided as "communist," including Social Security, welfare, progressive taxation, and health care.

Anti-conservatism.
True, when you actually think about it: traditional conservatism has always had at its core fiscal responsibility and foreign policy non-interventionism. The former has been discarded in favor of supply-side economics and massive deficits, the latter has been replaced by neoconservatism's pax Americana.

B. Ideology and Goals
Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state.
I would believe this to be true, based upon John Ashcroft's frontal assault on civil liberties, and the new version of political correctness, which states that any criticism of the government or dissent from its policies is "un-American".

Organization of a new kind of regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic structure.
Anyone who's seen the Republican Party's list of campaign donors will have no trouble believing this, not to mention the rampancy of political patronage in favor of certain oil connections to whom our government officials have had business connections. One of fascism's key tenets is the integration of business and government; America's been heading this way ever since the doctrine of corporate citizenship was conceived.

The goal of empire.
Please refer to the Project for the New American Century and its publicly stated goals of American military domination of key resource-producing regions, including but not limited to the Middle East.

Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed.
I'm not sure how to respond to this one, since voluntarism is at the core of American principles.

C. Style and Organization
Emphasis on aesthetic structure, stressing romantic and mystical aspects.
Well-covered by today's neoconservative, with their grand public genuflections in the direction of traditional Judaeo-Christian religion.

Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style, and the goal of a mass party militia.
This, thankfully, hasn't happened. Not to say that it will not, but it has not yet occurred.

Positive evaluation and use of violence.
The various comments upon this board regarding the topic of personal possession of assault weapons and the willful violation of Iraq's sovereignty should be evidence enough for this. I can post links, if anyone really wants to see the rather disturbing particulars.

Extreme stress on the masculine principle.
Today's conservative openly lusts for a return to an idealized world somewhere between the Victorian era in England and 1950's-era America. Both of these cultural waypoints featured significant suppression of women's rights: the Victorians liked to perpetuate the ridiculous notion that women existed only from the neck up, and the atomic family in the 1950's revolved around the working father, while the mother was expected to do little but bear and raise children, and tend to the house.

Exaltation of youth.
This, I can safely say, hasn't really happened yet. While American neoconservativism has numerous willing young practicioners in church youth groups and similar organizations, by and large the youth of America stands somewhere between aggressively apolitical and excessively liberal.

Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command.
Oh, where to start? Did you know that movements to have public landmarks in every county in America named after Ronald Reagan are actually gaining traction? And that doesn't even begin to touch upon the cult of personality that has grown up around the steely-eyed-flight-suit-wearing-rocket-man-with-the-codpiece-of-three-large-men
President of the United States, whose profoundly limited intellectual gifts are somehow presented to the public as marks of distinction.

I would recommend reading "Rush, Newspeak, and Fascism", by David Neiwert, in which you can find the points raised here as well as other definitions, including that of Umberto Eco. You can find it at Orcinus, his blog. He takes a slightly different view from me on the topic, but his analysis is excellent.

[Silvy]

Remember Americans: It's your vote that decides!

(other than that I'm remaining completely neutral here...)

[mystmarimatt]

the times they are a'changin'...

[Sparhawk]

yikes.

*there's no place like the voting booth in '04, there's no place like the voting booth in '04...*

[Charlatan]

Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style, and the goal of a mass party militia.

This, thankfully, hasn't happened. Not to say that it will not, but it has not yet occurred.

It could be argured that the Department of Homeland Security takes a big step in this direction.



There will be many on this board that will cry foul over this article but I agree that the US is on a slippery slope.

[onetime2]

First off, fascism is marked by the centralization of power under a DICTATOR. No matter how pissed off the liberal intelligentsia is over Bush's election he is not a dictator. The election is over. Even the counts commissioned by the NY Times and others showed Bush won. Reality is the MAJORITY of US voters voted for NOBODY.

Straw man arguments, immature name calling, and comparisons to Nazis, if that is what the strategists of the DNC have in store for the next election then prepare yourselves for four more years of Bush.

And come on, calling Ann Coulter Ann Thrax? What are we in grade school?

[geep]

Quite the swing- from communism to fascism in 1/2 a term. No fascist nation ever hosted a welfare state, which by many definitions is two thirds of our "Dictators" budget.

[ctembreull]

Originally posted by geep
No fascist nation ever hosted a welfare state

Civil welfare, no. Corporate welfare, yes. One of the key defining characteristics of fascism is the blurring of the lines between government and business. One believes that the current government-driven push towards deregulation and the special treatment given to business can be viewed as initial qualifiers under this definition.

Besides, didn't you notice that the Bush Administration is making overt attempts to tear apart civil welfare, public health care, Social Security, unemployment benefits, etc. etc.?

[ctembreull]

Originally posted by onetime2
First off, fascism is marked by the centralization of power under a DICTATOR.

Umm, no. Fascism is marked by the cult of personality centered around a leader, not necessarily by autocratic rule executed by a single individual. Fascism works just as well with a federal-style government as it does with individual rule by fiat. Fascism is primarily a social phenomenon which reaches governmental levels when certain popular fascist figures are elevated to office by the public. It's relatively rare for fascism to emerge by way of violent revolution or coup.

No matter how pissed off the liberal intelligentsia is over Bush's election he is not a dictator.

I don't recall seeing the circumstances of Bush's election mentioned in this thread. You're awfully quick to defend it, though, even when it's not under attack. Why is that? Your point that Bush is not a dictator is certainly true, but irrelevant given my previous point.

Straw man arguments, immature name calling, and comparisons to Nazis,

I don't see any of those here on this particular thread. But the Nazi references currently making the rounds among members of the Democratic base are perhaps in response to the equally snide and disturbing characterizations of liberals as "commies" emanating from the Right. Neither is a rational example of political discourse. This thread, however, is drawing concrete comparisons between current political climates and the benchmark definitions of fascism. There's a big difference.

And come on, calling Ann Coulter Ann Thrax?

It's a reference to the poison which Ms. Coulter injects into the political dialogue. You have a different opinion?

[geep]

Originally posted by ctembreull
Civil welfare, no. Corporate welfare, yes. One of the key defining characteristics of fascism is the blurring of the lines between government and business. One believes that the current government-driven push towards deregulation and the special treatment given to business can be viewed as initial qualifiers under this definition.

Besides, didn't you notice that the Bush Administration is making overt attempts to tear apart civil welfare, public health care, Social Security, unemployment benefits, etc. etc.?

Government regulation is also a hallmark of fascism. And I don't think that adding prescription drug benefits to an already bloated
budget qualifies as dismantling our welfare system.

[BigGov]

Hitler took advantage of the Reichstag fire – the burning of the German parliament, which was blamed on communist arson – to totally reshape German institutions and culture; think of 9/11 as a close parallel.

And FDR took advantage of Pearl Harbor to enter WWII and reshape everyone's thinking into "Kill the Axis!"

Please, answer this theoretical question then Rabbit: What would you do if you were the President of the United States after September 11, 2001?

[ctembreull]

Originally posted by geep
Government regulation is also a hallmark of fascism. And I don't think that adding prescription drug benefits to an already bloated budget qualifies as dismantling our welfare system.

Note here that I've never stated that the United States has become fascist. What I have done is point out that certain parallels exist. I will stipulate that the American social welfare system is not a fascist institution. I am also pointing out, however, that initiatives exist within the current government to do away with or cripple much of the existing welfare institution, which, should they be enacted, would be one *more* similarity with the fascist prototype.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Please, answer this theoretical question then Rabbit: What would you do if you were the President of the United States after September 11, 2001?

Hmmm. Good question. I would probably have immediately launched a blue-ribbon investigation into the causes of the war. I would have fired the heads of the NSA, CIA, and FBI and put in new leaders that were interested in reforming the broken intelligence community.

I would have called Saudia Arabia on the carpet for their role in the 9/11 attacks.

I certainly would not have proposed the Patriot Act. The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by foreigners with visas, so the visa system needed overhauling, not domestic survelliance.

I would not have gone to war with Iraq, since Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. If I was going to use the political leverage of 9/11 to do anything, I would have used it to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I would probably have taken some action against Afghanistan to root out Osama Bin Laden, although I'm not sure that the way we went about it was the right approach. I would have to think a little more about what exactly I might have done better.

I would have made a stirring speech to the american public about how this attack was an attack on the personal liberties and freedoms that the founders talked about in the Constitution, and how we need to hold these freedoms dear. I would have reminded people about the internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII, and how we will not repeat those mistakes. I would have reminded people that we are part of the world, and for the deaths during 9/11 to be avenged, we need to make the world a more peaceful place.

Those are some ideas off the top of my head. What do you think?

[BigGov]

Hmmm. Good question. I would probably have immediately launched a blue-ribbon investigation into the causes of the war. I would have fired the heads of the NSA, CIA, and FBI and put in new leaders that were interested in reforming the broken intelligence community.

Then you don't have the slightest idea about how those groups run. You think they're sitting there with their thumbs up their asses?

I would have called Saudia Arabia on the carpet for their role in the 9/11 attacks.

Bush will get to them soon enough.

I certainly would not have proposed the Patriot Act. The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by foreigners with visas, so the visa system needed overhauling, not domestic survelliance.

While people already in the country, and illegals, aren't watched. Terrorists want in America? Just go the the Mexico boarder and walk on in.

I would not have gone to war with Iraq, since Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

But there was a threat that something bigger could have happened with Saddam and Osama. Proactive is a hell of alot better than retroactive when talking about this. Oh, and he just finished something that should have been finished a decade ago.

If I was going to use the political leverage of 9/11 to do anything, I would have used it to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

You actually think that's feasable? They're going to be fighting until they kill each other. Just because we were victim of a terrorist act doesn't mean their fighting will end.

I would probably have taken some action against Afghanistan to root out Osama Bin Laden, although I'm not sure that the way we went about it was the right approach. I would have to think a little more about what exactly I might have done better.

What we could have done better? The only thing we could have done better was kill Osama, which means nuking all of Afganistan so we get him for sure. I'm not sure you're in favor of that.

I would have reminded people about the internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII, and how we will not repeat those mistakes.

No, you wouldn't, because any speech writer and any cabinet member with half a clue would beat you upside the head if you even suggested that.

[debaser]

America has always swung from right to left and back again. We are simply in the midst of the same process. America today is nowhere near as bad as it was in the heyday of McCarthy. Expect things to swing toward the center sooner rather than later.

[ctembreull]

debaser:

Yeah. At this rate, there's gonna be a sea change right around November of next year.

[HarmlessRabbit]

<b>jimmy4</b>

Since your entire reply lacked any facts or evidence at all, and was basically just you going point by point through my post saying "well, that wouldn't work", I see no reason to reply.

Have a nice day, drive through.

[Pacifier]

Originally posted by Jimmy4
What we could have done better?

LOL
The question has to be what could you have done worse.
Lets see what we hav now in Afghanistan and what you wanted to achieve:

you wanted to:
- capture Osama and destroy the Al Kaida
- Destroy the Taliban and free Afghanistan

at this time a have failed to capture Osama, a lot of AlKaida/ Taliban fighters have fled to pakistan and other nations.
The Taliban goverment is gone (hurray!) but is replaced with a leader who has nothing to say. The Warlords are ruling the land, again. The people are still not free and there is no sign of something like democracy.

The USA has repeated a lot of old errors:
They have used Assholes (The warlord) to overthrow the taliban and now the USA are wondering why the assholes are acting like assholes. The USA has done that before (Iraq, Afghanistan). Additionally the USA entered the War without a plan what to do after the war, just like they did now in the Iraq (as Salman Pax, the iraqi webblogger said "try and error with a whole nation?"). They killed a lot f cilvillians and they only result will be that people will hate the USA even more.

So now youre telling me that the war in afghanistan was a success?

[onetime2]

Originally posted by ctembreull
I don't recall seeing the circumstances of Bush's election mentioned in this thread. You're awfully quick to defend it, though, even when it's not under attack. Why is that? Your point that Bush is not a dictator is certainly true, but irrelevant given my previous point.

Read the opening of the post. The rest of your response is pure opinion. And since there is no reason to think you will change yours (nor will I change mine) not much point in arguing them.

[blackdas]

Ahh, nice, more biased liberal media from the creator of this topic.

[Jesus Pimp]

Ah, typical comment from conservative sheep.

[HarmlessRabbit]

<b>Ahh, nice, more biased liberal media from the creator of this topic.</b>

It's nice to have a reputation. As they say, any press is good press!

[The Bolshevist]

Regarding Nazi Germany and social welfare...it is easy to forget the fact that Nazi is a bastardization of National Socialist. Such institutions as the Winterhilf (Winter help) money drives, the KdF holiday camps and even the VW were examples of the NSDAP (National Sozialisten Deutsches Arbeites Partie - National Socialist German Workers Party) social welfare system. Once Hitler was in power, money was made available to mothers, the elderly, war veterans and the sick. (Granted, the mentally and physically challenged were liquidated...a practice that did not end until AFTER the war...but that is another story.) Remember, Nazism and Communism may be right and left wing, but if you look at in a circular view, they meet in totalitarianism.

America becoming fascist? It is genuinely becoming insular, xenophobic and has a tendency to strike out violently. However, I feel it does have a long way to go before it reaches the level of Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. I would be careful, though - if Bush doesn't get the brakes put on him soon, the world may lose what little respect it has for his administration.

The good thing is America has a wise electorate...I doubt they would let it happen.

Mind you, that is what many Germans said before the election of 1933...

[hiredgun]

Thank you for the article, and thank god that there are so many rational people here who won't cry "conspiracy theory" and neglect to even give the idea a second thought.

[snicka]

/me starts building shelter and stocking it with weapons and food

[Mojo_PeiPei]

I don't know how you guys plan to oust Bush when all the DFL's can do is bash him. If the economy picks up, which it is doing, expect another 4 years.

Further more Bush has done nothing as drastic as Hitler has in regard to eliminating opposition (it's almost ridiculous considering how much the guy gets attacked), or what was that whole mass genocide thing.... oh yeah the holocaust.

[Zeld2.0]

Thats why many consider the country in trouble Mojo.. because people are mistaking patriotism with nationalism and don't wish to change things.

now whether or not bush is doing the right thing or wrong isn't the point of this - this could happen to anyone - but the point is, if people always take the word of the government, if they cannot realize the difference between nationalism and patriotism, then all a dictator needs is for the people to do nothing about it

you don't need to have the Holocaust or murder your political opponents to be a fascist - as stated in the original post, its different from what many would typify the fascists (well as they say, Hitler is the marker to which all other dictators / fascists are compared to, but what he did isn't always the mark of a fascist)

[Mojo_PeiPei]

What's wrong with some nationalism? You have the whole of the UN constantly bashing us and trying to bring us down. Further more I am glad Germany fucked people's shit up in WWII (I'm not talking about the genocide). It was the assholes like the French that started that shit, if you back a wounded animal into a corner, you damn well better beleve it is going to lash out.

[Zeld2.0]

Oh really so the 'assholes' in France started World War II?

You know what Mojo, you realize that the US basically CREATED the UN?

Since when has the UN been tryign to brin the U.S. down. The U.S. has been trying to bring the UN down if anything.

You're glad Germany fucked people's shit up in WW2?

What if you lived in Germany or Britain or France. And you were bombed day and night for 3 years while you starved in the ruins.

Would you like that huh?

Christ are Americans really being this ignorant to think France started World War II? To think the UN was created by foreigners?

No wonder I know some older generations who feel the younger generation are a disgrace - do you think the sacrifice of thousands of Americans in the past is because Germany was to fuck people's shit up?

Hey we fought the good guy before, but now you think Germany is the goodguy?

Right, nationalism baby - listen to everything the government says, go #1 our country, think you're a patriot, think the world owes you something, think you have the diivne right to rule.

This country would be nowhere if that was run that way - we could've easily been stomped by the powers of the world far earlier. And yes those "assholes" in France were the ones who helped this country even exist.

P.S. - your last quote really makes no sense - care to clarify who is just lashing out?

[SofaKingA]

Rude comment edited But back to the subject. The U.S. is not fascist. When a few things go wrong we can't just go to the extreme and call Bush a dictator. Americans tend to go to the extreme with everything and criticize. I guess thats good because criticism tends to keep people in line. Fascism deals with controling people through terror and censorship and tends to be belligerent and racist. Things the U.S. government for the most part is not. I am in no way a Bush supporter, I am actually a 100% democrat. I don't think we are becoming fascist.

[Zeld2.0]

I agree that it helps keep the people in control - i can't see us being fascist tommorrow. But i can see that if things do hit an extreme it is much easier to become fascist than ever.

[auswegian]

Neoconservatism ain't Fascism in any way shape or form. But it is the Right Wing Extremism of our age. The USA isn't going to turn into Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. But it could still turn into something terrible indeed.

[doctorphibes]

Incidentally, not to let facts get in the way of a good ole intarweb flamewar, but the capitalists in Italy (the only nation with a Fascist government) were actively opposed to Mussolini; in fact they tried to eliminate him numerous times. So to say that Fascism (again, note the capital F, different animal than the carelessly-strewn "fascism") is marked with corporate welfare is a complete falsehood.

I'd highly recommend people actually read some Fascist literature before they start talking like they know anything about it, but unfortunately it's all in Italian. (And few literate people speak Italian - heh heh heh). Although A. James Gregor from UC Berkeley has translated some of it, so you might want to look into that.

Honestly, most of what you hear is third-hand at best, and usually just reiterated from what someone else said a long time ago, when the only accepted position in academia was "Fascism/Nazism bad-Communism good!", and usually from people who didn't speak the language. So, really, go to sources, read the actual ideology, and *then* pass judgement. Incidentally, you'll probably come to the same conclusions ANYWAY, but at least you thought for yourself.

And maybe we can stop this retarded "you/Bush/Republicans are fascists!" bullshit. But probably not.

[HarmlessRabbit]

<b>And maybe we can stop this retarded "you/Bush/Republicans are fascists!" bullshit. But probably not.</b>

And maybe you could address the article, which is based on established classical theory on fascism, as the author quotes, rather than attempt to appear intellectual without actually offering any opinion.

On the other hand, it's more fun just to negate someone else's view.

[virus]

i believe we can change it. because every vote counts. unless you're black or old and living in florida.

seriously, i don't think it's fascist, i just think it's fucked up. our populace is too damned volitile to ever condone fascism, and we don't have big enough groups of people to hate. though it is a sad and dangerous thing indeed that so many people have such strong conviction is blindly "trusting our government." i say, trust our government, but make damn sure they're not abusing our trust- you can do both things!

[Darkblack]

This link is right on. It is just hard for sheep to see past the Shepard.

[Darkblack]

I wanted to add this. I use this quote a lot because I feel it hits home on a lot of issues dealing with the current US political stance and how it may be viewed 20 years from now.

[doctorphibes]

Oh for crying out loud Rabbit, there's no need for insults.

Sorry for asking people to, you know, read, or something. Or at least think for themselves. I was just pointing out that the article is based on a "classical" definition of Fascism, indeed, but not the one the author cites. If you really want me to dispute the definition, then you asked for it....

Academics (particularly in the Anglophone countries, like I said) tried to understand Fascism by putting together "theories" of its rise and character. The first efforts turned on the conviction that collective behavior was a function of moral beliefs. Fascism was identified as "bad," the consequence of the disillusionment suffered by humankind because of the prodigal waste of life during the four years of international conflict. The transparent immorality of the war had rendered humankind indifferent to violence and death.

When this was considered too "thin" an account, Freudian psychoanalysis was pressed into service and the "family drama" was chosen as the root cause of aberrant behavior. Check out Peter Nathan's The Psychology of Fascism (1943) for perhaps the most notorious expression, but that was quickly followed by Wilhelm Reich's Mass Psychology of Fascism (1946) which was hardly more profound.

The trouble with these accounts is that they "proved" too much. Everyone seemed to be a potential fascist at least since the time the "family"came into being (with a father and mother or mothers). Wherever there was constraint on the maturing sexuality of the male, there was created a reservoir of hatred of authority (displaced from the father) and a loving devotion for the mother(land). Revolutionaries were the "necessary" byproduct. Once the Oedipal issue had been resolved, the revolutionaries recreated the "family." The revolutionaries were the "fathers" controlling and directing the lives of their "children" (through dictatorial means), and they demanded obedience and servitude from their charges. Everyone was to love the "Motherland" without reservation.

So how was Fascism different from Marxism-Leninism? How was Fascism different from democratic capitalism? I mean, aren't Americans expected to love their "country"? Do we have a "father" of our country? If these characteristics are the same for all ideologies (which you certainly can argue, if you accept the basic premise), doesn't that mean that America is, in fact, Marxist as well? In "proving" too much, these explanations do not prove anything at all.

When one invokes morality, the situation is even more confusing. If Fascists are bad because they are disillusioned with Judeo-Christian beliefs, what can we say about ourselves? If one pays the least bit of attention to domestic critics, such as the author of this article, the United States exploits the poor of the world, engages in wars that cost millions of lives in order to maintain those exploitative practices, etc. That is why left-wing (for lack of a better term) critics often choose to refer to the United States and its policies as "fascist." That kind of talk is licensed by just these kind of "explanations."

In effect, these kinds of "explanation" do not succeed in explaining anything. They are unpersuasive. They can be used to "explain" anything the speaker chooses. That is why they were rapidly supplemented by alternative accounts: those that were empirical (rather than normative or essentially speculative).

That is why I recommended people read the original source material, and not just something that some guy somewhere wrote. In effect, you are merely reintrepreting something that was intrepreted from an intrepretation of (most likely) a translated piece. And that is only if the orginator of the thought bothered to check the piece to begin with, which I sincerely doubt.

I don't agree with all of Payne's conclusions, of course, but his research into Spanish (Franco's, really) history is quite sound. Too bad the article misapplies his characteristics of a fascist regime, as did an earlier poster in this thread. Not to be a broken record, but I'd urge you to check out his actual work, as well as that of Ken Jowett or Gregor (see above), and perhaps Chalmers Johnson. See if you *really* think a totalitarian, Fascist revolution is possible in the US after that.

And of course, if you speaka da language, Fascist thought was largely based on the works of Giovanni Gentile, Giuseppe Mazzini, Enrico Corradini, and Alfredo Rocco. Plus the Syndicalists (look it up if you don't know the history that well) based their idea of collective consciousness on Georges Sorel, who can be considered an expansion of Marxist thought. For that matter, then, you might want to read The Communist Manifesto, because while practically everybody "read" it in school, hardly anyone actually did. Anyway, the Italians at least started as Marxists, and much of their ideology was founded on that.

Errr, that was rather long, wasn't it? Well, I hope it made my position a little clearer. If you really want me to go through the article and refute what I disagree with, then give me a day, I haven't really written this stuff out since I was an undergraduate.

And let's try to keep it a leeetle civil, hmmm?

[Jasmar]

well most of the things you said aren't exactly new, so it seems america has been a bit fascist all along. If I remember my history a good portion of america supported german during ww2