The Coming US Fascism

[hahn]

The Coming US Fascism
In 1944 the Old Right journalist John T. Flynn wrote:

"The test of fascism is not one’s rage against the Italian and German war lords. The test is – how many of the essential principles of fascism do you accept and to what extent are you prepared to apply those fascist ideas to American social and economic life? When you can put your finger on the men or the groups that urge for America the debt-supported state, the autarchial corporative state, the state bent on the socialization of investment and the bureaucratic government of industry and society, the establishment of the institution of militarism as the great glamorous public-works project of the nation and the institution of imperialism under which it proposes to regulate and rule the world and, along with this, proposes to alter the forms of our government to approach as closely as possible the unrestrained, absolute government – then you will know you have located the authentic fascist.

"But let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that we are dealing by this means with the problem of fascism. Fascism will come at the hands of perfectly authentic Americans, as violently against Hitler and Mussolini as the next one, but who are convinced that the present economic system is washed up and that the present political system in America has outlived its usefulness and who wish to commit this country to the rule of the bureaucratic state; interfering in the affairs of the states and cities; taking part in the management of industry and finance and agriculture; assuming the role of great national banker and investor, borrowing millions every year and spending them on all sorts of projects through which such a government can paralyze opposition and command public support; marshaling great armies and navies at crushing costs to support the industry of war and preparation for war which will become our greatest industry; and adding to all this the most romantic adventures in global planning, regeneration, and domination all to be done under the authority of a powerfully centralized government in which the executive will hold in effect all the powers with Congress reduced to the role of a debating society. There is your fascist. And the sooner America realizes this dreadful fact the sooner it will arm itself to make an end of American fascism masquerading under the guise of the champion of democracy.

"It should be equally clear that all this is in no sense communism.... [A] reason for the confusion is the character of the men who are authentic and honest New Dealers but who were not communists.... They began to flirt with the alluring pastime of reconstructing the capitalist system. They became the architects of a new capitalist system. And in the process of this new career they began to fashion doctrines that turned out to be the principles of fascism. Of course they do not call them fascism, although some of them frankly see the resemblance. But they are not disturbed, because they know that they will never burn books, they will never hound the Jews or the Negroes, they will never resort to assassination and suppression. What will turn up in their hands will be a very genteel and dainty and pleasant form of fascism which cannot be called fascism at all because it will be so virtuous and polite." (As We Go Marching [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1944], pp. 252-255.)

In 1969, at the height of the so-called Sixties, a New Right essayist – alarmed, apparently, that Jane Fonda still enjoyed freedom of speech and that college administrators were too spineless to have the police clear student radicals out of their offices – called for "some variety of expediential fascism":

"The very nature of the situation creates competing codes and doctrines extreme in content and alien to the balancing compromises of liberal polity. The stringent demands of such a rudimentary struggle of power and ideas invites political approaches that are totalitarian in nature: not quite in the original fascist sense that puts all aspects of life under the aegis of political authority, at least in the general sense that political theory can no longer restrict itself to general conditions and procedural rules, but must offer a comprehensive, authoritative resolution of a number of specific political and social questions." (Donald Atwell Zoll, "Shall We Let America Die?", National Review, December 16, 1969, pp. 12-62-1263, italics added.)

The phrase emphasized above ("political theory can no longer restrict itself to general conditions and procedural rules") abolishes constitutions and expresses the long-standing wish of some "conservatives" for a Government of National Emergency. FDR and Truman taught them well. National Review lives in a mental state of siege. There may be no antidote for it, but the following quotations may be of some use:

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

~ James Madison, 1798 (italics added)

"Is it not just possible that we may become corrupted at home by the reaction of arbitrary political maxims in the East upon our domestic politics, just as Greece and Rome were demoralised by their contact with Asia?"

~ Richard Cobden, 1850

"Wartime brings the ideal of the State out into very clear relief, and reveals attitudes and tendencies that were hidden. In times of peace the sense of the State flags in a republic that is not militarized. For war is essentially the health of the State."

~ Randolph Bourne, 1919

**************************
Anyone want to keep track of how many cries of "bias" there will be? Or how many people will simply dismiss this of being unworthy of reading or addressing because the idea is ludicrous? Before you flame me, the article's author, or the contents, you'd better have a good idea of what characterizes fascism. Wikipedia is a good start.

For those of you willing to put aside your visceral reaction to the word "fascism" and look at the actual definition of it and what has characterized fascist regimes throughout history, one will recognize undeniable fascist leanings that are developing right here in the US. We have to be careful. It's not enough to say, we don't kill Jews, therefore we're not fascist. Because that's not what makes up fascism.

This thread is dedicated to bhk who was apparently too asleep at the wheel to catch onto my not so subtle hints in his Leftist Mirror thread. Also posted in response to the thread about Bush being able to detain an American citizen without due process.

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by hahn

Anyone want to keep track of how many cries of "bias" there will be? Or how many people will simply dismiss this of being unworthy of reading or addressing because the idea is ludicrous?

No. I don't think enough people will take this thread seriously enough to bother. It is laughable. And the definition of fascism means very little compared to what the majority of people think it means.

I have only lived through 3 democrat presidents, but I do know that this fear of fascism doesn't get vollied when they are in office. And this will die down again (and suddenly there will be no homeless people either) when the next democrat gets into the oval office.

I worry more about meteors hitting the earth than I do about the US becoming a fascist state. That is ignorant.

[hahn]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

And the definition of fascism means very little compared to what the majority of people think it means.

I worry more about meteors hitting the earth than I do about the US becoming a fascist state. That is ignorant.

How will you recognize a fascist state if you the definition of fascism is meaningless? The definition of fascism is not an artificial construct. They are the baseline characteristics that have been held in common by historical regimes that we consider fascist.

This has less to do with Republican/Democrat lines and more to do with a nation's behavior once it creates a "need" to bypass certain principles for the sake of security and order.

A fascist regime cannot exist without the support of its public, whether it's willing or not. I do not think that most people who have lived in or supported fascist nations thought of themselves as "fascist" in the negative connotation it has taken on. You seem to think there is a very clear line that separates us from fascist nations. What is that line? I think that's a much more difficult question to answer than people think. Fascist regimes don't aim to kill people or violate human rights. These are just the results of measures that are considered "necessary" to maintain "national security". It eventually becomes accepted as a means to a greater good.

[Thor Simpson]

Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini. I don't think we'll get there. I don't think we're even in the same ballpark.

I think I have to simply dismiss this of being unworthy of reading or addressing because the idea is ludicrous. Before you flame me, the article's author, or the contents, you'd better have a good idea of what characterizes fascism.

I am perfectly willing to put aside myvisceral reaction to the word "fascism" and look at the actual definition of it and what has characterized fascist regimes throughout history. Still, I do not recognize undeniable fascist leanings that are developing right here in the US, except as purported by those with strong oposing views to our current administration or to things such as the Patriot Act, which I see as a short-term response (historically) to a very prominent threat. We don't have to be careful, we have to remain good Americans who can engage in debate and focus on real issues, not taglines. It's not enough to say, we don't kill Jews, therefore we're not fascist. Because that's not what makes up fascism. It is enough to say we are America and the American people as a whole will not stoop to the levels of such great government control. We must constantly fight it, and we may be at a peak, but my no means would I say it is coming.

[nemein]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

* exalts the nation and party above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
* stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture.
* engages in economic totalitarianism through the creation of a Corporatist State, where the divergent economic and social interests of different races and classes are combined with the interests of the State.

1) There are certainly tendencies in the extreme of each party to do this, even then though there is still a strong individualistic nature in the common American IMHO. They'll only follow a party so long and in so many things before having to go their own way, either completely or in part. The fact that they are free to do so willingly is one of the main reasons I don't think fascism will take ahold here.

2) Considering how split polls are on Bush (and other political leaders) I don't think you'll find any single leader in the US who could instill such loyalty in even a majority of people to come close to what would be required for a facist state. The concept of a single culture (in the sense they are talking about) taking hold here too is somewhat laughable.

3) Frankly if anything we are running the risk of the corps becoming more powerful than the state, not the corps becoming part of the state. Which brings up an interesting approach, if you want to talk about corp "facism" (in a multinational "cyberpunk" sense) that's something I might buy we run the risk of. The US becoming a facist state though... I think we've got a long way to go before that.

The funny thing is looking through the list above IMHO it seems we run more of a risk of becoming a facist state by following the Dem/Liberal ideals than those traditionally attributed to Reps/Conservatives. The concept of the state being supreme in all matters, the idea of a single culture (that seems to frown upon anyone that doesn't think exactly like they do) [although both sides certainly do this especially wrt specific key issues] and the combination of state and corporation (from the state side).

[Nazgul]

So who's behind the "Coming US Facism"?

[classicman2]

I think it's the Extreme Right Wing Conspiracy - or is it the Extreme Left Wing Conspiracy that's behind it all?

I can't seem to remember which.

[hahn]

Originally Posted by nemein

1) There are certainly tendencies in the extreme of each party to do this, even then though there is still a strong individualistic nature in the common American IMHO. They'll only follow a party so long and in so many things before having to go their own way, either completely or in part. The fact that they are free to do so willingly is one of the main reasons I don't think fascism will take ahold here.

I agree somewhat with the first part of your first sentence. However, the problem is that the extreme left currently doesn't hold any power. That is not true of the right. The question is, how far right are they? How much further right can they go? Are they even truly representative of the right? Or are the right merely following them because it suits their purpose since they have a common enemy: the left?

2) Considering how split polls are on Bush (and other political leaders) I don't think you'll find any single leader in the US who could instill such loyalty in even a majority of people to come close to what would be required for a facist state. The concept of a single culture (in the sense they are talking about) taking hold here too is somewhat laughable.

There are degrees of fascism. Just because we don't or won't burn books or kill Jews to try and 'purify' our culture doesn't mean we don't possess some fascist characteristics. Do you consider the recent judgement that Bush can detain Padilla to be in keeping with our principles of freedom and due process, or do you consider it a necessary bypass of our system to ensure our security?

I'm not losing sleep over the country becoming a fascist state. However, I am becoming increasingly concerned and even occasionally alarmed a how little resistance we are putting up to these little power grabs by the executive branch of our government. We may not become a full-on fascist state in the foreseeable future, but to have elements of fascism creep into our society IS, IMHO, worthy of concern. In the US, we appear to have grown complacent in the assumption that democracy precludes fascism. History teaches us that that is absolutely false.

3) Frankly if anything we are running the risk of the corps becoming more powerful than the state, not the corps becoming part of the state. Which brings up an interesting approach, if you want to talk about corp "facism" (in a multinational "cyberpunk" sense) that's something I might buy we run the risk of. The US becoming a facist state though... I think we've got a long way to go before that.

Same response as above.

The funny thing is looking through the list above IMHO it seems we run more of a risk of becoming a facist state by following the Dem/Liberal ideals than those traditionally attributed to Reps/Conservatives. The concept of the state being supreme in all matters, the idea of a single culture (that seems to frown upon anyone that doesn't think exactly like they do) [although both sides certainly do this especially wrt specific key issues] and the combination of state and corporation (from the state side).

First of all, I don't think we can any longer simply pair up Democrats with Liberals and Republicans with Conservatives. The political atmosphere has grown far more complicated. Second of all, I do consider myself a fairly typical liberal. I do NOT support the state being supreme in all matters, and I'm not certain where you would get this idea from. Actually, let me get more specific than that. I support the government providing economic means of ensuring we do not have a severely disadvantaged lower class. I am firmly against the governement getting involved or legislating social issues. Several people here are fond of asking why liberals want government to control healthcare. We don't! At least I don't. The government should not be deciding who gets what kind of healthcare. However, I DO think that they should just be providing economic assistance to get basic healthcare for those unable to get it for themselves. This is NOT the same thing as the control of healthcare which is what I keep seeing and hearing accusations of.

Then there's this issue of a single culture - what?? Liberals want a single culture? Since when? We don't want people who think like us. We want people to not FORCE others to think like them, whether by legislation, at gunpoint, or nationalism. Who was it that thinks those who don't think like them should leave the country? Or are traitors to this country? If you've read up on the fascism article, this will sound VERY familiar.

[hahn]

In Wikipedia, under the heading of Fascism and the Political Spectrum:

Early fascists demonstrated a willingness to do whatever was necessary to achieve their ends, and easily shifted from left-wing to right-wing positions as suited their purposes. This inconsistency makes it difficult to strictly categorize fascism on the traditional political spectrum. Some scholars argue that Italian Fascism, unlike some other contemporary movements, did not grow out of a strict theoretical basis. Layton describes Fascism as "not even a rational system of thought", and as "unique but not original".

Fascism tends to be associated with the political right, but the appropriateness of this association is often contested. In one sense, fascism can be considered to be a new ideological development that transcends the right/left framework. At the same time, it does contain ideological elements usually associated with the right. These two facets can be seen in the following quote from Mussolini himself, writing in The Doctrine of Fascism: "Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century."

Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueuer, and Weber are among the top scholars of fascism, and they are reluctant to call fascism simply a right-wing ideology. Yet in their lengthy discussions they observe that generally fascism and neofascism allies itself with right-wing or conservative forces on the basis of racial nationalism, hatred of the political left, or simple expediency.

Laqueuer: "But historical fascism was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right" p. 223.

Eatwell talks about the need of fascism for "syncretic legitimation" which sometimes led it to forge alliances with "existing mainstream elites, who often sought to turn fascism to their own more conservative purposes." Eatwell also observes that "in most countries it tended to gather force in countries where the right was weak" p. 39.

Griffin also does not include right ideology in his "fascist minimum," but he has described Fascism as "Revolution from the Right" pp. 185-201.

Weber: "...their most common allies lay on the right, particularly on the radical authoritarian right, and Italian Fascism as a semi-coherent entity was partly defined by its merger with one of the most radical of all right authoritarian movements in Europe, the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI)." p. 8.

Thus according to these scholars, there are both left and right influences on fascism, and right-wing ideology should not be considered part of the "fascist minimum". However, they also show that in actual practice, there is a gravitation of fascism toward the political right.

The adoption of the name by the Italian Fascist Party reflected the previous involvement of a number of ideologues who intersected with radical left politics. While opposing communism and social democracy, fascism was influenced by the theories of Gabriele D'Annunzio (a former anarchist), Alceste de Ambris (influenced by anarcho-syndicalism), and former socialist Benito Mussolini.

Fascists themselves often rejected categorization as left or right-wing, claiming to be a "third force" (see international third position and political spectrum for more information).

Analysts on the left counter that Fascism rejects Marxism and the concept of class struggle in favor of corporatism. Contrary to the practice of socialist states, fascist Italy did not nationalize any industries or capitalist entities. Rather, the left insists, it established a corporatist structure influenced by the model for class relations put forward by the Catholic Church. (For more on the influence of Catholicism on fascism see links between the clergy and fascist parties.)

[nemein]

The question is, how far right are they? How much further right can they go?

When we start talking about suspending elections (something I don't think will happen) we'll talk. Eventually the left will be back in power, will your concern about becoming a facist state be alleviated then?

Do you consider the recent judgement that Bush can detain Padilla to be in keeping with our principles of freedom and due process, or do you consider it a necessary alteration in our system to ensure our security?

Honestly I haven't read enough of the case/recent decision to state one way or the other. Bottom line I think in general they should charge people or let them go, there are always exceptions to the the general rules though.

I am becoming increasingly concerned and even occasionally alarmed a how little resistance we are putting up to these little power grabs by the executive branch of our government.

Here I think we have the crux of the issue, you don't like Bush, we get that, it doesn't mean he's a little tyrant/facist. I'm sure we could dig around and find elements during Dem admins that are "facist like". On the whole though, like you said, I don't think it's worth losing sleep over.

In the US, we appear to have grown complacent in the assumption that democracy precludes fascism. History teaches us that that is absolutely false.

At some point though facism replaces a democracy (or even a republic like we have). There's still a huge gap between where we are and what is required to be called a facist state (unless you want to say the stranglehold the Republicrats/Democans have over the political process is a prelude to facism, in which case I might be inclined to agree ). The fact the US was founded/based on such an individualistic ideal is the one thing that I think separates us from those other countries that may have sunk into facism. In most cases I'm sure you'll find those other countries have gone through a series of different types of gov'ts whereas this is the only system we've known had. I won't say w/ absolute certainty it can't happen here, since anything is possible, IMHO it's HIGHLY unlikely.

I support the government providing economic means of ensuring we do not have a severely disadvantaged lower class. I am firmly against the governement getting involved or legislating social issues.

Other people have different philosophies about the interaction of Gov't and the people. The fact you and they are free to express them and there are people in the governing bodies that express them as well, is just more proof we aren't becoming single minded wrt the state.

We don't want people who think like us. We want people to not FORCE others to think like them, whether by legislation, at gunpoint, or nationalism.

As I said both sides do it to some degree or another. I've certainly come across plenty of liberals who think those people who don't think like them are just not getting "it". Regarding legislation (at the risk of sidetracking this) I would argue hate crime legislation is specifically about forcing people to think a certain way. It's atleast closer to thoughtcrime IMHO than anything in the PATRIOT act.

[grundle]

Originally Posted by nemein

it seems we run more of a risk of becoming a facist state by following the Dem/Liberal ideals than those traditionally attributed to Reps/Conservatives.

I agree.

The few members of Congress and the Senate who consistently vote in favor of property rights and limited government are all Republicans.

The recent Supreme Court decisions on eminent domain and medical marijuana also highlight the differences between liberals and conservatives.

Without FDR's New Deal, we would not have today's "war on drugs," or prohibitions against medical marijuana, or massive eminent domain abuse, or giant corporate welfare giveaways.

[nemein]

Fascism tends to be associated with the political right, but the appropriateness of this association is often contested. ... At the same time, it does contain ideological elements usually associated with the right.

Here you have the bottom line of this thread/argument... Once again hahn is showing us how the right wing is associated w/ facists and dumber and blindly following their leaders... yadda yadda yadda.... whatever

[hahn]

Originally Posted by nemein

Here you have the bottom line of this thread/argument... Once again hahn is showing us how the right wing is associated w/ facists and dumber and blindly following their leaders... yadda yadda yadda.... whatever

How so? These are merely observations. And I fail to see how they're not objective. I quoted the entire passage which does allow for disagreement on where fascism lies on the political spectrum.

Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueuer, and Weber are among the top scholars of fascism, and they are reluctant to call fascism simply a right-wing ideology. Yet in their lengthy discussions they observe that generally fascism and neofascism allies itself with right-wing or conservative forces on the basis of racial nationalism, hatred of the political left, or simple expediency.

Do you disagree or know something that they don't?

[bhk]

at this thread.

It reminds me of Ted Danson going on Jay Leno around 18 years ago and declaring the world was going to end in 10 years.

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by bhk

at this thread.

It reminds me of Ted Danson going on Jay Leno around 18 years ago and declaring the world was going to end in 10 years.

He only claimed that all life in the sea would be gone in 10 years, not that the world would end.

[Rockmjd23]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

He only claimed that all life in the sea would be gone in 10 years, not that the world would end.

Little did he know, it was his hair that would be gone in 10 years.

[grundle]

Originally Posted by Rockmjd23

Little did he know, it was his hair that would be gone in 10 years.

His hair was already gone.

He wore a wig on Cheers.

You can see the beginning of his bald spot in the season 1 episode of Magnum P.I. called "Don't Say Goodbye" which originally aired in 1981.

[Thor Simpson]

Hahn, what should I do? Since this appears to be imminent, does anyone know how to get on the good side of a fascist government? I think I'd like to run the only hamburger stand in town or maybe be a TV host with 90% of a show's take once the new regime takes over. My current job can be stressful and I might as well accept the changes and make it a turn for the better. If anyone has any tips on how to get in a place where the government could knock off a few people to set me up with something cushey, it would be appreciated.

[hahn]

Originally Posted by Thor Simpson

Hahn, what should I do? Since this appears to be imminent, does anyone know how to get on the good side of a fascist government? I think I'd like to run the only hamburger stand in town or maybe be a TV host with 90% of a show's take once the new regime takes over. My current job can be stressful and I might as well accept the changes and make it a turn for the better. If anyone has any tips on how to get in a place where the government could knock off a few people to set me up with something cushey, it would be appreciated.

So you're going to jump on the sarcastic bandwagon as well.

"The test of fascism is not one’s rage against the Italian and German war lords. The test is – how many of the essential principles of fascism do you accept and to what extent are you prepared to apply those fascist ideas to American social and economic life?

This is worth repeating. But you have to know what fascism is about beyond the obvious oppression. It's just too bad that some of you can't even bother to open your minds for just a moment to consider the grey shades between fascism and other forms of government.

[Nazgul]

I'm wondering if we need a thread on "The Coming US Communism". I need time to dig up some serious sounding quotations.

[Thor Simpson]

Originally Posted by hahn

So you're going to jump on the sarcastic bandwagon as well.

Sorry... I try to have some fun on here once in a while too. Surely even you are taking some time off tonight to watch Ohio St and Texas tonight? Additionally, extreme statements such as saying the US is becoming a fascist state are far more likely to draw a sarcastic response, as you well know.

As far as grey shades go, I'm sure you could find characteristics of "fascism" in all of us here, in some way.

[hahn]

Originally Posted by Nazgul

I'm wondering if we need a thread on "The Coming US Communism". I need time to dig up some serious sounding quotations.

In all seriousness, I hope you find some good sources. I look forward to reading it.

In the meantime, here's some more from John Flynn:

"They think that to be a Fascist you must have some sort of shirt uniform, must drill and goose-step, must have a demonstrative salute, must hate the Jews, and believe in dictatorship. Fascism is not the result of dictatorship. Fascism is the consequence of economic jam and dictatorship is the product of Fascism, for Fascism cannot be managed save by a dictator."

I find myself agreeing a lot with things that John Flynn writes about (other than just fascism). Which is ironic considering he was a conservative (back then) and ardently against FDR, who himself displayed hints of fascist characteristics in trying to get Flynn's writings barred from publications.

[Breakfast with Girls]

Hahn, we live on a slippery slope in all aspects of life. While I'm unhappy about this administration's free-wheeling attitude towards the Constitution (especially the Padilla case), we're far from fascism. And our culture is still overwhelmingly individualistic and skeptical of authority.

Even in the cases where the administration does something abhorrent (FDR's imprisonment of Japanese-Americans for three years, for example), in every case it has been reversed, and an apology eventually issued (by Reagan 45 years later, in that case).

[wmansir]

This definition is from Dictionary.com, Webster's has the same 4 criteria.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator (a), stringent socioeconomic controls (b), suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship (c), and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism(d).

a. Unless you believe Bush (and the majority of Congress) stole the election(s), then no.
b. Some economic controls, but fewer than many developed nations. I don't think disallowing gay marriage counts either, so I'm going to say no here too.
c. I'm going to assume they mean violence directed at the populace, not using third party terrorism to 'scare'/control the populace. Strike 3.
d. Half a check here. America, like most nations, has always been nationalistic. Whether it is belligerent and racist is debatable.

Of course you could always use the broader definition of strong authoritarianism, but then Authoritarian or Nationalistic, doesn't have the same panache as calling someone Fascist, now does it. I mean there's not even any implied racism or genocide.

[Goldblum]

Before I even looked at the author, how did I know this was a hahn thread.