Fascism and Neoconservatism: Important differences

[Jack Rabbit]

EDITED to fix a tag.

Mostly reposted from another thread.

Neoconservatism is the greatest menace facing mankind today. It has many similarities to classical fascism and many fall into the trap simply dismissing any notion that there is any difference between the two. This misconception serves the neosonservatives well. It inhibits the struggle against neoconservatism in that it leaves the speaker's audience with the idea that the speaker is some sort of crackpot with little or no understanding about what he is speaking.

Let us examine the differences between classical fascism and neoconservatism as a way determining how they are similar, how they are different and how this latter day phenonenon can be defeated.

If one wants a sense of the intellectual basis of fascism, I would suggest reading an encyclopedia article on fascism co-authored by Mussolini himself.

For modern version of fascism, I would recommend a long and involved article by the Hungarian scholar G. M. Tomas, On Post-Fascism, which appeared in the Summer 2000 edition of the Boston Review.

These articles formed the basis of a work of mine that appeared on Democratic Underground in February 2002, The Rise of Yuppie Fascism (Part One and Part Two). I would like to cite that part of my work that summarized the differences between Mussolini's fascism and today's phenomenon, which has been variously called post-fascism and yuppie fascism:

First, Mussolini said in fascism the state is absolute. However, in recent history, the state has declined in power and the power of the multinational corporation has risen. Thus, in yuppie fascism, the power of the corporation is absolute and all other individuals and institutions, including the state, are conceived only in how they stand in relation to the corporation.

Second, Mussolini's absolute state is expansive. However, under yuppie fascism, the state is a tool of the corporation and uses its power not so much to seize and occupy territory but to negotiate trade agreements that open foreign markets to the corporation in such a way as to set aside any barriers to corporate investment in the foreign market with the aim of corporate dominance of the market. The state's military force is used only if there is no other way to open the market or to protect the corporation's existing investments in the foreign market. In short, the relationship of the corporate state - in the new sense, where the emphasis is on corporate rather than state - of the developed world to the developing world is colonial.

Third, Mussolini's fascism renounced pacifism and embraced war as that human endeavor that "puts the stamp of nobility on the peoples with the courage to meet ." However, only corporations directly involved in preparation for war benefit from war. Otherwise, open conflict is a hindrance to commerce; for example, no oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Karachi can be built as long as there are local hostilities in Afghanistan. Consequently, war is replaced not by peace but by a state that might be called one of security, in which tensions that arise from the imposition of corporate power over the powerless are suppressed; brute military strength is used to suppress the tensions - labor strife and peasant uprisings - only if necessary.

Fourth, classical fascism rejected egalitarian ideologies like socialism and democracy in favor of "the immutable, beneficial and fruitful inequality of mankind" which cannot be altered by "a mechanical process such as universal suffrage." Yuppie fascism also embraces inequality as beneficial to society as a whole and therefore holds that the rich deserve their opulence. Vast wealth is placed at the disposal of the members of an economically elite class for their private pleasure as a reward for their superior ability and foresight.

Finally, classical fascism rejected Marxist class struggle as a vehicle of historical progress in favor of concepts of individual "holiness" and "heroism", by which Mussolini meant "actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect." For Mussolini, the exponent of the absolute state that expanded for its own sake, a heroic act was an act of valor in war. In yuppie fascism, with the state in decline and war seen as an inconvenient though occasionally necessary evil, the hero is the entrepreneur.

To be blunt, I regard neoconservatism as a uniquely American brand of yuppie fascism. This is particularly noxious in that unlike the yuppie fascist movements in Europe that seek only to impose a right wing system on the nations in which they respectively flourish, neoconservatism seeks to impose a yuppie fascist world order, by force if necessary. Being that it is centered in the Unites States, with its powerful military, such an imposition is not beyond the reach of the neoconservatives. We live in dangerous times.

Nevertheless, to defeat neoconservatism, we must realize exactly what it is and how it works. It does not work the same way that classical fascism did.

First of all, the cult of leader's personality is diminished or non-existent. There may be a cult of personality around Bush, but it is confined to the religious right. The goal of the various elements of neoconservatism (the religious right, corporatists like Grover Norquist and right wing think tankers like Richard Perle) in 2008 will be the perpetuation of neoconservative power. They will not be able to do this through the vehicle of George W. Bush; most neoconservatives don't think they have to. They will simply find another bureaucrat/politician, perhaps one with more administrative skills than Bush (it shouldn't be too hard to find one) to be their man in government.

In this respect, we should be aware that Bush is not the real enemy. We err to personalize this fight as we do. The enemy are people who largely fly below the radar, such as Norquist and Richard Mellon Scaife and, more importantly, people like Lee Raymond, CEO of ExxonMobil, and others who could be described as the real people behind the artificial persons.

Consequently, the best way to combat neoconservatism at its root is to organize world wide boycotts and divestment campaigns aimed at defunding the right wing. To borrow one of Mr. Norquist's favorite phrases, we must "starve the beast."

Second, related to the first, we must realize that in yuppie fascism the state is subservient to the corporation, not the other way around as it was in classical fascism. There is no government censorship of the news in the United States. That may come as a shock to many here, who continue to speak as though there is. However, the problem is that the major news outlets are controlled by the same people who have foot the bill for Mr. Bush's political career. They dictate editorial content in the news media which they own and the result is an American citizenry that knows little more than what they want it to know. Too many Americans had serious misconceptions about the war in Iraq, such as a belief that Saddam had a biochemical arsenal (even that it had been found) or that he had established ties to al Qaida; public opinion surveys have established that most people with such misconceptions voted overwhelmingly for Bush and that Mr. Bush's votes came overwhelmingly from people who were so misinformed. Mr. Bush's presence in the White House may be attributed to some electoral shenanigans by the likes of Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell, but these would have pointless if more people just knew what should be undisputed facts.

Bush is in power because the corporate-owned media fails to perform the function of a free and independent press in a free society. The result is not appreciably different from society where the press that is censored by those holding political power.

Thus, in addition to organizing boycotts and divestment campaigns against neoconservatives, we must take special aim at big media. Kill your television. Get your news from the Internet. Include in your news browsing websites that feature news and opinion from a wide range, including views you find disagreeable. Urge your friends and neighbors to do likewise.

Finally, we must be clear that we, too, have an alternative vision of the future that is not just a kinder, gentler version of neoconservatism. Another world is possible. We must define principles such as democracy and justice and make it clear that when we use those words they mean something much different than Mr. Bush and other neoconservatives do when they use those words. Specifically, I like to define democracy as a state where:

• Citizenship is universal. Each person born within the boundaries of the state is a citizen, as is one born abroad to at least one citizen parent or who swears allegiance to the state in a rite of naturalization.
• Citizenship is equal. Each citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in and influence public affairs. Every adult citizen shall be enfranchised with the right to vote. Decisions are made by a majority voted based on the principle of one man/one vote.
• Citizenship is inalienable. A guaranteed set of civil liberties is in place to assure full and open public discourse of civic affairs. No citizen may be stripped of his citizenship or otherwise punished by the state for expressing any point of view, no matter how unpopular or even absurd.

Under that definition of democracy, if Congress were to pass Patriot Act II as drafted by the Justice Department a couple of years ago -- containing a feature that allows the President or the Attorney General to strip an American of his citizenship by executive fiat -- then we can end any pretense that neoconservative America is still a democracy.

Do we have any other ideas?

[soleft]

1. I disagree that the cult is confined to the religious right

The trauma of 9/11 and what in some had been dormant tendencies of racism and xenophobia in non fundamentalists have swelled the ranks of the Bush cult.

[electropop]

3. I agree

The con elite may see him for what he is: a pliable moron who can talk like a prole. But they have successfully promoted him as their face, and not just to the religious nutjobs, but to the frightened, the gullible, and the desperately poor.

[bobthedrummer]

5. The covert/overt appeals to nationalism and false patriotic machinations

also increased the Bushies.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. The religious right influences Bush's domestic agenda

I will agree that the religious right is not an integral part of this coalition. American industrialists don't really have a unified view on abortion and gay rights. In fact, if the government enacts gay rights legislation, it probably helps them by expanding the talent pool and providing them cover for taking in outcasts ("Hey, Mr. Falwell, I can't help it; it's the law").

Nevertheless, they have become the most influential element over Bush's domestic agenda. This is probably the most recognizable post-fascist facet of Bush's program. As Tamas says:

(Post-fascism) does what I consider to be central to all varieties of fascism, including the post-totalitarian version. Sans Führer, sans one-party rule, sans SA or SS, post-fascism reverses the Enlightenment tendency to assimilate citizenship to the human condition.

Just as previous incarnations American fascism, the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizen Councils, sought to exclude African-Americans from participating in American society as full citizens, so the religious right takes aim at homosexuals in an effort to deny equal rights and social opportunities, even acceptance.

[electropop]

2. Wow, this should be a college course.

It's excellent reading. I think you lay out a very clear case, and it helps us focus on where the battles must be fought.

My only minor quibble would be with respect to the cult of personality. I agree that to the neocon elite (Norquist et al) Bush is merely an interchangeable tool, no more important than a drill bit. However, as a means of advancing their agenda, they have promoted a cult of personality to the proles. When you listen to C-Span callers from the right, they clearly have a very personal feeling of worship for Bush. And I also have some concern about 2008. The cons have a sizable investment in the Bush cult, and it may well be cost effective to purchase a Constitutional Amendment authorizing him for unlimited re-elections, or simply doing away with the pretense of elections altogether.

[hfojvt]

6. the same was true of Reagan

and the move is towards another cultish figure - Ahnold or Rudi - "the hero of 9/11". It is not like they suffered under Clinton. Hillary could well be part of the "master plan".

[K-W]

4. Neocon is for the foriegn policy hawks, you should use a different word.

But other than that good anylisis.

Since the Administrations ideology is a hodgepodge of ideologies, motives, and principles, there is no word for it really.

Neo Con is someone who believes that America's survival depends on us remaining the only superpower and that we can do almost anything to reach that end and we are justified.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. I don't quite agree with that

First of all, the neoconservatives seriously believe that America's survival depends on its remaining the only superpower. They are as aware as anybody else that America survived the Cold War not being the only superpower and is strong enough to withstand a similar challenge from China or Europe today; moreover, such an economic challenge from China or Europe would not adversely affect most Americans.

What they believe is that American capitalism (as they define it) is a benevolent force and that mankind as a whole benefits from its globalization and its expansion. By capitalism the neoconservatives mean not only a system of production based on private enterprise, but an entire philosophy based on rugged individualism that eschews government assistance to the lower classes.

This is, oddly, a capitalism that does not tolerate competition. It is an American enterprise, in which American (or Western) corporations have the opportunity to devour fledgling enterprises in developing nations, expropriating the resources of the third world, converting it to finished goods to be consumed by the wealthy and middle classes of the developed world and the profits of the enterprise to be realized by industrialists in the developed world.

To achieve this goal, the neoconservatives advocate American hegemony in political, military and economic spheres.

So far, we've described some crackpot ideas, but little more than that. If this neoliberal economic model is rejected by the third world in favor of local development, there may be some ways to make things uncomfortable for that nation (e.g., trade sanctions imposed under a so-called free trade agreement), but in the end there is nothing to force a developing to accept a model that may not be in its best long-term interests.

With the invasion of Iraq, the neoconservatives crossed the line from crackpot utopians (they don't see themselves as dystopians, even if others do) into criminals. All of the stated reasons for invading Iraq were false; moreover, it is very unlikely that those in power did not know they were false. Iraq, which certainly was suffering under the yoke of brutal tyrant, was torn down and the work of rebuilding the country was given not to Iraqis, but to Americans. Laws were made -- not passed by Iraqis, but decreed by the American colonial proconsul, Paul Bremer -- which protected the ability of American transnational corporations to make profits in Iraq not be promoting freedom but by restricting it; for example, Iraqi farmers are prohibited by law from saving there seed and thus forced to buy new seed for a new crop every year from Monsanto.

Opposition to US dominance in Iraq is met with the bombings of cities, arrests and the torture of detainees. This hardly looks like a utopian world being showcased in Iraq. On the contrary, it exposes the neoliberal/neoconservative model for what it is: absolute power in the hands of an industrial elite. This does not to me appear any improvement over placing absolute power in the hands of the landed aristocracy or the ecclesiastical elite. It's still tyranny; it can only be maintained with brutality.

In all this, the tyranny arises out of a desire to maintain the dominance of the American industrial elite by force, which is the purpose maintaining American as the only superpower.

It isn't survival that is at stake, just the enhancement of wealth.

[K-W]

8. You are trying to lump everything together

as if there were an ideology behind it all.

There isnt. Neo-cons are the the PNAC people. The people who think that US military and economic supremacy is the only defense against a hostile world that would tear us apart if we showed a moment of weakness, and that the governments responsibility is to keep the country on top above everything including the law and honesty.

The Bush administration does not base its policies on any consistant philosophy. Thier ideology is a mash together of various groups that oppose liberalism. It isnt even internally consistant.

But hey, you arent the only one to use neo-conservatives in both instances... but it gets confusing, we really should come up with a word to explain the new dogma of the right.

How about Goldwaterism? Or Reaganism?

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Overall, I don't disagree

Ref: post 9.

Like any government based on nominally free elections, the Bush administration is a coalition of different groups. Even FDR's grand coalition contained internal contradictions (racial minorities and Southern segregationists).

Post 9 touches on some of the internal contradictions of which you speak. Wealthy industrialists don't have a lot in common with the religious, other than a desire to limit those who work for them from fully participating in society as equal citizens. In that respect, the industrialists don't have any love for the religious right -- they are the people who work for them. They don't want them making pesky demands for living wages any more than they want factory workers in South America making demands for safe working conditions.

Recognizing that, I would consider the religious right to be a less integral part of Bush's coalition than transnational corporate executives or the right wing think tankers you call neoconservative to the exclusion of all others.

The term yuppie fascism or post-fascism is probably better than neoconservatism in that it encompasses anything that would exclude full citizenship to any group of people.

[Carl Brennan]

11. US fascism worse than Mussolini's brand

Second, Mussolini's absolute state is expansive. However, under yuppie fascism, the state is a tool of the corporation and uses its power not so much to seize and occupy territory but to negotiate trade agreements that open foreign markets to the corporation in such a way as to set aside any barriers to corporate investment in the foreign market with the aim of corporate dominance of the market.


What the US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is very much like Mussolini's fascism. US fascism is worse than Mussolini's--a much greater threat to the world--because the US is the sole global superpower whereas Mussolini and even Nazi Germany had strong opposition both materially and philosophically from opposing nation states. US fascism can insinuate itself into the culture much easier because it controls the media as well.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Power and "patriotism" is the problem. They do it because they can.

Democracy, in and of itself, is fallible. Remember that Hitler had the support of most of the German people right up to the end. So did most dictators.

Bush's neo-colonialism, neo-conservatism, neo-fascism, was approved of by the majority in this (alleged) democracy. The war in Vietnam, the many subversions of progessive/democratic governments, movements, throughout the misnamed cold war, were perpetrated with the support of the majority of the American people. Who dutifully voted in "democratic" elections to enable the politicians to carry out their will.

"Liberal" JFK gave the green light to the Bay of Pigs. "Liberal" LBJ told the troops to "Nail that coonskin to the wall" in Vietnam. "Liberal" Jimmy Carter backed the Shah of Iran. "Liberal" Bill Clinton ignored the genocide in Rwanda and successfully undermined the effort to stop it, and then backed Laurent Kabila in the Congo who committed genocide on the Hutus.

Now, we have unbridled American capitalism under the rubric of "spreading freedom" effectively ripping off the rest of the world to feed our rapacious need for more goodies. We are now resorting to brute force to aquire those goodies.

This is all done under the rationale that we (America) is the great guiding light of "freedom". So our "leaders" wave the flag, strike up the band, glorify "the troops" (the enforcers of "freedom"), and await the approval of the mass of the American people, who sing "God Bless America" on cue and continue to enjoy their "freedom" by shopping for the goodies supplied by the rest of the world.

We get upset when a "few whackos" torture prisoners or shoot helpless captives, yet we applaud when our glorious "troops" dismember civilians with "smart bombs" or level cities with artillery.

I can offer no solutions other than the unpopular hope that at some time humanity will cast aside the notion of "patriotism" and realize that we are all in this together and actually form a community of nations, or better yet, a community of humanity.

Until then, the powerful will continue to prey on the weak under whatever slogan it adopts. Whether it's fascism, communism, socialism, capitalism, liberalism, democracy, or the "neo" versions of them.