Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fascism definition

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
suziedemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 06:08 AM
Original message
Fascism definition
from: http://www.naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm

Fascism:

a political system in which all power of government is vested in a person or group with no other power to balance and limit the activities of the government. Fascist governments are often closely associated with large corporations and sometimes with extreme nationalism and racist activities. Modern fascism is often called "CORPORATISM".


Gee - that sounds familiar, I'm just not sure it fits the Islamic terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
shaniqua6392 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. Also read the 14 points of fascism.
This is really scary stuff. The only fascists we have to worry about would be the Bush Administration! Take a look here:
http://oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htmhttp://oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htmhttp://oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suziedemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. That's excellent! But the link is messed up. Here is a good one.
Edited on Sat Sep-02-06 06:50 AM by suziedemocrat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shaniqua6392 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Sorry about that.
I should have tested the link but I was off browsing on DU!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FoxOnTheRun Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. There are also 14 SIGNPOSTS TO SLAVERY

They were compiled by Dr. Warren Carroll, and Mike Djordjevich, a refugee from Yugoslavian communism. The list is in no particular order. However, nothing on the list existed in American law at the time the list was compiled.


1. Restrictions on taking money out of the country and on the establishment or retention of a foreign bank account by an American citizen.
2. Abolition of private ownership of hand guns.
3. Detention of individuals without judicial process.
4. Requirements that private financial transactions be keyed to social security numbers or other government identification so that government records of these transactions can be fed into a computer.
5. Use of compulsory education laws to forbid attendance at presently existing private schools.
6. Compulsory non-military service.
7. Compulsory psychological treatment for non-government workers or public school children.
8. An official declaration that anti-communist (Patriot) organizations are subversive and subsequent legal action taken to suppress them.
9. Laws limiting the number of people allowed to meet in a private home.
10. Any significant change in passport regulations to make passports more difficult to obtain.
11. Wage and price controls, especially in a non-wartime situation.
12. Any kind of compulsory registration with the government of where individuals work.
13. Any attempt to restrict freedom of movement within the United States.
14. Any attempt to make a new major law by executive decree (that is, actually put into effect, not merely authorized as by existing executive orders.
Text

http://www.barefootsworld.net/14signs.html

Not all are fulfilled now, but it sounds familiar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Hi FoxOnTheRun!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FoxOnTheRun Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Interesting Motto


If you see a newbie today, please give him/her a big DU welcome. It really means a lot.


Thanks :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 07:10 AM
Response to Original message
5. That's not a definition of fascism, it's political propaganda.

From the same site:

ATHEISM: belief that there is no god and that religion should be suppressed.

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: countries that have gone from an "undeveloped stage", backwards towards underdevelopment. Such countries are not developing at all.

EXPONENTIAL GROWTH: growth that increases at an ever accelerating rate.

MARXISM from the works of Karl Marx - the study of society as the conflict or struggle of social classes

This is not a site whose definitions should be paid much attention to.

In this particular case, it betrays its objectives by the use of the shiboleth "corporatism", which means "anything corporations do that I don't like" and as such can be used to brand anything. The claim that modern fascism is often called corporatism is just silly - the only countries branded corporatist on a regular basis are first world Democracies, which are in no way fascist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. The terms corporatism and fascism are linked.
Edited on Sat Sep-02-06 07:29 AM by Selatius
The historical evidence is the collaboration of major German and foreign industries and industrialists with 3rd Reich. One example is IBM's involvement with the regime and profiting off its collaboration. The German war machine would not have grown as powerful as it did if it weren't for private industries helping to build it and profiting off it. Somewhere along the way this gave rise to the quotation by Mussolini that fascism should be redefined as corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suziedemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Mussolini would disagree.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrictlyRockers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
6. Defining fascism for the intellectually challenged in West Virginia..
Edited on Sat Sep-02-06 07:26 AM by StrictlyRockers
On another forum, I gave this response to the statement in quotes immediately below:

"I prefer the term Islamofascist which is overall pretty accurate." - OccupiedWestVirginia (has Confederate battle flag and picture of Stonewall Jackson in signature,)

Wrong. Totally wrong. And allow me to tell you why. The fact that we would never as a society accept terms such as Christofascist or Jewish-fascist only serves to illustrate the point I am making.

First, you need to buy a dictionary.

From The American Heritage Dictionary - "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism."

Islamic religious extremism is a movement, it is not a government and it has no national boundaries. Moreover, there is no single leader who could be called the dictator of this movement. Mussolini, arguably the originator of fascism, defined fascism as a corporate controlled government. That definition comes closer to describing the government of the United States today than it does the radical fundamentalist Islamic movement.

Let's examine this idea more closely using Laurence Britt's 14 Points of Fascism.


Analysis of seven fascist regimes (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia) reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses

8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10.) Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Here is the entry for fascism in Wiki:
"Although the broadest definitions of fascism may include every authoritarian state that has ever existed, most theorists see important distinctions to be made. Fascism in Italy arose in the 1920s as a mixture of syndicalist notions with an anti-materialist theory of the state; the latter had already been linked to an extreme nationalism. Fascism in many ways seems to have been clearly developed as a reaction against Communism and Marxism, both in a philosophic and political sense, although it opposed democratic capitalist economics along with socialism, Marxism, and liberal democracy. It viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect collective and individual rights, or as one that should be held in check. It tended to reject the Marxist notion of social classes and universally dismissed the concept of class conflict, replacing it instead with the struggle between races, and the struggle of the youth versus their elders. This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideals of strength and power as means of legitimacy, glorifying war as an end in itself and victory as the determinant of truth and worthiness. An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposition to the ideals of humanism and rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, from which liberalism and, later, Marxism would emerge.
Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.

Fascism attracted political support from diverse sectors of the population, including big business, farmers and landowners, nationalists, and reactionaries, disaffected World War I veterans, intellectuals such as Gabriele D'Annunzio, Curzio Malaparte, Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger to name a few, conservatives and small businessmen, and the poor to whom they promised work and bread. In countries such as Romania and Hungary (and to a lesser extent in other states), Fascism had a strong base of support among the working classes and extremely poor peasants. The broad appeal of support for Fascism makes it different from other totalitarian states.
The word has become a slur throughout the political spectrum since the failure of the Axis powers in World War II, and it has been extremely uncommon for any political groups to call themselves "fascist" since 1945. In contemporary political discourse, adherents of some political ideologies tend to associate fascism with their enemies, or define it as the opposite of their own views.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

From this we can conclude that an Islamic extremist should not be considered the same as an Islamic Fascist. Islamic CONSERVATISM does NOT = Islamic FASCISM. Fascism is a totally different animal. It involves close ties between business and government. It is a reactionary, anti-liberal totalitarian political philosophy, usually with a strong component of ethnic nationalism, that glorifies the State as supreme. The Islamists simply are not operating under this model. It is the wrong word. Religious fanatics aren't fascists; anyone who tries to argue that they are is obviously either deeply ignorant of what fascism really is, or they are employing the word in a propagandistic manner to paint an enemy in a negative light. Fundamentalist Muslims (or Christians) are no more 'fascists' than a Democrat is a Communist. But, of course, we know that if this were thirty years ago, you'd be saying "Islamocommunists" with this same degree of ignorance.

SR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sundancekid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
11. must also see the brilliance of Umberto Eco which PRECEDED Busheviks
... and in fact this link gives a brillian "compare/contrast" analysis
worthy of its scholarship

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/200203913.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. that is a fantastic link, thanks so much
If I may quote a few very pertinent paragraphs:

"Islamic extremists, when compared to Eco's list of fascist characteristics, fail the test although there are some that strike fairly close to certain militant Islamic groups. However, hyper-nationalism is a sine qua non for fascism, but is not a characteristic of militant Islam. Perhaps the nearest one can come to finding an Islamic nationalism is the phenomenon of the "Umma," which was the notion of religious unity supported by the caliphate prior to the fall of the Ottoman empire and the secularization of Turkey. The Umma is not a synonym for pan-Arabism, the doctrine that underlay the attempted union of Egypt, Syria, and some other ethnic Arab tribes or quasi-political entities back in the days of Gamel Nasser. Rather, the Umma was more like the philosophical universality of the medieval Roman Catholic Church, from which European nation-states emerged based upon shared language, history, culture, and geography.

If there is such a thing as Islamic nationalism, it would appear to be in approximately the same inchoate state as were the small Germanic principalities of the Holy Roman Empire prior to Bismarck, or the scramble of Italian states prior to the Garibaldi union. Nationalism is an important concept primarily to secularists, currently a small minority in the Middle East. Nationalism in the Islamic states of the Middle East, if present at all, is a very tenuous concept which was unknown before the artificial national boundaries that the former colonial powers imposed following each of the two global wars of the 20th Century. There may be some in the region for whom nationalism in its fully developed form is a deeply felt, psychologically binding force (Iran is a case in point as it has inherited the ancient Persian national identity). However, it seems demonstrable that tribalism (Bedouin, Saudi, Berber, etc.) or denominationalism (Sunni, Shi'a, Wahabi) create a more deeply unifying psychological identity for most of the sub-elites of the region. Perhaps the most telling demonstrations of this assertion is the reversion in Afghanistan to tribal domination following the arranged election of a western surrogate, and the civil war currently rending Iraq into regional fragments dominated by Sunnis, Shi'as or Kurds.

It must be emphasized, however, that external threats or attacks upon these fragile artificial nations can create and intensify a sense of nationalism where historically it has been very weak. The Russian wars in Afghanistan, Chechnya, et al, or the unilateral attacks by Israel or the USA against Muslim countries illustrate this point. The issue here is not simply a reaction against western aggression; rather it is the emotional effect upon the populace of a national war. Nationalism in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories have all been stimulated by war, even by wars waged between predominately Muslim countries. So, to the extent that nationalism is growing in places such as those mentioned here, the potential for fascist nationalism is growing as well. One day, perhaps relatively soon, there will be a sufficiently strong nationalism in some countries of the Middle East to support a true fascism. And, if it happens, it will partly be the result of western preemptive aggression. The irony of this is striking, and is apparently unappreciated by those who continue to advocate a Middle East policy of military intimidation backed by a stated policy of preemptive war. Those who are accusing Muslim extremists of Islamic Fascism are to some extent engaging in a self-fulfilling prophesy.

(snip)

For those whose sensibilities permit a simpler conception of fascism than either the Eco or the Britt models provide, probably Benito Mussolini himself best defined the distilled essence of fascism. Trained as a journalist, he could be direct and explicit when the occasion required. In the Encyclopedia Italiano, Mussolini wrote that, "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Certainly the same attitude was displayed in Germany under National Socialism; Hitler's financial and political machine was dependent upon the close support of German corporations and business interests. The same was true of Spain, Portugal, and Argentina. If the merger of corporate and governmental power is the primary mark of fascism, then the Bush Republican administration certainly meets the measure. Bush and Republican deregulation of markets, approval of corporate mergers in that come close to creating monopolies in certain industries (banking, communications, oil, pharmaceuticals), massive cuts in corporate taxes, abolition of estate taxes, hugely profitable no-bid contracts for favored companies (Haliburton, Bechtel in Iraq and New Orleans), huge increases in contracts for defense contractors (Boeing, General Electric), along with a plethora of other examples that might be listed, fulfill Mussolini's definition of fascism.

In light of the above, for radical Islam not only is the lack of strong national identification a disqualifier for a fascist label, the lack of political integration with corporate or business interests is even more fatal. The Islam which is in jihad against Bush and America does not have the economic interests of Western nations, nor has it developed the pervasive corporate infrastructure that marks western economies. The notion of corporatism has not yet come to the Middle East, at least in its westernized form. There is no understanding in any of the Muslim regional nations of corporations as "artificial persons" which is central to the functioning of a capitalist economy. It is true that corporations do business in most of the oil rich states, but the governments themselves retain an independence from the corporate entities. For most Middle Eastern governments, the distinction between a multi-national corporation and a foreign government is irrelevant. The elites of these Middle Eastern mineral-rich nations do not concern themselves with the problems of labor, of capital distribution, or domestic regulation required in a functioning capitalist economy. The reason is simple. There are no (or very few) domestic corporations; the issues created by domestic corporations do not present themselves. These governments simply contract with foreign oil extracting companies, pocket the profits, and do not concern themselves further because there is no (or very little) political penetration into the governmental structure by the corporate organizations with which they do business. Therefore, at this stage in their economic development, most of the Middle Eastern countries are incapable of corporatism, which as Mussolini says, is at the heart of fascism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. So, from the first few paragraphs, if we hit certain ME nations hard....
enough then there may eventually be enough nationalistic fervor to bring about fascism...but it doesn't seem to stand much of a chance due to the lack of corporate infrastructure. The Bush admin keeps comparing the Middle East to Hitler's Germany, but even that required outside financing and industrial support to make the war and propaganda machine work.

I wonder what went wrong in Saddam's Iraq? Prior to the invasion, it seems that Saddam's greatest sin was allowing Iraq's oil fields to fall into a state of disrepair and underutilization. I'm sure that is what really pissed off neocons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I don't know if that was Saddam's greatest sin or not
I think there were several reasons for the invasion, and I'm not sure sure he could have done anything at all to prevent it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-03-06 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Check out this article that appeared in Forbes Magazine prior...
to the invasion. Talk about fascism. Not only was the invasion of Iraq supposed to eventually pay for itself, but American investors were told that it would probably bring down the price of oil:

http://www.forbesimg.com/global/2002/1028/024.html


<snip>
But after any brief disruption, the oil-market effects of a neutralized or pro-Western successor to Saddam Hussein are unmistakably positive.
<snip>
Therein lies a partial, though hardly party-line, answer to those doubters who say that an attack on Saddam would plunge Iraq into economic chaos. After the chaos, it is hoped, would come some oilfield development that would leave both Iraqis and the world's energy buyers better off.

Noteworthy about Iraq's oil industry is how much of it is going to waste--idle wells, rusting pipes and pumping stations that haven't been serviced in more than a decade. It's like a Colorado ghost town, abandoned since the silver-mining operation closed down, except that the silver is all still in the ground, and in unbelievably large quantities.


I wonder if Fadhil Chalabi was related to the other Chalabi who lied to the US?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC