America is a fascist state.

[mix]

Poll question: America is a fascist state.

[marmar]

1. For all practical intents and purposes, corporations run this country.....

..... so by that measure, it is a de facto fascist state.

[mix]

3. I don't see the connection, illuminate. nt

[marmar]

5. Fascism = the merger of corporation and state.

[mix]

13. And where does this definition originate?

BTW, the corporatism of Mussolini has nothing to do with what some people call "corporatism." This is a misnomer. Neoliberalism is our reality, not fascism.

You have misdiagnosed the ailment.

[marmar]

16. In your opinion.

nt

[mix]

21. Give me a shred of evidence.

Otherwise, you've misunderstood history and misread the moment.

[marmar]

24. A shred of evidence of what? What are you talking about?

[mix]

26. Your specious claim in post #5 nt

[KansDem]

157. Take a look at this article.

Fourteen points of fascism

All we need now is for Norman Rockwell to set it to canvas...

[mix]

159. This is so general as to be meaningless.

This is capitalism we're dealing with, not fascism.

[earth mom]

189. Thanks for posting that! Connect the dots people if you dare!

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.

[mix]

194. You could be describing early 20th century America. that list tells us nothing

about fascism.

[datasuspect]

55. it originates among educated people and the fucking dictionary

wake up

[mix]

71. another misreading

and ultimately a defense of neoliberalism.

Wake up indeed.

[OlympicBrian]

106. "corporatism" vs "fascism" vs "corporatocracy" vs "neoliberalism"

Re: "BTW, the corporatism of Mussolini has nothing to do with what some people call 'corporatism.' This is a misnomer. Neoliberalism is our reality, not fascism."

I'm glad you brought this up too, "corporatism" is often misued; the colloquial term is "corporatocracy," which is really a "highly neoliberal democratic republic." That is, a state which has the appearance and basic mechanism of a democratic republic (i.e., has democratic voting, a constitution, and branches of government), but functionally it relies entirely on political spending, highly-organized lobbying, and highly-paid media pundits (as opposed to objective news reporters). And there is a revolving door between corporations and the government. The ultimate pursuit in the corporatocracy is money for a few corporate elite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9425839

p.s. In fascism, there generally is a dictator. In corporatocracy, we have the US Chamber of Commerce.

[Better Believe It]

119. In someones head who doesn't know anything about the history and meaning of fascism.

[PufPuf23]

122. Neo-Liberalism is a 21st century fascism form of rule.

Deflect much?

[uncommon]

147. There are several paths to fascism, and a little reading

would easily illuminate this for you.

The blending of corporation and government is one, we are seeing this. The move toward a single-party government is one - how often do we complain that most of our elected officials are just two sides of the same coin? The abdication of individuality is one - this is one area where I personally think we are doing okay but not great.

There are many factors. Nationalism and social Darwinism are key components - we certain see this as an emerging normal in this country.

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

[mix]

185. Nationalism and Social Darwinism both predate fascism. nt

[ProudDad]

107. Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism

Your education starts here...

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

[mix]

111. bogus list and ahistorical written by a political scientist, not an historian.

Your miseducation begins with this tripe...this laundry list of political ills predates fascism, everyone of them. They are so general as to be meaningless.

We live in a a capitalist totalitarian state, neoliberal.

[VioletLake]

151. Totalitarian? That's more of a stretch than fascism. nt

[mix]

155. Is capitalism surpassable?

Doesn't it define the horizon of our politics? And isn't capitalist violence a part of this imposed impossibility?

Not all totalitarian states look the same. And prior totalitarian states, despite their methods of oppression, have never been unable to completely eliminate pockets of resistance and rebellion: Stalin, Hitler, and Mao couldn't totally dominate human consciousness.

Our totalitarianism is neoliberal capitalism. Few of us are citizens, most are consumers. Political apathy is encouraged. Education is geared toward making people "marketable" in the global workplace. Quality education is available only to the select. Corporations control our food sources, our information and news, and our wages. Debt is another method of control and conformity to the capitalist work ethic.

None of this would be possible w/o the collusion of our government in the private interests and profits of corporations, or what was called "Big Business in the late 19th century.

The USA has one of highest prisoner populations in the world. Orwellian levels of poverty. It has become a surveillance state, as government entities and private ones collect our personal information. Our police forces are being militarized. The USA wages constant war globally. It spends more on its military than any other country in the world and government groups like the CIA and Pentagon engage in propaganda to influence American public opinion.

Neoliberal capitalism.

[VioletLake]

179. Your argument fails for the same reasons than the one you're trying to correct:

limited perspective without a sense of proportion. It's interesting that you make essentially the same argument for a different label.

Is it your argument that what we have in the U.S. should be called totalitarian neoliberal capitalism and not fascism?

[mix]

184. Evidence is how arguments fail. Where's yours? nt

[VioletLake]

187. Where's my evidence that the U.S. isn't a totalitarian country? nt

[mix]

193. Yes.

How has capitalism not completely dominated our lives, our cultures, and our environment beginning in the 1400s?

What is "freedom" in a market civilization?

[VioletLake]

201. The onus is on you, mix, to show evidence for your claim,

that the U.S. is a totalitarian country. So far you have offered the following:

Our totalitarianism is neoliberal capitalism. Few of us are citizens, most are consumers. Political apathy is encouraged. Education is geared toward making people "marketable" in the global workplace. Quality education is available only to the select. Corporations control our food sources, our information and news, and our wages. Debt is another method of control and conformity to the capitalist work ethic.

None of this would be possible w/o the collusion of our government in the private interests and profits of corporations, or what was called "Big Business in the late 19th century.

The USA has one of highest prisoner populations in the world. Orwellian levels of poverty. It has become a surveillance state, as government entities and private ones collect our personal information. Our police forces are being militarized. The USA wages constant war globally. It spends more on its military than any other country in the world and government groups like the CIA and Pentagon engage in propaganda to influence American public opinion.

So far, I see a lot of hyperbole and no evidence.

[mix]

203. Unless you are independently wealthy,

you are at the mercy of the market. Your labor and time are your commodities. There is no alternative. Capitalism dominates American culture and values, and working for the profits of others is endemic to the system. Capitalist totalitarianism shapes consciousness and opinions through market censorship, or trying to limit access to information, and by an abject educational system and the militarization of society.

If this is hyperbole to you, I question your understanding of the crises this country is facing because of unregulated capitalism and complacent citizens.

[VioletLake]

211. If your claim that the U.S. is a totalitarian country is hyperbole to me,

then you question my understanding of the crises this country is facing because of unregulated capitalism and complacent citizens?

I guess I'll have to live with that.

[mix]

212. It's a burden we both share. nt

[VioletLake]

213. Nah, you can keep it all. nt

[mix]

214. I usually do. nt

[VioletLake]

215. Must be the martyr in you. Thanks. nt

[mix]

216. .

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9jmq5gJYgL8/TDjzixHcdHI/AAAAAAAAC7w/UaXrxgL2Hd8/s1600/saint+s%C3%A9bastien.jpg

[VioletLake]

217. LOL

:pals:

[ProudDad]

167. I can go with that: "Capitalist Totalitarian State"

Works for me...

[ProudDad]

168. "Capitalist Totalitarian State" - Works for me (n/t)

[Scruffy1]

196. Works for me too

[Octafish]

146. When a country makes war on weaker countries that are no threat, that's fascist.

When a country's leaders can lie their way into making illegal, immoral and unnecessary wars on innocent countries and get away with it, that's fascist.

Any questions?

[mix]

176. So I guess early Americans who made war against native peoples,

for example the massacre of Wounded Knee, were "fascist."

When Polk provoked war with Mexico in 1846, this too was "fascist."

Capitalist countries prey on the weak, or have you overlooked "The Age of Imperialism"? Any questions?

[Octafish]

219. No, you are correct. The strong killing the weak is fascist.

Colonialism may be a form of proto-fascism. Modern history certainly supports that contention.

And major modern rationale for culling the herd, including the weak, started in the USA:

Eugenics and the NAZIs - The California Connection

by Edwin Black
Sunday, November 9, 2003

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a so-called Master Race.

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little-known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the pseudoscience aimed at "improving" the human race. In its extreme, racist form, this meant wiping away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in 27 states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the 20th century's first decades, California's eugenicists included potent but little-known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles Goethe, as well as members of the California state Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims.

CONTINUED...

http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/offSiteArchive/www.sfgate.com/index.html

Gee. Many of America's "ownership class" participated in that kind of thinking toward native Americans, African Americans, the infirm, and others who didn't "measure up." It's interesting to see some of the familes who actively support the rise of Hitler.

Read Nietzsche for the philosophy behind it.

[mix]

226. This historical fact is that these medical and genocidal

atrocities occurred under liberal capitalism, not fascism. Fascism drew from the horrors of the past, as well as inventing enough on their own. That this is misconstrued as proof that the USA is "fascist" is nonsensical. Fascism, moreover, came to power due to the results of WWI and the Depression. Without these events, fascism does not come to power. There are no conjectures in our society that will bring fascism to power. If there are, I like to hear about it. Capitalism will simply tighten its grip. There will be no worshiping of the state and party. American power operates in its own perverse way.

You may spend your time fighting fascism, I'll spend mine resisting capitalism.

[Octafish]

236. You don't see the overlap?

What you term as "liberal capitalism" and what I term as "fascism" are two names for evil.

Here's what I mean: "Money Trumps Peace." -- George W Bush, Feb. 14, 2007.

Evil is a real thing: a system wherein a privileged class of person is free to exploit or harm other people.

[mix]

237. No don't, I see 500 years of European and American history and

and the growth of global capitalism from the corpses and ashes of imperialism. I also see the emergence of different states, political systems, and ideologies during this time. I see fascism as an historical specificity rather a common slur for political "evil," which it most certainly was, or as a political impulse present in every crime committed by capitalism.

Fascism was a fundamental rejection of liberalism as practiced by the British and Americans. It detested the individual, held everything including private property as subject to state/party control, would never allow profit to supersede the goals of the Nazi party and had no time for parliamentary democracies.

We have created our own evils. And it is not fascism.

[Kurska]

7. Show me the word corporations in this definition.

Fascism- a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

I'm not saying I like the death grip corporations have on power of this country, but that doesn't make it fascist.

[marmar]

15. Direct from the fascist's mouth:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

[qazplm]

23. you do realize

that the merger was completely one way do you not?

The government took over the corporations, not the other way around.
Name one fascist state in prior history where the corporations took over the government and not the other way around.

You are conflating the two things and they are very different, and no corporations do not control the government, if they did Obama wouldn't be president and there are a whole host of laws that corporations hate that wouldn't be on the books. Laws that cost them major bucks.

[PufPuf23]

128. What an apologist!

Rule of law would have broken up "too big to fail" to viable and failed components. Failed components would be under a temporary federal managament (such as Ressolution Trust in S&L meltdown). Atleast some criminals would have been prosecuted.

The revolving doors between government, industry, and academia are out of balance.

Controll of government is converging interests of wealth, ego, power, military, media, and religion because of wedge driven media and populations withoiut time, inclinantion, or training to discern manipulation.

Corporations taking over government may be worse in time than the reverse (that is a big fail).

Sideboards on the activity of corporations to maipulate politics have degraded severely in the past 30 year

[Kurska]

25. And there are very good reasons his definition is not the one used by modern political sciences.

Mostly, that it is not a good representation of most actual fascist states throughout history.

Also you're missing the point that the "Merger" would result in all the power being put into the hands of a single directorial leader, AKA Mussolini in his time. Who is our directorial leader who wields the power of both the state and corporations in America? Obama? Are you going to argue Obama is a fascist? If you are I think you'd fit in better at free republic then here.

[mix]

29. And how does Mussolini define "corporate power"?

This is where your argument disintegrates.

[Bucky]

45. First off, that's a bogus quote. No record exists of Mussolini saying that. Second off...

You apparently don't know what either fascism or corporatism is. Corporatism is not rule by large incorporated businesses. It's a philosophy of fascism that sees the whole body politic as a kind of actual body, in which the leaders are the brains and the police are the hands (think about the "finger men" from V for Vendetta).

If you think that's what we have in America right now, I suggest you read a little more history and a little less hysteria.

[Kurska]

51. I did not know that quote was bogus. I had seen it so many times I assumed it was true.

Oh internet, the poor research skills you inspire in me would make my professors cry.

[nemo137]

53. According to Chip Berlet, who's a good researcher on this subject

it doesn't appear in any of the sources its generally supposed to be in. It's worth noting that the "corporatism" that Catholic fascist and para-fascist thinkers talk about is really this Thomistic idea about the organic, integrated nature of the state, nothing to do with the idea that certain businesses have legal status as people. Really, I think this fixation on the left with this phantom Mussolini quote is dangerous, as it keeps us from recognizing when things really, really do resemble the early stages of fascism (e.g., the Tea Party movement's palingenetic ultra-nationalism).

http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html

[Bucky]

91. Wow, I didn't know that corporatism was Thomistic in origin.

I went to a Catholic college, where a rigorous grounding in Thomastic philosophy turned me from a lapsed Church of Christer into a Unitarian Universalist. That Aquinas boy was plenty smart, but he sure cooked up some doozies trying to justify God's ways to men. I just never thought actual fascists could backstep their belief systems in any way to him. He was such a humanist, after all. The human mind is an amazing thing.

[nemo137]

182. The two books that are kind of standard on Coughlin (the main American example of this)

Both mention the late 19th/early 20th century interest in Thomas, specifically the Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno bulls and their subsequent impact on Catholic thought, as the starting point for Coughlin's ideas about how society should be organized, and I've seen similar discussions of Thomism's role in fascism and parafascism in Austria, Italy and Spain.

http://www.amazon.com/Demagogues-depression-American-radicals-1932-1936/dp/0813505909
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394716280/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0813505909&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1QER7MKWTVV3932FJT6A

If you're interested in Coughlin, or the history of the Depression in general, those are good places to start, although their discussions of Coughlin and fascism are uninformed by the quite interesting things happening in fascist studies since the 1990s.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

10. they may not yet be ready to turn on the showers and fire the ovens but it's early in the process

for now it will be starve the poor and let the sick die.

[Scruffy1]

200. I expect a knock on my door anytime

The recent FBI raids on the Anti-war Committee and WAMM are just the start.

[Scruffy1]

202. Just check this weeks news.

Let's see. New subpoenas issued to Anti-War Committee and Wamm.

Cop gets off light in murder of black man in Oakland.

Holder refuses to go after CIA in Document destruction case.

Wealth fund manager felony charges dropped by DA Mark Hurbert in Aspen because he might lose his job.

I'm not going to play semantics about the definition of fascism, but we do live i a plutocracy with all the power at the top and our politics is trumped by money. We have two justice systems and two economic ysytems. Welfare for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

[qazplm]

20. in a fascist state

the government runs the corporations not the other way around.

This is not a fascist state, and calling it such demeans the incredible hardships and risk to life and limb that millions of people have undergone in actual fascist states throughout the last 3/4s of a century.

[Hannah Bell]

22. huh. don't kid yourself.

[qazplm]

30. succinct if non-responsive

don't kid myself about what?

[Bucky]

47. Thank you.

The swine may not appreciate the pearls, but I do.

[defendandprotect]

62. When corporations BUY people's government we have fascism.....

When we have the rise of the right via political violence, we have fascism --

And we've had in the last 50+ years in plein air right wing violence which has

assassinated liberal and progressive leadership, stolen elections and lied.

If you don't see fascism, especially after 8 years of W Bush, then I don't think

you ever will.

[truedelphi]

142. When you an explain how total control of government by corporations is not

yet a fact of life, I'll know I am dreaming.

[SOS]

177. In a fascist state the government does not "run the corporations".

They exist in a mutually beneficial relationship.
In Nazi Germany, companies like I. G. Farben, Flick, Krupp and Siemens were not under government control.
They remained autonomous while enthusiastically supporting the fascist government.

"To consolidate his power, Hitler concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished."

What we have is state monopoly capitalism:

"Big business, having achieved a monopoly or cartel position in most markets of importance, fuses with the government apparatus. A kind of financial oligarchy or conglomerate therefore results, whereby government officials aim to provide the social and legal framework within which giant corporations can operate most effectively."

Wall Street and the federal government are now fused into a corrupt, mutually beneficial system.
It is the outright hatred and contempt for the American worker exhibited by this oligarchy that makes the average citizen so angry.

The teabaggers scream "socialism!", others are tempted to view this hellish new American economy as "fascist", but it's really just the boot of
Wall Street stomping on the neck of the average American, while federal "regulators" stand by and watch.

[Better Believe It]

118. When haven't they?

[Creative]

228. Why do you think so many people choose to live in a fascist state?

And why are so many more trying to get here?

[Creative]

229. It appears that fascism has become very popular with "the people."

[SteveG]

230. not quite yet

We are close, but not quite there yet. We can still draw back from the brink. But it's going to take the House and Senate taking us to the brink of financial disaster to get the attention of the public. Pelosi has to get the now much more progressive survivors of the debacle to hold firm and vote against any rise in the debt ceiling and basically blackmail the republicans into real compromise. Reid in the Senate has to be willing to not compromise with the Republicans. We are in a war for the soul of our nation. If we fail, we will see the end of the Constitution and freedom in the U.S.. We will become serfs to the Corporations and their Republican minions.

[Kurska]

2. Maybe you didn't have a grandfather who told you what it was like seeing the remnants of a REAL

fascist state. Who could tell you what it was like to be a proud American and liberate a death camp that was probably holding the corpses of some of his distant relatives.

But I did.

[mix]

4. maybe, maybe not nt

[de novo]

28. Oh, it could be a helluva lot worse. But, that doesn't mean that

we don't have some of the hallmarks of fascism here and now. Saying that we aren't fascist because we are running death camps is like saying the Iraq War isn't wrong because we aren't seeing same levels of casualties as we did in Vietnam.

I think the point is that the fascism of the 1930-1940s was so offensive that it will not, and should not, ever return to the same scale in the Western world. But, and this is an important but, we don't have to reach that level to have a society and a government corrupted with some similar sentiments. Even subtle and 'light fascism' is dangerous.

We don't have to see death camps for it to be abhorrent.

[qazplm]

44. fascism has a meaning

and it's pretty stark and pretty clear, much like communism has a pretty clear meaning.

Comparing our society to fascism is no better than folks on the right who say all socialist ideas (like SS) mean we are communist (or even socialist).

We are clearly a democratic republic who practices social capitalism. Certainly not to the degree we'd like or to the degree Europe does, but a fascist society even a light fascist society would get rid of whole swaths of our laws dealing with corporations and business and employment. It's ironic, someone like Mussolini would look at us and decry us as what he called "decadent capitalism."

[de novo]

52. There are degrees of each.

There are fascist actions and communist actions without being whole hog.

[qazplm]

60. not really

only if you completely take those words out or their meaning.

It's one of the many problems with political discourse in this country, a complete loose approach to using words which leads to rampant hyperbole.

[de novo]

63. So when, exactly, did Spain, Italy and Germany cross your bright line

into fascism?

I simply do not accept that there are such bright lines. There is gradation. The more power and control corporations have over the political system, the more fascist that system is. The less individual civil liberties a society accepts, the closer to fascism they are. You see a line, you must define it, because I don't see it. I see a trend.

[qazplm]

81. First

it is noy "my" bright line it is how the words are defined.

Second, the legislation came through much quicker than you are supposing, it was not gradually brought in, in each case it was pretty swift. Hitler took very little time at all to consolidate power, as did Mussolini and Franco. Hitler was originally in a power-sharing arrangement and not expected to be much, and he quickly maneuvered his way into power.
It took 63 days from being appointed chancellor to the Enabling Acts and dictatorship from Jan to Mar of 1933. It was quick, surprising, and not in any way gradated.

Mussolini came to power in a coup d'etat, the very antithesis of a gradated change. It also only took him months to pass sweeping changes.

Franco had a failed coup d'etat which turnd into a civil war which he won and then he also took only a short time to pass sweeping changes.

These were all very quick changes, quite radical from what came before them whether it was the Weimar Republic in Germany, or the royalty in Italy and Spain.
They were not gradual at all.

[ProudDad]

113. Sounds like USAmerika to me...

"Mussolini came to power in a coup d'etat, the very antithesis of a gradated change. It also only took him months to pass sweeping changes."

Bush came to power in a coup d'etat, the very antithesis of a gradual change. It only took him months to pass sweeping changes: "Patriot act", warrentless wiretaps, eroded Civil Liberties, and two unnecessary pre-empive wars (ever hear of Poland?)...

What the fuck's the difference?

That the USAmerican version of fascism has a happy face?

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

The only difference I see is that the Sheeple LOVE their form of Fascism -- well, actually they don't since they just "threw the bums out" to replace them with a new set of bums...rinse and repeat...

[qazplm]

127. it's like talking to a wall

if you don't know "what the fuck's the difference" then here's what you do. Hire someone to take you to a room and beat you senseless for weeks and re-educate you simply for writing something against the government on a public internet site, because that is what happens in a fascist state.

Next, when you finally get back, if you aren't killed, make sure if you want to move or change jobs, that you apply for your permit, because there is no free travel or emigration from a fascist state. Starting to get the picture Einstein? There are hundreds of ways a fascist state is much, much worse than "Bush v. Gore" or the Patriot Act or pre-emptive wars, which have been going on since time immemorial by the way, crack open a history book.

This is ridiculous and a waste of my effin time. Pearls before swine is correct.

[ProudDad]

169. Wall meet qazplm -- qazplm meet wall...

The walls are withing your own limited capacity for reasoning or connecting the dots of history...

You are picking out one small characteristic of Fascism that is not a requirement to maintain a Fascist or Totalitarian state...

You assume that since the USAmerikan Empire only beats up on minorities and anti-war groups, uses the threat of prison or ostracism as a controlling mechanism...

And has the most effective propaganda machine in human history...

Along with thousands of political prisoners disguised as "criminals" tortured in the prisons of USAmerika...

Whose secret police uses tactics that (usually) don't leave marks (Don't Taze me, Bro)...

You are wasting your effing time if you can't recognize the nuances that separate various Fascist or Totalitarian regimes throughout history from one another...

And refuse to recognize the basic truth of the situation here in the Corporatist Empire in your mindless drive to own the "right definition"...

[mix]

73. No, we just have to admit that this is capitalism. nt

[Marr]

70. Fascism has nothing to do with death camps. n/t

[chidy]

89. my grandfather killed nazis

and liberated camps, and won four bronze stars. and married a german woman, and had a child by her. he also told me "what it was like." when i myself got out of the Corps.


but then again, he was a black man. so his perspective on that whole "it can't happen here" crap that white americans (who took in and sheltered prominent nazis after the war, and with whom prominent american jews worked after the war in the 50s/anti-communist MIC) is a little different than most people. and so is mine. i also don't worship israel, not being a guilty british aristo from the disasters of the last century.

[MellowDem]

161. Ah...

Anything can happen anywhere. But fascism is not likely at all to happen right now or any time in the future. Facism was an ideology of its time, what with all the social upheaval and change of industrialization combined with race theory etc. etc. and tons of other historical factors which pretty much will never be replicated again.

The mistake is in demonizing the ideology of "fascism" as the worst ideology ever. Any ideology can be taken to extreme and horrible ends. So trying to get everyone worked up by making bogus comparisons to past ideologies is a pretty stupid thing to do.

I'm not really too worried about Royalty as a form of government coming back for a reason. What we see in the US today is fundamentally different from fascism in many many ways. That doesn't mean that the American right doesn't have a dangerous or harmful ideology. But it is very different.

Also, your characterization of white Americans as a whole and prominent American Jews with Nazis is ugly if not downright hateful, besides being broad brushing and ignorant. Many white Americans are quite aware that any ideology could take place anywhere. Your anger seems to be as misdirected as the Tea Party's.

[AnArmyVeteran]

222. It doesn't matter what it's called if you are oppressed, controlled, dominated & in total poverty.

[mix]

238. If you don't know what it's called, how do you fix it? nt

[uncommon]

148. It starts somewhere though. These things start slow and they look easy and inviting -

the killing happens FAR down the road. That is why it is so important to understand history and develop the ability to see trends in government and cultural shifts that can allow these things to happen - eventually.

[Demeter]

6. Too Damn Close for Comfort

and too many putative Democrats are voting for it.

And too many would-be Brownshirts are just waiting for the triggering event...and too many preparations have been made for massive civil unrest.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

8. The country has a real chance of going fascist.

corporate power is hard to fight.

[avaistheone1]

9. Hard to make the argument that America is NOT a fascist state now.

[Kurska]

12. You could start with the dictionary.

Or the fact that despite all our flaws, we are still a functional democracy, a concept that is diametrically opposed to some of the core tenants of fascism as a political philosophy for governance.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

18. Florida 2000, Ohio 2004 ?

[Kurska]

33. If you're not going to have text in your post your could put n/t in the subject.

It saves people the hassle of clicking your post only to not see anything else to read.

Back to the argument, Are you saying that America is no longer a democracy? We've had huge swings of power in the last few years, were they entirely orchestrated in your opinion?

Every democracy has voter corruption, I don't think it is anywhere close to the level where you could claim that the vote no longer matters in our nation.

[de novo]

50. Voter corruption isn't the worry. If by voter corruption you mean voter fraud.

Election fraud is a concern.

And, if it costs $500 million to $1 billion to win a presidential election, how can you say (with a straight face) that we have free and fair elections?

[avaistheone1]

32. Fascism

(pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.<1><2><3><4> Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.<5><6> Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined extreme right-wing political views along with collectivism.<7><8><9> Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right.

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

I can provide the definition, but I can not help you with your lack of comprehension.

[Kurska]

37. Haha, Wikipedia n/t

[qazplm]

no

what you can do is copy a few sentences from wikipedia without having any deeper understanding of what it means.

Fascist Italy was run by one man, Mussolini. He did not run it in conjunction with corporations. There was no power sharing. The corporations did not have a say in how things went in Italy. It was an authoritarian dictatorship where the state was in control. You confuse the lip service Il Duce gave to try and make his fascism populist, in a similar way to what Hitler did in some ways, with it being the actual way things were done.

Yes Corporations had power, FROM the government and FROM Il Duce, not the other way around.

[Kurska]

43. Exactly this. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. Because, of course, the people who contribute to a wikipedia definition of fascism will be neutral?

The first google hit for "dictionary" gives me the following definition:

fas·cism   /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show IPA

–noun
1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. ( initial capital letter ) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Which if closer to being a decent definition, and clearly doesn't fit America at all.

[avaistheone1]

66. President Obama

maintains he can name an American a terrorist and kill that person without due process. I call that a dictator and worse.

Yup, we are living in fascist country.

[qazplm]

83. then with all due respect

your definition of dictator is even worse than your definition of fascist.

[avaistheone1]

87. Please elaborate how a dictator would do a

worse job of naming an American a terrorist and killing them without due process? Do share.

[qazplm]

94. that's such a mismash

of unrelated tropes it's impossible to answer.

It's like asking someone to explain how a carpenter is a singer because he stole a nail.
It's nonsensical. There is nothing about such an order that makes him a dictator. It may make him immoral. It may make him violating the law. But it does not make him a "dictator."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

145. That's nothing to do with whether he's a dictator or not.

A dictator is someone who satisfies the definition of the word dictator, not someone who does things as bad as a dictator would do.

Obama does not wield absolute power (as will be painfully demonstrated over the next two years) and will be removed from office by the democratic process so - no matter how bad he is - he's not a dictator.

[qazplm]

34. seriously

the leap to hyperbole around here is insane.

If this were a true fascist state, DU wouldn't exist and those who posted on it would be rounded up and killed or "re-educated."

Obama wouldn't be president. Literally hundreds of laws wouldn't exist. Pelosi wouldn't be allowed to be SOTH. There are literally hundreds of ways that we are not a fascist state.

[mix]

31. America is America. nt

[Posteritatis]

11. Missing option: "Oh, for fuck's sake." (nt)

[mix]

17. This is a problem for many on the left.

Rather than seeing American capitalism for what it has always been...fascism instead becomes as a trope of ultimate political evil.

A fundamental misreading.

[Codeine]

38. DU doesn't really do nuance.

We like our evil stark and easily defined.

[mix]

39. insight nt

[Posteritatis]

65. Both sides do, really, but it's especially embarrassing here.

Er, I mean, you vile communist. ;)

[Codeine]

67. I feel like our side should know better.

I expect the teabaggers to be hysterical ninnies, but MY side? -- come on, guys.

[Posteritatis]

68. Definitely! (nt)

[mix]

88. Your misreading of this poll exemplifies this kneejerk duality.

:)

[Posteritatis]

90. The *existence* of the poll exemplifies that kneejerk duality. (nt)

[mix]

101. Your misreading of this poll is sloppy and embarrassing nt

[devilgrrl]

112. If the past 30 years is an example of Capitalism, then it is safe to say that Capitalism SUCKS.

eom

[mix]

120. what a sad fact nt

[Denninmi]

14. Well, as I said in a thread I started the other day,

IMO, the Tea Party is a Nazi movement looking for its Reichstag fire.

I guess it's just a question of how they choose to murder me and millions of others some day -- gas chamber, firing squad, or maybe something a little more contemporary, like dumping us out of planes into the mid Atlantic like the Argentine Air Force did back in the day.

[Kurska]

19. This I agree with, the Tea Party is VERY CLOSE to a fascist movement.

The internal party mechanics with the personalities and power plays especially resembling something you would have seen in the Nazi party. Although, you could hardly say the Tea Party controls the American government, they don't even control a single branch of government (Most republicans elected were not tea party faithful).

[avaistheone1]

36. That is why we should not compromise with them or the Republicans

who are doing their dirty work.

[Kurska]

41. I'd say the Tea Parties are doing the republicans dirty work, not the other way around.

Which represents exactly the real danger of the tea parties. The republicans think they have a attack dog. In reality they have a dog with rabies on a leash and every time they let it off its leash it comes back stronger, how long before it bites them too.

Crazed dogs have no masters.

[proteus_lives]

27. Hyperbole

And the pic of dim-son taints the poll.

[mix]

35. Define "taint"?

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

[proteus_lives]

48. I think it's an unfair picture.

It seems like you're pointing in one direction.

I've learned that pictures and opening comments can taint the poll. Just ask the question.

[mix]

86. weak nt

[proteus_lives]

99. You're right.

Your OP was very weak.

[mix]

102. think about it, it ain't hard to figure out where I'm coming from. nt

[Bucky]

46. No, the idiotic question taints the poll.

Also, sometimes, the taint taints the pole, but now I'm getting off subject.

[proteus_lives]

49. Taint taints the pole?

Sounds like a situation for a wet cloth.

[mix]

74. delete, wrong post nt

[Bucky]

80. delete

still trying to follow the idiot

[mix]

96. you don't get it, do you? nt

[mix]

79. Take a look at the poll results and tell me this is an idiotic poll.

careful

[Bucky]

82. Okay, being careful here: this is an idiotic poll.

Not sure why you didn't believe me the first time. But 80 misinformed panic monkeys on the internet does not convince me that the United States in 2010 has a level of oppression comparable to Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Falangist Spain, Peronist Argentina, or Baathist Iraq. As someone who studies history for a living, I know better.

Please, go find your high school history teacher and ask for your money back. She taught you nothing.

[mix]

92. You have gone astray.

Read my responses and think again about the poll.

Sorry to say your characterization of my motivations for asking this are DEAD FUCKING WRONG.

Evidence, teacher.

[Bucky]

98. Your responses are without content and all the CAPS LOCK typing in the world won't change that

Your responses in the part of the discussion I've taken part in are as follows:

1- Define "taint"? You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

2- Weak nt

3- Take a look at the poll results and tell me this is an idiotic poll. Careful

4- you don't get it, do you? nt

So, you seem to have nothing to offer but cliche insults and admonitions to "think about" a vacuous poll that oversimplifies political terminology that you don't seem to understand. If you've posted something more substantive in this thread, please point it out to me. It's not reasonable to ask me to go scrolling through every little post you've made hoping to glean substantive content when everything you've posted directly to me is devoid of substance.

[mix]

105. I tried. Your comprehension skills, if you have read my posts here, are lacking.

How can society to be changed if there is a fundamental confusion between fascism and capitalism?

It is clear where I stand. Where do you stand?

[stray cat]

40. Maybe people should move to North Korea where they could be free?

It would be great publicity for north Korea and a Comfortable life

[mix]

42. Or Montecito nt

[grahamhgreen]

125. Or Iraq!

[uncommon]

150. Way to miss the point entirely.

Yeah, things are a lot worse in some other places.

That doesn't mean that our government and the will of the people isn't trending toward very dangerous territory. Everything starts slow and quiet and builds.

[datasuspect]

54. well

no shit

[mix]

85. Shit, ta réponse nt

[Scurrilous]

56. Brown Acid. BAD! n/t

[Swede]

61. Brown Shirts,badder.

How far left is someone to think that the USA is fascist?

[sally cat]

58. Since Democrats have controlled at least 2 and currently 3 branches of US govt since 2006, a yes

answer is somewhat troubling and hard to understand. Explain?

[bluedigger]

59. This works for me.

I always liked this definition from RFK, Jr. - "While communism is the control of business by government, fascism is the control of government by business," he writes. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-10.htm

IIRC, he went on to define democracy as that razor sharp line of balance between the two.

[Oilwellian]

116. Finally. Someone has nailed the definition of facism.

That is it in a nutshell. Thanks bluedigger.

[mix]

117. That's capitalism, not fascism. Sorry RFK Jr. nt

[bluedigger]

132. What what?

You're going to have to flesh out your objection a little, as it makes no sense as it stands.

[mix]

133. RFK Jr. does not understand the nature of fascism.

When businesses/corporations control the government that is capitalism, not fascism. That has been the history of this country since its earliest days and many like Jefferson feared their power.

Fascist economies demand the subservience of every sector of society. The economy is at the service of the state and party, not private interest and profit. To say that government controlled by business is fascism is absurd. This statement is in fact the quintessence of capitalism.

[bluedigger]

136. I don't think you understand the difference between political and economic systems.

But keep fighting that fight.

[mix]

137. enlighten me nt

[bluedigger]

141. It's late and I'm out of gas...

Here's a hastily found description:

"Politics, simply defined, is the art or science of winning and holding control over a group or nation, either through influence or force.

Economics is the description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of:
Goods (fish, cooked meals, ships, fire-starting bow, etc.)
Services (carpentry, fishing, cooking, etc.)."
http://www.hermes-press.com/econ1.htm

I must admit I have no familiarity with this source, but I can live with the definitions. I don't know why you insist on conflating the two (or whatever it is you're doing), but capitalism is an economic system, and fascism is a political one. They are neither synonymous, nor mutually exclusive. As I said, it's late, and I must bid you adieu!:hi:

[mix]

156. Capitalist economies cannot exist w/o the laws

and institutional frameworks of the state, like schools, the military and prisons. No state, no modern capitalism. So there is no clear cut definition of political and economic, except in the abstract.

[bluedigger]

181. Yes and no.

I agree with the first part of your post. I never said that either a political or an economic system operates in a vacuum. There are good definitions, however, and any conversation about the relationships between the two is, by definition, "abstract". For instance, Marxist economies also rely on schools, the military, and prisons. No state, no Marxism. What was your point again?

[mix]

186. But we're discussing capitalism and its dependence on state power.

All I can say is maybe you should brush up on your political economy.

[bluedigger]

192. No, we're not!

:rofl: That's a completely different argument, and one in which I cannot disagree.

The OP was about America being a fascist state.

Maybe we should retire to our neutral corners and agree to disagree another day.:fistbump:

[mix]

195. You have missed the point my friend, entirely.

:rofl:

The USA is not a fascist state.

[bluedigger]

198. Not exactly a first for me...

:rofl:

I disagree.

[mix]

199. Then explain yourself.

What do you see the poll representing? And what is my position? "Reality" or "Hyperbole"?

[bluedigger]

208. No.

you originally responded and disagreed (poorly) with my post. Since then you have been on the attack and asked me to do all the heavy lifting here. If you have a point to refute me, state it with some sort of evidence to back it up. I think my position is clear enough.

[mix]

210. yawn nt

[ElboRuum]

64. Welcome to Discourse in America (TM)

A poll in place of a dictionary.

:eyes:

[mix]

75. You're not a close reader, are you? nt

[ElboRuum]

220. Actually, I read fine.

Thanks for your concern.

Hyperbole indicates elements of truth within the statement, however the degree to which those facts apply is exaggerated. Reality indicates a practical truth. However the indicators of fascism are rather clear. Any dictionary could have reduced this to a yes or no question. But rather than simply address the matter in face of a factual treatment, we've reduced the question to what is very little better than 'truthiness'. Two obvious options were therefore left off.

1. The obvious 'fantasy'.
2. The obvious 'inconclusive'.

I was offered a choice between 'yes, absolutely' and 'kind of, but people make too much of it'. Neither seems suitable.

[mix]

223. Doubtful. You have mischaracterized this poll. nt

[ElboRuum]

239. A poll where a dictionary could have been more revealing?.

I mischaracterized NOTHING.

[Marr]

69. *edit*

Because I don't thin my previous statement was correct, after some reflection.

[mix]

76. Or fundamentally capitalist? nt

[Marr]

78. I must've edited my comment at the same time you responded to it.

I did so because I didn't think I could support the argument. To be very honest, I was repeating something by a political writer I admire. After pausing for a moment, I realized that I think he was wrong on that point and that his argument was thin.

I think you're right-- our system is more defined by free-wheeling capitalism than anything else.

[HEyHEY]

72. No, I live in a fascist state, the USA is not one.

[Bucky]

84. Thank you, but...

with a Canadian flag as your avatar, you might want to clarify where you're posting from. ;)

[HEyHEY]

93. Haha

China. Communist in name only. It's fascist. Police knocking on my door to see my "papers" whenever they want. Media control, pro-China bullshit encouraged by the government no matter what it's about, "loving China means loving the party" taught in schools.

IT sucks.

[qazplm]

95. well

unfortunately some folks over here, in a rush to proclaim America dead and rotted actually champion China.

[HEyHEY]

97. Yeah, and those people have no idea what it's like

There's no social safety net here, no universal healthcare, education is garbage, there's a rampant class system, it is NOT communist by any stretch.

[proteus_lives]

100. China is China.

Like Russia is Russia.

Be it through Emperors, Tsars, Mandarins, Premiers, Presidents, Chairmen. They've always been rule by the same types.

All that changes is the window-dressing.

[HEyHEY]

104. Oh yeah, China assimilates everything

It's pretty well a new dynasty now.

[Quantess]

143. Who "champions" China? That I would like to see.

I've never seen China applauded here.

[ProudDad]

110. If you don't live here, how do you know? (n/t)

[HEyHEY]

121. Been there enough

[VioletLake]

77. Neither. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

103. Hyper-Bowl used by some simply to get them through the night... n/t

[ProudDad]

108. 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism -- the USAmerikan Empire fits them all...

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

[mix]

114. This is written by a political scientist, and utterly ahistorical.

This list could apply to most political states and completely overlooks the reality of neoliberal capitalism. It is so general as to be meaningless.

If you're invested in the capitalist system, you call it fascism.

[Bucky]

173. delete

nt

[unkachuck]

109. reality....

....it may be subtle and indirect but it yields fascist results cloaked in the niceties of a constitutional democracy....

....here, you seldom see a fascist visibly pulling the levers of political or social power as in other countries, you only witness their agents at work....

....and these agents are solely recruited and installed from the two capitalist parties or are directly hired corporate representatives....

....what right-wing tyrant or group of tyrants have ever gained power without the full backing, cooperation and financial support from their corporations and capitalists?....or to put it another way, where's the fascist power source?

[OlympicBrian]

115. See my post above ^^^

It's a corporatocracy, and the power source is the US Chamber of Commerce

[mix]

123. ***For the record, I disagree profoundly with those who voted reality.***

A cursory reading of my posts shows that.

The claim that America is a fascist state is a recurring theme on DU and is mistaken.

The left will have hard time changing things if many don't know the difference between fascism and capitalism.

And f*ck off to those who misread this poll. Poor form gents and ladies, poor form.

[VioletLake]

152. Anger is poor form.

I believe that you have a point, but your inability to communicate it effectively is frustrating you.

[mix]

158. Who has patience for posters

who willfully misrepresent my argument and call me an "idiot"? A degree of anger is required, as is the common respect of correctly representing an argument.

Would you suffer disingenuous fools gladly?

[VioletLake]

178. It's not a matter of suffering, but I do run into disingenuous fools from time to time.

Patience isn't easy, especially under these circumstances. It is what an ingenuous person strives for.

[grahamhgreen]

124. I thought fascist states allow torture and stuff, oh crap....

[mix]

126. No capitalist republics like ours have been doing this since 1776. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

129. We've been heading there for a long time...

I'm guessing people far more experienced, like the generation who fled the fascists in Italy and the rest of Europe in my mother's generation knew it way early.

I remember my mothers' uneasy feeling about ole "dead eyes" who's now gonna admit his sins, including running the gubernment like a business, which was beyond his station anyway.

What we've allowed through deregulation of laws that were written by the very industries being served has gone full throttle now. A good book that Ralph Nader introduced in the 1980's called, "Reagon's Ruling Class" started to wake me up.

Question is... where does it go from here?

[PufPuf23]

130. Neo-liberalism is fascism.

I am gobsmacked by the denial, ignorance, and blatant deception.

[mix]

131. Then prove it. nt

[Unvanguard]

134. Obviously it is hyperbole, and the vast majority of those who voted "reality" know it. n/t

[Quantess]

135. I said "reality", but I would have preferred a less extreme choice

such as fascism-lite, or discreet fascism.

[Alexander]

138. Well, given all the "liberal" DUers who support torture and the death penalty, I'd say yes...

Just look at the sex offender and death penalty threads, it makes me sick to think so many DUers can support torturing other human beings.

[mix]

139. And why is this not compatible with capitalist democracies?

The historical record says it perfectly is.

[Alexander]

140. Torturing prisoners without a trial is not a sign of a democracy.

It's a sign of a dictatorship.

Many capitalist democracies, mainly Canada, Japan and most of Western Europe and Scandinavia, do not engage in these practices.

[mix]

149. And yet we have and do, as a democracy. nt

[Alexander]

180. We are hardly a democracy. Corporations decide things for us.

6 major companies control most of our media.

4 major companies control most of the music we listen to.

4 major companies control most of the food you eat.

In 43 states, a handful of companies control the health care market.

6 banks control the equivalent of 60% of America's GNP.

Sure, we get to vote every four years for a corporate-approved candidate, in a charade that rivals pro wrestling in how fake it is. Anyone who dissents against this horrifying oligarchy is either ridiculed, marginalized, or mysteriously ends up dead.

[mix]

183. In name only, I agree. nt

[old mark]

144. Not yet. But we are heading in that direction....nt

[lukasahero]

153. Sorry, I've been asleep - is Shrub still president?

:shrug:

[devilgrrl]

154. We're still stuck with his mess - don't you think?

eom

[TheWatcher]

160. This is Old News.

To quote John McClane from Die Hard:

"Welcome To The Party Pal!"

[MellowDem]

162. Most of DU equates "corporatism"

with corporations, so I doubt they will understand that there are fundamental differences between the American right and fascism. It's intellecutal laziness at its finest.

[mix]

163. That is exactly right. The poll reflects that. nt

[fascisthunter]

164. mix... maybe you should speak with Noam Chomsky about Fascism and its meaning

Noam Chomsky Delivers Warning to the US About the Perils of Fascism + Video

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/04/22/noam-chomsky-delivers-warning-to-the-us-about-the-perils-of-fascism-video/

I think you are wrong and for good reason. Chomsky isn't the only one that would disagree with your definition.

[mix]

175. Chomsky says the potential is there, but he never claims the USA is a fascist state.

He also sees empire and neoliberalism as our greatest present threat.

We're still in the realm of speculation and conjecture, brilliantly done.

[fascisthunter]

204. Yes and many of Fascism's characteristics are already Evident

fascism doesn't just kick in over night. I believe we have already gotten to a point of no return though, and suggest it is already a fascist state, because nothing is preventing it from happening. Whether corporate America rules the government or whether it is the other way around is irrelevant at this point... why? Because it's not one or the other controlling the other... the door revolves constantly as businessmen become politicians, and politicians become lobbyists... both are in unison. Our government is infested with Wall Street lackeys... so who controls who? Or are they one the same team? Or have they become one and the same?

We live in the beginning stages of fascism and nothing is stopping it, in fact our government and Wall Street are accelerating the process as we argue about a definition.

[mix]

209. I don't see the evidence, at all, the USA is fascist.

Extremism is no stranger to American politics historically. Nor is the dominant role of first the gentry and then the financiers and industrialists within government. Fascism is a different animal entirely.

Nationalism, militarism, imperialism, white supremacy, Christian fanaticism, lynchings, murders, scapegoats, thefts, and massacres...these all predate fascism and are at the heart of American capitalism.

[RainDog]

165. Here is Robert O. Paxton's definition of fascism

from his book, Anatomy of Fascism. Paxton is a historian whose area of expertise is Vichy France. He is a professor emeritus of history at Columbia U.

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

other quotes from this same book:

p. 23: The fascisms we have known have come into power with the help of frightened ex-liberals and opportunist technocrats and ex-conservatives ...

p. 41: ... fascism is more plausibly linked to a set of "mobilizing passions" that shape fascist action than to a consistent and fully articulated philosophy. At bottom is a passionate nationalism. Allied to it is a conspiratorial and Manichean view of history as a battle between the good and evil camps, between the pure and the corrupt, in which one's own community or nation has been the victim. In this Darwinian narrative, the chosen people have been weakened by political parties, social classes, inassimilable minorities, spoiled rentiers, and rationalist thinkers who lack the necessary sense of community. These "mobilizing passions," mostly taken for granted and not always overtly argued as intellectual propositions, form the emotional lava that set fascism's foundations:

p. 219: Mobilizing passsions

* a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;

* the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it;

* the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external;

* dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences;

* the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;

* the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny;

* the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason;

* the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success;

* the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess within a Darwinian struggle.

p. 102: What Fascists Offered the Establishment

Another seductive fascist offer was a way to overcome the climate of disorder that the fascists themselves had helped cause. Having unleashed their militants in order to make democracy unworkable and discredit the constitutional state, the Nazi and Fascist leaders then posed as the only nonsocialist force that could restore order. It was not the last time that the leaders capitalized on that ambiguity: "Being in the center of the movement," Hannah Arendt wrote in one of her penetrating observations, "the leader can act as though he were above it." Fascist terms for a deal were not insuperably high. Some German conservatives were uneasy about the anti-capitalist rhetoric still flaunted by some Nazi intellectuals, as were Italian conservatives by Fascist labor activists like Edmondo Rossoni. But Mussolini had long come around to "productivism" and admiration for the industrial hero, while Hitler made it clear in his famous speech to the Düsseldorf Industrialists' Club on January 26, 1932, as well as in private conversations, that he was a social Darwinist in the economic sphere, too.

In sum, fascists offered a new recipe for governing with popular support but without any sharing of power with the Left, and without any threat to conservative social and economic privileges and political dominance. The conservatives, for their part, held the keys to the doors...

and still more...

...Peter Hayes puts it succinctly: the Nazi regime and business had "converging but not identical interests." Areas of agreement included disciplining workers, lucrative armaments contracts, and job-creation stimuli.

...Fascist regimes functioned like an epoxy: an amalgam of two very different agents, fascist dynamism and conservative order, bonded by shared enmity toward liberalism and the Left, and a shared willingness to stop at nothing to destroy their common enemies.

...The language and symbols of an authentic American fascism would, of course, have little to do with the original European models. They would have to be as familiar and reassuring to loyal Americans as the language and symbols of the original fascisms were familiar and reassuring to many Italians and Germans, as Orwell suggested. Hitler and Mussolini, after all, had not tried to seem exotic to their fellow citizens. No swastikas in an American fascism, but Stars and Stripes (or Stars and Bars) and Christian crosses. No fascist salute, but mass recitations of the pledge of allegiance. These symbols contain no whiff of fascism in themselves, of course, but an American fascism would transform them into obligatory litmus tests for detecting the internal enemy.
Around such reassuring language and symbols and in the event of some redoubtable setback to national prestige, Americans might support an enterprise of forcible national regeneration, unification, and purification. Its targets would be the First Amendment, separation of Church and State (creches on the lawns, prayers in schools), efforts to place controls on gun ownership, desecrations of the flag, unassimilated minorities, artistic license, dissident and unusual behavior of all sorts that could be labeled antinational or decadent.

[mix]

172. This is a misreading of Paxton.

He is speculating about fascism coming to the USA, not saying that this country is fascist, though he agrees that fascist parties/tendencies exist in every modern democracy, including America. The potential is there, but it is unlikely that corporations would place their interests and profits at the service of the state.

The horrors we face as a country are rooted in our history of conquest, genocide, and the market system. Predatory capitalism, American-style, is the problem, not fascism.

Give me evidence that the USA is "fascist," not speculation and conjecture.

[RainDog]

188. No. You are misreading Paxton

I merely included quotes that he made about definitions of fascism and his comments about fascism in relation to later political systems.

I assume people are capable of reading his work and analyzing the ways in which his scholarship relates to things they see at this time.

I am providing no speculation or conjecture. I'm supplying quotations from this scholar whose area of expertise is fascism.

[mix]

197. Then were does he say the US is a de facto fascist state?

He doesn't.

[RainDog]

218. I posted a respected historians quotations about fascism

from a book about fascism that was published in 2004. I never stated he made a claim one way or another. I was merely including information on your thread about fascism from one of the most highly regarded historians on this subject.

I included the information because he provides definitions and conditions for fascism that I thought might useful or helpful to people who were reading this thread. That was my entire purpose - to provide information from a highly-regarded source.

You have made the assumption that I am claiming one thing or another simply by posting this information and you make an argument against a claim that I have not made on your thread. for that reason, I said you are misreading Paxton. You are reading more than what appears in the message.

here's more information from another historian, Adrian Lyttelton, who was written extensively on Italian fascism.

We have a plethora of models of fascism in circulation, and...I believe that distinguishing between those which are more or less valuable demands a higher degree of abstraction and conceptual clarity than has usually been present.

Fascist ideology has to be studied in its varying and changing manifestations, which were not identical either in space or time. If I applauded Paxton’s book, it is because it evaded the methodological trap of essentialism, and because it insisted on the need—not to ignore ideology—but to relate it to changing practices and institutional contexts.

...But it has proved uncommonly hard to define the nature of fascism, to determine how widely the notion can usefully be applied, or what differentiates it from other political movements and regimes. Historians are mostly in agreement that fascism was a phenomenon of pan-European significance. One of the first important comparative studies of fascism, Ernst Nolte’s Three Faces of Fascism, wrote of interwar Europe as the “epoch of fascism.” But attempts to define fascism have led to such confusions, contradictions, and overlooking of obvious differences that some historians have given up the attempt in disgust. Even grouping together the two major regimes commonly described as “fascist,” Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy, is far from uncontroversial.

...Paxton argues that in both fascist Italy and Nazi Germany the exercise of power was originally based on a similar coalition consisting of the leader, the party, the bureaucracy, and traditional institutions. But he writes that the results were different:

It was the relative weight among leader, party, and traditional institutions that distinguished one case from the other. In Italy, the traditional state wound up with supremacy over the party, largely because Mussolini feared his own most militant followers….In Nazi Germany, the party came to dominate the state and civil society, especially after war began.

This, again, is to add another voice to the subject of fascism as it may be defined by those who have devoted their lives to the study of the same.

What both of these scholars are saying is that fascism is constructed within particular cultures with features that are specific to those cultures. Even two forms of fascism that existed at the same time were not cookie-cutter versions of the same ideology.

What all historians agree on about fascism, however, is that it is an ideology of the right, that it is anti-liberal and pro-capitalist. I'm noting this designation because Jonah Goldberg, fucktard spawn of Lucian Goldbery, McGovern campaign mole and consultant to Linda Tripp in the affair Lewinsky (who, oddly, never cleaned a dress with gism on it for, I suppose, such sentimental reasons) has tried to muddy the waters entirely by writing a book that has been TOTALLY DISCREDITED that tries to make the claim that fascism may be redefined, for the purposes of Fox News and cry baby Beck as a movement of the left. This much I know I can say with certainty. Fascism is not a movement of the left. It is not a liberal political ideology.

The historians are also agreed that fascism finds its power through its alignment with a capitalist or ruling class elite (whose capitalism was spawned from feudal institutions, when you get right down to it. IOW, the French Revolution was a revolution from the left. It was not fascist. The Nazi seizure of power, however, beyond any mention of their genocidal policies, was a revolution from the right - the overthrow of a democratically-elected government that was already weak because it was the first such govt in Germany and came about at a time when German liberalism (classic liberalism) also faced challenges from the left by socialist and communist factions.

However, there was no such threat in Italy worth mentioning at the time.

Chip Berlet is reporter who has studied and written about fascism. He offers the following defining features:

Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of the following hallmarks:

* Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.

* Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.

* Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).

* Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.

* Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.

* Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.

* Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission--often metaphysical and romanticized in character.

* Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy--seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.

* The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.

* Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.

* Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.

In this country, I would say that the Bush regime was proto-fascist since he was installed in office by Scalia and Co. The media tried to build a cult of personality (the flight suit, the poses in front of Rushmore, the STAGED troop moments. The establishment of PENS to herd protestors. The arrest of protestors for the practice of free speech. Dehumanizing and lumping all people within the muslim world as enemies. The insistence that the Constitution was "just a piece of paper." The signing statements - more than any in all of presidential history, in direct disregard for the separation of powers. The attempt to exclude Democrats from governance by shutting them out of committee meetings... the republicans held SECRET meetings to prohibit democratic party senators from attending. The appeal to emotion, to religion, to "the troops" (while abusing them by denying them time away from battle), the abandonment of conservative principles about wars of aggression.. saying deficits don't matter while decrying deficits... the use of homeland security by Texas democrats to TRACK DOWN DEMOCRATS during a redistricting dispute. The "Homeland" Security Act - the name itself reeks of fascism - and its intent, to overturn the ideological constraints that protect privacy, rights to a fair trial, probably cause - those are all fascist in application because they dehumanize citizens and assume they are guilty with little change to prove innocence without access to legal counsel - another part of that whole set up. Movement to a legal definition of torture as an acceptable action in a nation that has signed an international treaty to not do the same - this is an abandonment of a consistent ideology.

And ALL of those features are still in place. Obama has gone on to codify some of them, like FISA. He has normalized torture. He has agreed to ignore the war crimes of the previous administration because it would be politically awkward - and he thus leaves in place every bit of the structure that the neo-cons (previous liberals, as Paxton noted, who become instrumental for the implementation of fascism. The same religious right wing ideology that believes in a manifest destiny, in a battle for god in the middle east as prophecy, rather than mythology, the populism of this religious right, their willingness to demonize homosexuals, feminists, muslims, mexicans - the Arizona attempt to create a criminal class because someone LOOKS hispanic...

those are all features of a very American form of fascism. Whether we're there yet or not is debatable. When Obama was elected, I thought we dodged a bullet - and, frankly, I was surprised he was elected, considering the entirely unreliable, entirely hackable voting system we have now. The only reason I see for his win was that the numbers were too overwhelming to get away with stealing the 2008 election.

So, are we there yet? We're well on our way.

Fascism is capitalism with a right wing populist face. Fascism was at the health care town hall meetings with the old white guy carrying loaded pistols. Fascism is in every word Sarah Palin spews from her rancid mouth.

But, are we there yet?

When I think about that question, I'm reminded of the famous quote from They Thought They Were Free - about the ways that people become habituated to fascism in the ways it creeps into the media - the continued existence of Fox News, for instance - the continued presence of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh - they are the face of fascism in America. So, yeah, we're there - the actors are there. But at this time they do not have all the levers of power in their hands.

However, we most definitely have a fascist movement in the U.S. - only here we call them the Teabaggers.

So, that's my opinion, apart from the things the scholars say. Fascism does not spring full-blown from the head of Zeus. It is normalized over time - and in times of instability, it is normalized faster than it would be otherwise.

[mix]

224. You're using Paxton to say something he doesn't...

implicitly. Paxton's argument if anything refutes the claim that the USA is fascist. He entertains the thought, but that is all and comes to no conclusion. The Teabaggers would not surprise Paxton at all. He clearly states that there are fascist elements within every democracy and they usually stay on the fringes. It is the conjuncture of certain events that brings fascism to power, just at it did in Germany when the fallout of WWI mixed with global economic meltdown.

We live in different times that require a new understanding of the present, not one that is more slur than analysis.

Neoliberalism is the problem and history isn't on your side. When hasn't this country killed and conquered? The "fascism" argument is a denial of capitalism's crimes and a misdiagnosis of our social ills.

[RainDog]

231. LOL. I gave information about Paxton - and others - and then gave my opinion

based upon what they had to say about fascism. Paxton himself stated, back in the 1990s, that fascism was most likely to be an American phenomena in this era - that all the preconditions are there. If you don't like that analysis, you can take it up with him. He has a little more authority to address this issue than either you or I. You can tell him that this is more slur than analysis because you don't like it that people find modern movements that are, indeed, proto if not outright fascist in their midst - he seems to think you're wrong.

Fascism is a 20th c. political phenomena because nationalism is a feature of modern states. Nationalism is the pre-condition for fascism. You are trying to say that fascism isn't fascism because capitalism is the issue.

Capitalism is an economic system. Fascism is a political system.

Fascism is ground up. Capitalism exploits this nationalism and xenophobia for its own purposes. But the political faction that is fascist also exploits capitalism to achieve its aims. That is exactly what is happening with the teabaggers.

Now, if you want to talk about the problems with capitalism, that's something else entirely. But don't try to pretend that fascism and capitalism are comparisons of the same thing - because they're not. You are refusing to acknowledge the difference between political movements and economic systems.

You can have capitalism without fascism. You can't have fascism without capitalism.

You can have problems with capitalism without fascism. Because of the inherent problems in capitalism, you are pretending that there is no such thing as fascism and you're wrong.

This is tiresome. No doubt capitalism is the ECONOMIC problem - unregulated capitalism is ALWAYS a problem, no matter what political movement undergirds it, because people are selfish, nasty fucks who will gladly let children starve on the streets for a buck. They will gladly let mothers suck rancid dick in alleyways rather than support a social safety net (this was, in fact, often the case in Victorian England, btw, for women who were not part of the upper and middle classes - women slipped in and out of prostitution because that was one of the few ways they could make money... so, yeah, when it all comes down to it, capitalism is a system that says it would rather a mother suck a diseased dick than provide a way for those who fall on hard times to survive with dignity.)

The "let poor mothers suck dick" economic philosophy of Victorian England was classic liberalism.

The political system was not fascism.

But that was the world that Marx saw and those lives are the ones that inspired his view that the seeds of its own destruction are embedded in such a system. Who wouldn't think that. Yet is has shown surprising resilience - because, POLITICALLY, people do not choose to act in their own interests by recognizing their ECONOMIC class concerns are not the same as the elites - and when those people turn against and scapegoat others in a modern system, as we see now, the capitalism may still be the "let the mothers suck dick" liberalism, but the political system slips in to fascism when the ideology that is employed to achieve continued hegemony among the capitalists fits the definition of fascism.

okay?

[mix]

232. tiresome is the word nt

[nemo137]

190. Paxton's definition of fascism has more to do with

political structures than ideology.* I tend to be more in sympathy with Griffin and Eatwell, who view it as a discrete ideology.

http://daily.swarthmore.edu/2005/2/25/robert-paxton-grapples-with-the-nature-of-fascism-in-paul-beik-lecture/
http://www.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five%20Stages%20of%20Fascism.pdf

[ProudDad]

166. Survey Says! Yes...

Hedges: A Collapsed Economy, Hateful Conservatives and Ineffectual Liberals Are a Recipe for Fascism

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148778

Too late, Chris...

[ProudDad]

170. According to my S.O.s mother

A German lady who lived through Hitler's Germany and World War II...

Who watched Dresden burn...

According to her, the parallels between life in Hitler's Germany and contemporary USAmerica are frightening...

[Nye Bevan]

171. YES. Several families from my town were recently arrested in the middle of the night,

for no reason, and have not been seen since. The police and army have taken over their houses for their own use. Businesses in my neighborhood have been shut down at gunpoint and their assets seized by the local authorities. Next week all males between the ages of 18 and 45 have been ordered to report to the town square for labor camp selection.

Frightening stuff indeed.

[Swamp Rat]

174. Your Straw Man is a fascist!

:D

[dimbear]

191. Unless you are writing a book on Italian history, avoid that word.

It is meaningless now. If you think America is ruled by corporations, say that.

[mix]

206. You haven't thought this post through, have you?

I clearly do not see the USA as a fascist state, as a great many here do.

:rofl:

There are dozens of my posts for your perusal to clarify the issue.

[lovuian]

205. fascism is a corporate state runned by a few powerful men

I told my family in Europe ....I understand what happen to the German people

their government was taken over by a small group ....after that war after war after war

It has happened here...Gore won

[Creative]

235. If you have family in Europe, why do you choose to live in this fascist state?

[LaPera]

207. Corporate republican fascism - Absolutely!

[Taverner]

221. Hyperbole. Absolute hyperbole.

We are nowhere near Fascist.

Ask an elderly Italian. Or better yet, look up the National Front in the UK. Unlike our US Fascist overtones, ours has never had the support that the National Front has had.

And for the record, The National Front = National Socialist Party (NAZIs) in terms of policy.

It's all there, genocide, eliminate outsiders, stay away from the rest of Europe - straight outta the TEA PARTY

[mix]

225. +1 nt

[Occam Bandage]

227. Here I thought we were Obammunist. nt

[hunter]

233. Grow some marijuana in your backyard and sell it to your neighbors.

Watch what happens.

[mix]

234. American predatory capitalism seeks to control the

consciousness of its citizen-consumers, is that really surprising or fascist?