It's Time to Drop the "F" Bomb: Fascism!

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

HuffPo

It's Time to Drop the "F" Bomb: Fascism!

Posted December 11, 2007 | 12:22 PM (EST)


It's an epithet that has been used -- and certainly misused -- but what is fascism exactly? Simply put: it's government that favors the corporation and not the individual. Mussolini defined and installed the "corporate state." Hitler had his version and of course there were others.

This political philosophy sought to demonize the labor movement and keep the oligarchical system in place in alliance with the banking cabal. There were many moneyed interests in this great country of ours that were absolutely swooning at Hitler's machinations and they longed for such a system here. A coup was in fact planned, in 1933, by banks, oil and other powerful interests. They thought they could convince the revered and charismatic General Smedley Darlington Butler to lead half a million veterans to help them with their coup. The plan was to install a sort of co-president, who really ran things and FDR would just be a ceremonial president. But when General Butler (the only soldier to receive two medals of honor) blew the whistle after leading the plotters on, it all fell apart. The General's book, War Is A Racket, includes his searing indictment of government and the oil empire; he said he did not want to sacrifice one Marine to help the oil czars and their minions with any more foreign conquests.

Today, no such coup was necessary because now it has been revealed that Justice Department lackeys stretched and tortured the law to issue secret rulings, which essentially state that the president alone can determine what laws he has to follow and that his interpretation of the Constitution is the final word. So now it is official: we are a Fascist country!

Some people saw it coming but they were ridiculed, marginalized, or ignored, or all three -- in that order.

With that in mind:

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger...It works the same way in any country." Hermann Goering

[Gullible Jones]

It's an epithet that has been used -- and certainly misused -- but what is fascism exactly? Simply put: it's government that favors the corporation and not the individual.

No it isn't. This is another case of said epithet being misused.

Mussolini defined and installed the "corporate state." Hitler had his version and of course there were others.

Mussolini's "corporatism" is not the same as the "corporatism" practiced by the Bush administration. The Bush administration has not organized businesses and other entities into large unelected bodies with independent hierarchies that control whole aspects of our society, and thus far has shown no intention to.

Today, no such coup was necessary because now it has been revealed that Justice Department lackeys stretched and tortured the law to issue secret rulings, which essentially state that the president alone can determine what laws he has to follow and that his interpretation of the Constitution is the final word. So now it is official: we are a Fascist country!

No we're not. We've got imbeciles and villains in power, we've got puppets in the supreme court, we've got spineless idiots in Congress and unconstitutional laws in effect. Our republic has been fucked over pretty badly, and might not recover even after the sons of bitches are out of office. But we're not a fascist state.

And you know, I may be a flaming liberal myself, but I am utterly sick of hearing liberals shout "Fascism, fascism!" at everything they don't like. It's pure unadulterated sophist bullshit, and I think it's rather telling that none other than George Orwell was calling people out on this in 1946.

What, don't believe me?

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

So in short, Richard Belzer is an idiot, and you'd do well to avoid HuffPo in the future, because let me tell you, it's full of idiots.

[Sidewinder]

So in short, Richard Belzer is an idiot, and you'd do well to avoid HuffPo in the future, because let me tell you, it's full of idiots.

Can you list more examples of the Huffington Post's writers acting idiotically?

[Gullible Jones]

Yes. And yes. And yes. And... yes.

There are plenty of decent-looking articles on there to be sure, but there's also quite a bit of crap.

[SirNitram]

Worst part is, since HuffPo has yet to dedicate an entire article to the fact Hillary decided to wear a pantsuit, or put on it's front page that Obama went to a Madrassa long after that lie was crushed, it's still more credible than the Washington Post.

But Bush's government isn't fascism. It's a unique malady, but built of the basic parts of all arch-conservatism: Establishment of an aristocracy, using jingoism and religion to engender loyalty, and war for the profit of corporate friends.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

But Bush's government isn't fascism. It's a unique malady, but built of the basic parts of all arch-conservatism: Establishment of an aristocracy, using jingoism and religion to engender loyalty, and war for the profit of corporate friends.

I think our primary failing here is the simple inability to find out exactly what to call Bush Authoritarianism simply because while it isn't Mussolini-fascism or Stalinism or Nazism, it borrows elements from all statist authoritarian governments that ever existed. It leads us to cast about applying terms that fit a few salient points well but fail congruence to the whole. One example of this is the corporate socialism and superiority of corporations over regular citizens that lead to the 'Fascism' label.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But Bush's government isn't fascism. It's a unique malady, but built of the basic parts of all arch-conservatism: Establishment of an aristocracy, using jingoism and religion to engender loyalty, and war for the profit of corporate friends.

I think our primary failing here is the simple inability to find out exactly what to call Bush Authoritarianism simply because while it isn't Mussolini-fascism or Stalinism or Nazism, it borrows elements from all statist authoritarian governments that ever existed. It leads us to cast about applying terms that fit a few salient points well but fail congruence to the whole. One example of this is the corporate socialism and superiority of corporations over regular citizens that lead to the 'Fascism' label.

Except those corporations have nothing to do with modern corporations, Einy. They really don't. The corporations of the fascist state are actually the best quality of a fascist state, whereas the corporations of the modern state are its worst. In a fascist state, corporations are organized bodies of people doing similar things, where the corporation is more or less a guild to support their interests and direct their function as part of a society, and manage collectively their work and the marketing of their products.

[K. A. Pital]

In a fascist state, corporations are organized bodies of people doing similar things, where the corporation is more or less a guild to support their interests

You mean fascist corporations like Krupp, Mercedes, Messershmidt, Junkers, who used slave labour and were instrumental in beginning a new world war, who ressurected the German heavy industry with the goal of using it as a war machine?

Sorry, but I can't feel the sympathy. I'd choose fucking Halliburton over Krupp any day as the lesser evil.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In a fascist state, corporations are organized bodies of people doing similar things, where the corporation is more or less a guild to support their interests

You mean fascist corporations like Krupp, Mercedes, Messershmidt, Junkers, who used slave labour and were instrumental in beginning a new world war, who ressurected the German heavy industry with the goal of using it as a war machine?

Sorry, but I can't feel the sympathy. I'd choose fucking Halliburton over Krupp any day as the lesser evil.

No, none of those are examples of a fascist corporation. Furthermore, Nazism had numerous distinctions from Italian Fascism which frankly make the cross-application of the term inappropriate.

More to the point, the Nazi formula of massive corporations run in junction with the government while remaining nominally private is the exact opposite of the Distributivist state common among Corporatist thinkers in early 20th century Europe, where, as G.K. Chesterton put it, "To much capitalism does not mean to many capitalists, but to few". In short, that the means of production should be owned by as many people as possible in society, people who through membership in guilds and other trade organizations can out-power the concentrated capitalists, where the state intentionally breaks up the later, and encourages the former.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

An excellent example of the sort of Corporation that we're talking about is the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation in the Basque Country, formed in 1941 to help the region recover from the Spanish Civil War by a local priest. The cooperative has its own government of a 650 member Co-operative Congress, with delegates elected from across the individual co-operatives. It consists of 150 businesses, its own charter vehicle service, a full 4,000 student private university, a credit union, on the job training services, and their own Ikastola, Basque-language private schools.

[The Yosemite Bear]

My perfered nickname for it is "Banana Republicanim"

[Elfdart]

No, none of those are examples of a fascist corporation. Furthermore, Nazism had numerous distinctions from Italian Fascism which frankly make the cross-application of the term inappropriate.

And no true Scotsman puts ketchup on his haggis.

More to the point, the Nazi formula of massive corporations run in junction with the government while remaining nominally private is the exact opposite of the Distributivist state common among Corporatist thinkers in early 20th century Europe, where, as G.K. Chesterton put it, "To much capitalism does not mean to many capitalists, but to few". In short, that the means of production should be owned by as many people as possible in society, people who through membership in guilds and other trade organizations can out-power the concentrated capitalists, where the state intentionally breaks up the later, and encourages the former.

What Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, Galtieri and Dick Vader believed in had nothing to do with guilds and unions providing a check on corporate power. All of them were openly hostile to unions. They also didn't much care for the idea of shareholders curbing the power of the very corporations in which they owned stock. Shareholders' rights were gutted or done away with entirely, including the Republitards granting corporate boards immunity from shareholder lawsuits.

Chesterson believed in that kind of thing, so what? The subject is fascism, which includes (among other things described ba Lawrence Britt, Umberto Eco and others) corporate control and co-opting of the state.

Fascism

[Battlehymn Republic]

Yeah, but isn't the very word "corporate" different in two contexts? One means a private business which is all about making money, the other- the fascist term- is different. Corporatism is a different thing from corporatocracy, which I think people are thinking of. Bush's America is closer to cyberpunktopia than Hiterland in terms of corporations.

And is that Mike Malloy? Blurg.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, but isn't the very word "corporate" different in two contexts? One means a private business which is all about making money, the other- the fascist term- is different.

Really? So people don't go around ranting how much useful social work corporate giants do, how they constitute the strength of American economy, etc. etc.? Because you know, in fascist state, the goal of corporations was largely the same: profit. In fact the militant, jew-exterminating state was rather attractive for investment that many American corporations assisted Hitlerian Germany. Germany's own corporations were profit machines as well. Large government orders were objects of competition just as the common market was. What difference is there between German Junkers and American Boeing? Similar corporations, both compete for common market and huge government contracts, both are involved in the military-industrial complex.

Except one fact which makes German ones damnable, use of slaves. So far I don't see US corporations behaving that way, although those who made their hands dirty in the invasion of Iraq might have really nasty shit up their sleeves.

More to the point, the Nazi formula of massive corporations run in junction with the government while remaining nominally private is the exact opposite of the Distributivist state common among Corporatist thinkers in early 20th century Europe

I think there's great similarity, especially for industrial corporations of today. So what did you want to say? And "nominally private"? Fucking Krupp profiteered massively on every dead slave, his company is one of the industrial leaders in Germany today. How the fuck is that "nominally"?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The Duchess is using the correct terminology. The Fascist corporate state did not directly refer to business entities only--corporations in the modern sense. Corporate entities could be any corporate body (think of a guild). Corporation in their sense meant a body or group.

The "merger of state and corporate power" does not itself mean the blending of business and government. In Fascist theory, each group would be sanctioned by the State and have representation in the fascist government: a type of council for each group would exist which, as was already pointed out, regulated, dealt with those particular groups.

In practice, however, the relationship between actual business corporations was strong, as they tended to be important, wealthy, and useful for the Fascist state. They often had power disproportionate to other corporate groups. In most senses, even with these businesses, the "power" was for show and the real master was the state itself, and Corrupt business interests went along for the ride, but primarily were in the service of the state's ultimate goals. This "reality" sometimes produced practical results that seem like modern corporatism, though, as business entities were given benefits, special treatment, etc.

So it's a little bit of both. Different in theory, overlapping in reality.

Note*

Mussolini's actual term was "Corporativism," which is different from modern Corporatism, but sometimes, in actual practice, there was some overlap and you might not be able to tell the difference from the outside.

[Battlehymn Republic]

That's what I'm getting at. The "corporate" in fascism refers to purely theoretical entities. In theory, fascism would have council/guild things for different interest groups. This doesn't refer to private corporations necessarily.

And again, I think when most people are thinking of the current mess, they're thinking of a situation where the corporations rule/have undue influence over the state. That would be a corporatocracy, something out of cyberpunk. Not fascism, where corporations are cronies to the state, but also under the iron heel of the state as well.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Fucking Krupp profiteered massively on every dead slave, his company is one of the industrial leaders in Germany today. How the fuck is that "nominally"?

I didn't see this when I posted, so sorry for the double post.

What is meant by the comment is that, in their State, businesses profited, but were ultimately at the whim of the state. The Nazis kept them private only insofar as they complied by themselves. Think of imperial worlds allowed to remain independent, run themselves. The relationship could be mutually beneficial in that regard. A does what B wants, A stays independent. Its good for A, but leaves them nominally independent. That was the reality of many of the Fascist states. They held their thumb over a group which was "independent."

No excuse for what they did at all, but that's what it means. A group ultimately under someone's thumb can still profit massively from the master.

[K. A. Pital]

The Nazis kept them private only insofar as they complied by themselves.

The Nazis did not infringe on private property of the German capitalist, neither big nor small. Yes, the corporate structures have meant other things as well, not just business groups, but the union of industrial capitalists was instrumental in bringing to power, and uniting the fascist state, and even pushing it to war. Similarity to modern days is not merely superficial; there are representatives of other groups in the US system, but interests of corporations are disproportionately more powerful; a union of corporate industrialists has been able to contribute to the massive plot known as the "War in Iraq" with the same goal as Nazi industrialists, profit. Just as corporate sponsors help American right-wingers rise to power.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The Nazis did not infringe on private property of the German capitalist, neither big nor small.

I never said they actually took their property. I said they were independent, but ultimately had to tow the line of the State. They could make massive profits, but were ultimately beholden to the State's political agenda. The system allowed control and independence to co-exist, but don't think for a second that the businesses could thumb their noses at the Nazis or the Fascists and still be allowed to exist. If you didn't tow the line, you wouldn't be independent for long.

For instance, from Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism" when he discusses corportavism, he writes: "The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organization of production is a function of national concern, the organizer of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.

State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management"

It's just the theoretical I was getting out in regards to Fascist Corporativism. In theory, the Fascist government directed all the different corporate entities who were independent if they did what the State wanted, said and could supply it with its needs, or were ideologically correct. If the State's political interests conflicted, and you were that business, then you would either conform, do what you're told, or be sent up shit creek. I agree with you in several respects outlined below:

Yes, the corporate structures have meant other things as well, not just business groups, but the union of industrial capitalists was instrumental in bringing to power, and uniting the fascist state, and even pushing it to war.

True. Business entities were important in practice, as I said, and the benefit was often mutual, and they had far disproportionate power compared to any other group. The business interests who stood to profit from Nazism and war policy joined ranks. Some were also quite enthused with the anti-jew policy, because it eliminated competition. I agree with you that business interests were often closely tied to the Nazi government: they both often benefited.

Similarity to modern days is not merely superficial; there are representatives of other groups in the US system, but interests of corporations are disproportionately more powerful; a union of corporate industrialists has been able to contribute to the massive plot known as the "War in Iraq" with the same goal as Nazi industrialists, profit. Just as corporate sponsors help American right-wingers rise to power.

I was just expanding on the general concept of corporativism. The inherent concept is not the same as modern corporatism, but fascism and business, as you mention, often had a similar practical relationship in terms of mutual benefits and support.

[K. A. Pital]

I agree with your points mostly.

The system allowed control and independence to co-exist, but don't think for a second that the businesses could thumb their noses at the Nazis or the Fascists and still be allowed to exist. If you didn't tow the line, you wouldn't be independent for long.

Why would an industrial magnate go against a system which protects his interest, his private property on capital and the ability to profit?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I don't believe he would. The relationship was often enthusiastic and mutually beneficial. It's all just hypothetical control, like a carrot'n'stick. The industrial capitalists probably wouldn't have. But they didn't have the free option to ignore nazi political policy/ideology anyway if they did choose to.

There were some who countermanded nazi policy, while still profiting, but they did it in secret for fear they would be found out and lose their business (Oscar Schindler is one example). It would be unwise, to say the least, to try publically.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: the way it was taught to me was that in conventional Fascism, the State as ultimate control, but shares profits, rewards with other corporate bodies, including industrial capitalists, benefiting them...if it benefits the state.

Today, we have businesses buying government, so the power to an extent goes the opposite direction, or they actively have "people" in power who are actually for business interests that are outside the benefit of the nation/state.

[Zablorg]

Gawd, I get so sick of people whining about fascism. You fucking know it's gone out of hand when people call the director of Starship Troopers of being fascist.

Wasn't the message kind of the opposite? It was a movie about fascism to be sure, but the fascist government was portrayed as very disturbing. I know I wouldn't want kids being raised in such an environment.

[Elfdart]

All this masturbation on Fascist theory is irrelevant, and haggling over just what kind of "corporations" Il Duce had in mind is not only semantics-whoring, but No True Scotsman Territory as well. We know from what Mussolini, Hitler, et al did that fascism is an incestuous relationship between big business and the state, along with other things like nationalism, bigotry, jingoism, misogyny etc.

All of which describe the Cheney-Bush Junta, their partners in crime, and their willing executioners to a T. Is it an exact copy of the Reich? Of Franco's Spain? Of Mussolini's Italy? No, but it's close enough that it belongs in the same genus in much the same way that the jackass, horse and zebra are members of Equus. In other words, if the jackboot fits, wear it.

[K. A. Pital]

Today, we have businesses buying government, so the power to an extent goes the opposite direction, or they actively have "people" in power who are actually for business interests that are outside the benefit of the nation/state.

So in the facist tandem of huge corporations and their corrupt state administration allies corporations gain the upper hand? Little wonder given the huge mass of wealth they amassed. As long as their interests and tose of the political elite coincide (and why would they not?), the union does exhibit many traits of fascism.