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

[brianeyci]

I don't know man. It's only a no-true-scotsman fallacy if there is no accepted definition of facism: but there is. Mainly, ask a historian what facism is, and it refers almost specifically to Mussolini and Hitler. The defining traits they taught in high school were:

• ultra-nationalism: usually talking about "restoration" of an Empire, like the African Empire of Rome or Germany's restoration of its pre-WWI glory.
• militarism: centered around worship and rule of one man, employing huge military celebrations and specifically the hand salute moving into everyday life.

Now certainly you can say that the US government is partly facist, or approaching facism, but is it truly facist and corporations truly facist just because they share a common goal of profit and favor the corporation, whatever that means? No. It's as bad as saying freedom is authority.

SirNitram is right, this is a huge stretch, made by non-scholars and people looking to cause sensationalism. Bush is... unique.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't know man. It's only a no-true-scotsman fallacy if there is no accepted definition of facism: but there is. Mainly, ask a historian what facism is, and it refers almost specifically to Mussolini and Hitler. The defining traits they taught in high school were:

• ultra-nationalism: usually talking about "restoration" of an Empire, like the African Empire of Rome or Germany's restoration of its pre-WWI glory.
• militarism: centered around worship and rule of one man, employing huge military celebrations and specifically the hand salute moving into everyday life.

Now certainly you can say that the US government is partly facist, or approaching facism, but is it truly facist and corporations truly facist just because they share a common goal of profit and favor the corporation, whatever that means? No. It's as bad as saying freedom is authority.

SirNitram is right, this is a huge stretch, made by non-scholars and people looking to cause sensationalism. Bush is... unique.

The best part is that almost all fascist regimes were enormously opposed to laissez-faire capitalism which remains the primary raison d'etre of the Bush administration.

At any rate, in the ideal, the Corporativist system or Integralist system looks like this: The Recuperada movement in Argentina, which is really a truly marvelous example of human ingenuity and rightness in action, and an idea and concept I only wish I could port over to the sick, sick American current business world. It is certainly the way of the future as the modern western economies collapse in the near future, the government's obsession with the big money men be damned.

[Battlehymn Republic]

I think fascism, like libertarianism and communism, is a really abstract idea that has been implemented in different ways, with none of them really becoming anything like the theoretical ideal. And there are so many competing theories, you can't really get a solid definition of fascism.

What you can do is to list out the mainly accepted tenets of fascism, and then try to form a rough aggregate model from there. That's the solution to the No True Scotsmen Fallacy. But I agree with Duchess; the corporatism of fascism (at least Mussolini's Italian flavor) isn't the thing that resembles Bushmerica. What you're looking for is cyberpunkish corporatocracy.

Personally, I think the whole line of calling the U.S. "fascist" because of the fascist belief in "corporatism" is as lame as calling the Nazis commies because of the word "socialism" in "national socialism." I hope that wasn't the golden mean right there.

[Darth Wong]

The defining traits they taught in high school were:

• ultra-nationalism: usually talking about "restoration" of an Empire, like the African Empire of Rome or Germany's restoration of its pre-WWI glory.
• militarism: centered around worship and rule of one man, employing huge military celebrations and specifically the hand salute moving into everyday life.

"Plan For a New American Century" and "God is in the White House" may not be quite as extreme as Mussolini and Hitler, but the basic elements are there: nationalist fervour, militarism, etc. I don't see any reason why the public spectacle and specific hand gestures are necessary for the definition of fascism; modern audiences have TV, which has replaced the huge public parade as a way of bringing the population together under a common flag-waving motif. New technology and new means of motivating the mob do not mean that the basic idea of fascism is not still present.

Let's be more specific: the modern American conservative movement preaches endlessly about how American has fallen from its glory days, or to be more specific, the 1950s. Virtually all social conservative and even much of neo-conservative thought revolves around this singular passion to restore the period of America's greatest world dominance, ie- the 1950s. That fits your first criterion almost perfectly.

The second one is not quite as good, but one cannot seriously deny that there is a cult of militarism right now in the United States. The President continually refers to himself as "Commander in Chief" even when addressing civilians, and virtually any depredation upon the American public is considered acceptable if the military wants it. As stated before, the lack of huge public military parades and ritualistic hand gestures is not exactly pivotal to the definition, especially given the changes in political rhetoric technique.

The various arguments about economic theory strike me as irrelevant, although I think it's noteworthy that fascist governments generally find a way to enrich a small elite class (ie- themselves and their friends), and under the Bush Administration, the top 1% of wealthy people in America have expanded their grasp even further than before. Again, not a precise match, but not an entirely unreasonable one either.

[brianeyci]

I think you got me on the first one. I was going to say, America didn't really dominate the world in the 50's, and arguably they had no Empire. But neither did Mussolini or Hitler... it was all hyped up.

The second point about technology changing the rhetorical tactics... I'm not sure if I agree. Television to me seems like a sedative, not a rallying call for the masses. I am not sure how Americans use their televisions, but it seems to me they would rather change the channel than watch Bush's painful speeches. You are right that the type of ritual is unimportant, but there has to be a ritual, specifically a ritual which can mobilize the whole population to make huge sacrifices for the nation. I can't imagine the average American consumer sacrificing anything, at least not willingly. Dawkins even said that religious rock concerts reminded him of the Neuremburg rallies, but the majority of Americans wouldn't want to and don't go to religious rock concerts. Americans are still highly individualistic, and the point about militarism has as much to do with civilians pretending to be military and becoming clones of the establishment as it does real military.

I will agree that there are elements of fascism in America, but I'm not prepared to call America fascist. Or else we might as well call the Soviet Union or Margaret Thatcher etc., fascist, and the term becomes useless. Degree does matter, and until I see Americans swearing an oath of personal loyalty to a specific President, it's not fascist. Authoritarianism is a more suitable term.

[Darth Wong]

I think you got me on the first one. I was going to say, America didn't really dominate the world in the 50's, and arguably they had no Empire. But neither did Mussolini or Hitler... it was all hyped up.

The second point about technology changing the rhetorical tactics... I'm not sure if I agree. Television to me seems like a sedative, not a rallying call for the masses. I am not sure how Americans use their televisions, but it seems to me they would rather change the channel than watch Bush's painful speeches.

I'm not talking about Bush's speeches. They're almost incidental, and rarely used in relation to the daily media onslaught besieging the typical voter. Modern rhetorical technique has moved beyond that. The modern method of exploiting the passions of the masses is Rush Limbaugh, FOXNews, John Gibson, etc. A cabal of right-wing "personalities", all saying the same things, all reading the same script, all affiliated with the same party. People call in to agree with them, and in the most eerie scene, they congregate around lunch tables in factory cafeterias across the nation, where they literally spout right-wing talking points verbatim as if they are their own words.

You are right that the type of ritual is unimportant, but there has to be a ritual, specifically a ritual which can mobilize the whole population to make huge sacrifices for the nation. I can't imagine the average American consumer sacrificing anything, at least not willingly. Dawkins even said that religious rock concerts reminded him of the Neuremburg rallies, but the majority of Americans wouldn't want to and don't go to religious rock concerts. Americans are still highly individualistic, and the point about militarism has as much to do with civilians pretending to be military and becoming clones of the establishment as it does real military.

Frankly, American individualism stops cold when the subject of America's military might and military apparatus comes up. American individualism is overrated in that way.

I will agree that there are elements of fascism in America, but I'm not prepared to call America fascist. Or else we might as well call the Soviet Union or Margaret Thatcher etc., fascist, and the term becomes useless. Degree does matter, and until I see Americans swearing an oath of personal loyalty to a specific President, it's not fascist. Authoritarianism is a more suitable term.

Is the term not already useless if it is so narrowly defined that it can almost never be used? Many people feel that "fascism" and "authoritarianism" are very similar terms anyway.

[K. A. Pital]

I am not sure how Americans use their televisions, but it seems to me they would rather change the channel than watch Bush's painful speeches.

Now, when Bush failed. But how many listened to his endless rants after 9/11 and during the Iraq invasion, and similar rants on TV which hyped up the entire thing, then character assassinated any opposition to Bush, massively lambasting "liberal traitors"? I agree that America is not outright fascist but pervasive elements of that order creep in and quite probably are here to stay.

[Battlehymn Republic]

But if you're going to reduce fascism to just a government that has extreme nationalism and militarism, how would that make it any different from military dictatorship, authoritarianism, autocracy, and so on?

And it's not just the U.S. If Franco was a fascist, was the mellower Salazar one too? Was Peron one, or was his Integralism just some kind of populist authoritarianism that incorporated ideas from both the right and left. Was Pinochet's regime fascist, or was it just a tyrannous junta? And if so, doesn't that mean most of all governments in antiquity were basically "fascist?" And hell, the Soviet Union had militarism and extreme devotion to the nation as well.

Sure it's semantics, but semantics are important, dammit.

[brianeyci]

I'm not talking about Bush's speeches. They're almost incidental, and rarely used in relation to the daily media onslaught besieging the typical voter. Modern rhetorical technique has moved beyond that. The modern method of exploiting the passions of the masses is Rush Limbaugh, FOXNews, John Gibson, etc. A cabal of right-wing "personalities", all saying the same things, all reading the same script, all affiliated with the same party. People call in to agree with them, and in the most eerie scene, they congregate around lunch tables in factory cafeterias across the nation, where they literally spout right-wing talking points verbatim as if they are their own words.

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

Do people really do that?

I don't work yet so I haven't seen it, and I'm not forced to hang around conservotards. But if it's as effective as you say it is, I'll have to modernize my definition of propaganda and indoctrination.

[K. A. Pital]

But if you're going to reduce fascism to just a government that has extreme nationalism and militarism, how would that make it any different from military dictatorship, authoritarianism, autocracy, and so on?

Not only. Fascism is both a social structure, an economic structure, and a political structure. The US has some of those exhibiting fascist traits, while other do not. Because of the three-component image of fascism, it can't be confused with capitalist democracies, socialist autocracies, communist autocracies or other types of society.

And yes, the US is not fascism, but fascism is closer to the US structure than to other states' structures for example in Europe.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Okay. There are some points that can be agreed upon yet. But the "lolzors corporatism" issue still annoys me, because it's as grating as the right-wing assertion that the Nazis were leftist socialists because of their name.

[SirNitram]

To hell with the economics; the weak link to me seems to be the attempt(Quite blatantly) to establish an aristocracy. It's not as in-your-face as most would expect; no one's crowning their kids(Though the attempt to establish a Bush dynasty does hint at it; and yes, still word of another one running someday. Barmy.), but one need only look at 'think tanks' as the next-generation of buying a comission.

A whole generation seems to have sprung up in the modern conservative movement, who were spoon-fed this as children, had it battered in as teenagers, rallied for it as young adults, and moved into either writing books or drawing exceptional pay at 'think tanks' pushing the same tired old ideas.

Anyone remember the Regenery 'scam', where tens of thousands of books were shifted through shell companies, to artificially drop-kick conservative authors onto the Bestsellers lists? This is what clinches it as an aristocracy: Once the new generation of the envisioned conservative 'ruling class' has been indoctorined, shield them from the nasty free market and ensure them a steady paycheck. And of course, keep the masses inundated.

I'm not very political savvy, but this strikes me as less Fascist and more good old fashioned medieval. If it's not driven by blood relation but by idealogies, does it matter?

[DavidEC]

A few fundamental tenets of fascism, no free speech, no free movement, no free religion, no free assembly, secret police yada yada (and backed up by force or law, i.e. midnight visits, violence, etc) have yet to be introduced wholesale into the United States and until that, she has worrying aspects of fascism, but is not fascist. Perhaps I have to go there to get a bead on things.

[Elfdart]

Anyone remember the Regenery 'scam', where tens of thousands of books were shifted through shell companies, to artificially drop-kick conservative authors onto the Bestsellers lists? This is what clinches it as an aristocracy: Once the new generation of the envisioned conservative 'ruling class' has been indoctorined, shield them from the nasty free market and ensure them a steady paycheck. And of course, keep the masses inundated.

The bookselling scam is just the modern mass-media version of the Gentleman's "C", where a not-too-bright student was given a grade he didn't earn because daddy was an alum. Now you have Republitards who have written more books than they've ever read on the bestseller lists because right-wing foundations buy their little tomes in bulk.

[K. A. Pital]

A few fundamental tenets of fascism, no free speech, no free movement, no free religion, no free assembly, secret police yada yada

Indeed those are important points, but not all of them are characteristics of fascism.

Yes, no free speech is important. But the means by which it is established in fascism are somewhat similar to the US situation. Remember, Fascism can allow for private media (not "free media"), but they would be singing in tune with the fascists since their owners, the magnates, would be involved in establishing the Fascist state in the first place. Other media may be first marginalized, before being outright extinquished.

Fascism can allow for freedom of religion, but usually it's limited to several religions that the fascist consider valuable. However, most if not all prominent fascists were anti-secular - Mussolini, Hitler and perhaps the most striking example, Franco, united the clergy with their movement (Franco's rule had arguably the worst consequences for secularism among all fascist movements).

Also, fascism does allow free movement, if you mean travelling both inside the country and abroad, as far as I can see.

Secret police is an important feature; however, we could see the US having a similar feature with the intelligence angencies affairs.

Of course, all of those features in the US are not as strong as in fullblown fascism (although intelligence agencies and their torture and mind-altering methods, developed from the 50s but only massively used in the recent history of US without much concern for legalities, really do resemble practices of fascism).

[DavidEC]

Yes, no free speech is important. But the means by which it is established in fascism are somewhat similar to the US situation. Remember, Fascism can allow for private media (not "free media"), but they would be singing in tune with the fascists since their owners, the magnates, would be involved in establishing the Fascist state in the first place. Other media may be first marginalized, before being outright extinquished.

In terms of its technical operation, yes it remains private, but in political terms it remains private only in a shallow sense. However, to enforce the correct tune to sing, what surer method remains but the secret police?

Note that fascism is not the only one to do this, but I cannot envision a fascist state with serious freedom of speech. If the US is fascist, then it is profoundly lacklustre in its energy; the worst you can accuse it of is abuses by the FCC, cartellisation of news outlets and so on but it hasn't come to systematic violence yet.

Of course, other methods employed by fascism - propaganda and shouting down of opinions - are also present to some degree in the United States. Nevertheless a country in which opinion polls are regularly published showing 30% approval ratings is doing a very poor job of destroying freedom of speech.

Obviously the foundations are laid by non-violent action but ultimately there has to be the terror of the boot stamping down on the face.

Fascism can allow for freedom of religion, but usually it's limited to several religions that the fascist consider valuable.

Thus destroying the essential point, which is individual choice, and subverting it to the state's ends.

However, most if not all prominent fascists were anti-secular - Mussolini, Hitler and perhaps the most striking example, Franco, united the clergy with their movement (Franco's rule had arguably the worst consequences for secularism among all fascist movements).

Also, fascism does allow free movement, if you mean travelling both inside the country and abroad, as far as I can see.

Sorry I don't know why I mentioned that. Conceded. I was on a silly roll mentioning 'freedom of' things.

Secret police is an important feature; however, we could see the US having a similar feature with the intelligence angencies affairs.

Outside the United States? Definitely, especially considering the shit done in the name of fighting communism. Inside? Not so sure.

Of course, all of those features in the US are not as strong as in fullblown fascism

I think they're stronger at different levels and places in American society. Anti-atheist sentiment is obviously strong in the US Senate and major-level US politics where no Senator is a self-admitted atheist, and where secularists atheists are publicly derided by the Romneys and Bush 41s of the world and in opinion polls stating 'no atheist, even well-qualified, for president'. However, on the Internet, plenty of Americans are openly atheist without fear of reprisal, unless I'm massively missing something here. There are obvious geographical divisions as well.

(although intelligence agencies and their torture and mind-altering methods, developed from the 50s but only massively used in the recent history of US without much concern for legalities, really do resemble practices of fascism).

However, they don't seem to be applied systematically enough to the US population itself, if at all. I'm not saying it's okay to torture foreigners but the US instances of this are not so much fascist as they are simple imperialism, and misguidedly jockeying to protect their interests.

Fascism to my mind must include a major element of forcibly subordinating everyone to the state and ideology, and it makes sense that you would start with your own citizens first.

[SirNitram]

Anyone remember the Regenery 'scam', where tens of thousands of books were shifted through shell companies, to artificially drop-kick conservative authors onto the Bestsellers lists? This is what clinches it as an aristocracy: Once the new generation of the envisioned conservative 'ruling class' has been indoctorined, shield them from the nasty free market and ensure them a steady paycheck. And of course, keep the masses inundated.

The bookselling scam is just the modern mass-media version of the Gentleman's "C", where a not-too-bright student was given a grade he didn't earn because daddy was an alum. Now you have Republitards who have written more books than they've ever read on the bestseller lists because right-wing foundations buy their little tomes in bulk.

And from such those books go out into the world and spread the word. Power, placed in the hands of those loyal. All they need is a little ceremony and it'd be feudalism.

[K. A. Pital]

If the US is fascist, then it is profoundly lacklustre in its energy; the worst you can accuse it of is abuses by the FCC, cartellisation of news outlets and so on but it hasn't come to systematic violence yet.

Yes, this is an element which could become batshit fascist, but has not. Simple marginalization of oppositionary media seemed to suffice in 2001, 2002, 2003. Then the fuckup of Bush became too great to be just ignored, and opposition media were not supressed; this contributed not only to a change of public opinion, but to pathetically low ratings for the government.

Thus destroying the essential point, which is individual choice, and subverting it to the state's ends.

Actually many religions are favouring such methods, so it's not a great wonder fascism makes a contract with the major denominations, but stamps out the others. The "contractor" religions of course approve

Outside the United States? Definitely, especially considering the shit done in the name of fighting communism. Inside? Not so sure.

Actually I'm not talking about 1950-1990, but about 2001-2007. The US has used a mechanism of foreign prisons and extrajudicial torture facilities in Eastern Europe, Middle East (Egypt, Syria). This mechanism was set up exactly for US citizens to be smuggled out of country and then detained and interrogated, I suppose, otherwise why care and not just torture them inside the US? Isn't that so?

And as for 1950s, there's also some stuff - project MK-ULTRA immediately comes to mind.

Fascism to my mind must include a major element of forcibly subordinating everyone to the state and ideology, and it makes sense that you would start with your own citizens first.

The US does this to a certain extent through the media, etc. but of course it's not the classic fascism.

I wonder if there'd be classic fascism in major powers anyway. The media is more advanced, but also holds a far greater power over the population.

You could use "soft subjugation" measures and be dandy fine. No need to go fullblown fascist to achieve imperialist ends - after all, there were imperialist countries which had a not fascist inner structure.

[DavidEC]

Yes, this is an element which could become batshit fascist, but has not. Simple marginalization of oppositionary media seemed to suffice in 2001, 2002, 2003.

Note the methods, though; were they as violent as the classic fascists, and how much of it was the state's doing and how much of it was popular opinion? If the former then I think fascism is a more appropriate label to communicate the process's deliberate, conscious suppression. The latter may achieve the same result but through what you term well 'soft subjugation'.

Regardless, the downturn of Bush's fortunes post-2004 - to put it mildly - shows soft methods to be insufficient, at least in that situation.

Actually many religions are favouring such methods, so it's not a great wonder fascism makes a contract with the major denominations, but stamps out the others. The "contractor" religions of course approve

Easy bedfellows, I suppose.

Actually I'm not talking about 1950-1990, but about 2001-2007. The US has used a mechanism of foreign prisons and extrajudicial torture facilities in Eastern Europe, Middle East (Egypt, Syria). This mechanism was set up exactly for US citizens to be smuggled out of country and then detained and interrogated, I suppose, otherwise why care and not just torture them inside the US? Isn't that so?

US citizens? I've obviously heard of all and sundry terror suspects being shuffled around, but I admit I'm not up-to-date. Are US citizens being systematically stamped on and terrorised for a wide variety of anti-state opinions?

The fascists of old had it in for everyone but themselves, unless they were confronted by other powerful institutions. (Ref. Mussolini's change of platform from 1919 to 1921, generally becoming more right-wing in recognition of Italy's powerful religious and industrial interests.)

The US does this to a certain extent through the media, etc. but of course it's not the classic fascism.

No, it's something more insidious and subtle in its emphasis on manipulation. Just looking at the parades, rallies, symbolism and so on and I get a sense of self-conscious, public in-your-face brutality absent from the new version, which is sufficiently different to warrant a new label from classic fascism. Perhaps Soft Fascism or 'Fascism-lite', or 'McFascism'.

I wonder if there'd be classic fascism in major powers anyway. The media is more advanced, but also holds a far greater power over the population.

I think one significant point is the Internet. The resistance movements of the past could only communicate haltingly and extremely dangerously with a small circle of fellows, but the Internet allows more anonymity and a wider audience. Certainly, I can't think of a mechanism with similar reach and power in the old days. It should provide at least one bulwark against fascism, and one nice example is this very conversation, thread, and forum.

You could use "soft subjugation" measures and be dandy fine. No need to go fullblown fascist to achieve imperialist ends

If you have a suitably pliable population then yes, that works; however, how do you deal with a stubborn and resourceful minority? I'm not saying the police will completely solve that problem but they will at least drive them underground.

- after all, there were imperialist countries which had a not fascist inner structure.

Yep.

[SirNitram]

Why is the assumption that it's less violent imply that it's not Fascism, as opposed to merely a more evolved and insidious version of the same end goals?

[DavidEC]

a) Assumption?

b) Looking at the commonly held historical examples, they all have violence and brutality in method, and also in ideology. (Celebrating violence and war for its own sake, for example.) I admit that 'historical examples' is difficult to define, but for argument's sake take the pinnacles, of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

It depends: Do you think method matters?

[SirNitram]

a) Assumption?

b) Looking at the commonly held historical examples, they all have violence and brutality in method, and also in ideology. (Celebrating violence and war for its own sake, for example.) I admit that 'historical examples' is difficult to define, but for argument's sake take the pinnacles, of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

It depends: Do you think method matters?

I worded that poorly: The assumption is that the lack of violence compared to Germany and Italy's Fascist governments means no government using non-violent methods could be fascist.

And I think the method matters, but that's a black/white fallacy. What matters is dissent is suppressed. That it moved to a nonviolent method merely shows that they can gain the results(A minimized opposition), gaining none of the troublesome backlash from violence.

The idea that you have to be brutal against your own citizenry to fetishize war is one of the most blatantly stupid things I've ever seen, I should note.

[Darth Wong]

Looking at the commonly held historical examples, they all have violence and brutality in method, and also in ideology. (Celebrating violence and war for its own sake, for example.)

Umm, Americans do celebrate violence and war. It's woven into their culture.

As for the change in American public opinion about Bush, I think that's the biggest disconnect between Hitler/Mussolini and Bush. Those guys really did wield enormous personal power. Bush, on the other hand, is merely the figurehead for an aristocratic business elite which really runs the country. Change in media coverage and public opinion just happened to coincide with that particular class of people recognizing that this war was not benefiting them as well as they had hoped.

[xerex]

corporatism doesnt mean corporation ie company it means something closer to a chamber of commerce or a trade union. but including all levels of a particular economic sector

basically think if a trade union were to include management in it. and then legislative representatives were elected via economic sector rather than geography. Senators for Steelworkers, Teachers ,Baseball players instead of Iowa or NY.

[Gullible Jones]

Of course, when you get down to it, we're arguing semantics. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, and evil is evil.