Actually Clinton was called a fascist too....almost incessantly, usually by the right. I have recognized virtually the exact same messages coming from the left today towards Bush that came under Clinton. Sometimes in the form of identical SPAM e mails which I get today and also received back then, with simply the word Bush replacing the word Clinton.

Clinton fascist

Clinton fascist

Ect.

ect.....

ect.........

The term is used as a simple, "catchy" means to denigrate. Basically any nation you might pick, no matter how free, has some element of a few of the aforementioned 14 characteristics. People see what they want to see.

This thread – or my contributions to it, at least - are fast becoming and exercise in baning one's head against a brick wall. Those who see a trend toward fascism in the US will continue to do so; those denying that there is such a trend will continue to do so. But I did want to correct a couple of inaccuracies and/or misunderstadings arising from my posts.


It wasn't intended to. It was intended to be an ironic epigraph - which is what it was.


Your links concern Osama bin Laden, not the Taliban. Osama bin Laden's organization is called al-Qaeda. The Taliban was the ruling organization in Afghanistan, headed by Mullah Omar. While al-Qaeda and the Taliban may have had some ideological overlap, they are not the same organization by any stretch of the imagination. The Taliban arose from the Harakat-i Inqilab-i Islami faction of the mujahideen, who were financed, trained, and armed by the United States government during the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. No myth here.


It shouldn't. We virtually created the current ruling force in Iran as well. Following the overthrow of the Peacock throne (which we had also installed), the Tudeh party emerged as the dominant political force in Iran and Abolhassan Bani Sadr was the first elected head of state. We helped destabilize Bani Sadr's government and assisted the Khomeinists in this overthrow because the Tudehs were an extreme left-wing party and we thought the Ayatollah would be easier to control. How wrong we were!

But, you are right (as is bucket) that there are a number of fascist regimes that have grown to hate us. But that doesn't mean that we didn't first promote, sponsor, finance, collaborate with, and/or create them. This is called "blowback".


Actually, I was referring to the use of "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party". This could, in fact, be considered part of what Eco refers to as Newspeak among fascists. A real equivalent would be referring to Democrats as socialists. But what you really don't see (as you admit in your most recent post) is anyone shying away from the term - as a meaningless pejorative. What I don't see is people using the term as an accurate, objective, and thoughtful means of describing real political trends in this country. I, for one, do not use the term lightly. You are quite right, though, that many - Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives - do. Lightly and inaccurately.


We reject Capitalism "as we practice it" - or as we once practiced it - and conservatism-which-as-we-know-was-called-liberalism-then. Or, at least our current leadership does. That's what "crony capitalism" is all about. The state and the corporation are becoming increasingly indistinguishable. The United States is ruled by an oligarchy and has been for some time. The days of individualistic economic policy, free enterprise and the small entrepreneur are over. There is a need to use the term "fascism" if one wishes to accurately describe the direction in which the US is headed. But you are quite right that the term is overused and, in most cases, is little more than name-calling. You provided several good examples in your last post.


I don't believe I ever suggested anything to the contrary. Indeed, it is partially because gays in the US have made some small inroads in the human rights arena that there is a growing right-wing reactionary movement gaining power in the states.


You seem, to me, very confused. First, I am not using the terms "conservative" and "fascist" interchangeably. This is not about mere "word variety". But the bulk of your posts demonstrates a real incomprehension of what fascism actually is. Fascism is a right-wing, conservative form of government. Period.To suggest other wise demonstrates nothing but a pure ignorance of the language. No, conservatism is not, by definition, fascistic. But fascism is, by definition, conservative. To even think of socialism - a left-wing system of government – as being fascistic is just wrong.


Uh… since the words entered the language? Fascism is a right-wing movement, socialism is a left-wing movement. But you're right: "fascism" and "socialism" are no more equivalent contrasts than "conservative" and "liberal". But we are not talking about black and white here - we are talking about a continuum. Extreme consevrativism can result in fascism - extreme liberalism can result in Stalinism. I would think it appropriate for some to claim that the New Deal was leaning toward communism or bloshevism because it was part of that continuum. Obviously, it did not go nearly that far. It remains to be seen whether or not the dismantling of the New Deal will head all the way to fascism - but it is definitely leaning that way.


Also, as you apparently are unaware, I have never attributed anything of consequence to George W Bush. He has no political ideals that I've ever been able to discern and "George thinks" is one of the best oxymorons I've ever seen on this site.

Your extreme condescension aside, though – no, I do not believe that the political philosophy of those presidents who may actually have one are necessarily the sole ideals on which our political system is based. I am talking about an overall trend - especially from our current leadership - and that would include the entire Executive branch (those, unlike Bush, who are really in charge), most of the Congressional leadership, a lot of the judiciary, and almost our entire corporate structure - which is our real ruling class. And that trend is toward fascism.


You may also find claims that fire is hot and ice is cold false associations - but that would demonstrate an equally peculiar grasp on the language.


Perhaps what really makes you uncomfortable is not knowing what "fascism" actually is. Maybe you should look into this a bit further then come back to some of the posts here. Once you have a grasp on what "fascism" really means, a lot of this might make more sense. This may sound like my turn to be condescending, but seriously - I really think you are reacting to "fascism" as some hollow pejorative, devoid of meaning. It has a very specific meaning: it is, and always has been, solely and exclusively a conservative system of government.


You seem to be confusing authoritarianism - and even terrorism - with fascism. Yes, fascism is authoritarian and many fascist regimes employ terror, but you are indulging in false analogies here. I will grant you Libya and Iraq to a large degree (and, to a certain extent, Iran) - and, in fact, the US was instrumental in establishing all those regimes. I have already addressed South Korea. Sudan and Syria are not fascist regimes. The PLO and al-Qaeda are not governments and do not even represent a state. A government - or an organization - is not "fascist" just because you dislike it (which seems to be what you are attempting to accuse other of here). A system of government is fascistic if it fits the definition. The US, at the moment, does not. But certain factions within our government, especially our current leadership, are definitely trending in that direction - not because they are conservative, but because of the extremist nature of their conservatism.


No, that would be authoritarianism. Again, you really need to look into the meaning of the word "fascist". I'm not speaking of simply having a photo on one's desk (sorry, I thought you might have been more familiar with US corporate support of the Nazis). I'm speaking pouring millions of dollars into Hitler's regime, of unprecedented support for I.G. Farben and other nazi enterprises, of changing editorial policy in major US papers to support Nazism, of collaborating with Hitler and Mussolini in terms of arms deals and trade in aluminum and steel, of making banking deals to finance the National Socialist Party, of enabling the Nazi war machine. And we are talking about all of this continuing after Pearl harbor, after the US entered the war.This all goes a bit beyond "political thought".

And we are not talking about "some old guy". We are talking about a lot of old guys - many of them the most powerful people in our nation - some more powerful than the president or any member of Congress.


The FACT is that, without US support, most fascist regimes in the world would never have come into power. We supported them because we thought they were anti-communist and/or had good deals with American business. And anyone - anyone - who ostensibly opposed communism or supported US corporations, no matter how heinous, no matter how many human rights they violated, no matter how much torture, how many assassinations, no matter how little freedom of religion or the press or speech - was okay by us. Without US support, it is probable that there would have been no Third Reich - no Franco, no Papadapoulos, no Duvaliers, no Pinochet, no Saddam Hussein. To a very large extent, we are responsible for the current state of the world - and its past fifty or sixty years of history. And we have not pushed that world away from fascism. Quite the opposite. And that's what comes from old guys with photos on their desks.


Who's this "you" to whom you're referring? That's a lot of words to be putting in one person's mouth – with no foundation whatsoever. If you are referring to me, please back up every word of that paragraph with direct quotes or retract it. Thanks.

Meanwhile, I think it's time I retire from this thread. My head is getting sore.

Hoo man... where do I begin?



You're right in that conservatism is not fascistic. You're also right in that fascism is conservative. A government that has a tendency towards being conservative however does not equate to a government that has a tendency towards being fascist. This is what I posted about before: You need to develop some concept of extremity. Saying George Bush, or our country, or any conservative or conservative-aligned body is fascist is like saying that Hillary Clinton, etc, is a communist or communistic.

You're jumping to extremes here. Even if our country or certain prominent members of our government have a right-wing slant, it doesn't mean they're fascistic. This is like the Cold War when people started pointing fingers and calling others communists. Or while we're on the subject, the Salem Witch Trials. Saying our country is fascist is just ridiculous.

With a capital RIDICULOUS.



Bravo. Ever hear the saying, "A square may be a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square?"

It's the same deal here, and just compounds on what I mentioned above. Even if a fascist government is conservative in nature, there is still a fine line between being fascist, and being just conservative. It comes down to extremities, and you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between the appropriate degrees displayed by the two.

I hope I don't contribute to your headache, if you're still reading. I disagree that America is sliding towards fascism, for reasons Mrs. Pigpen summed up nicely:


I think that's right: monolithic state power is anathema to most Americans. Americans don't ask permission before staring clubs, and colleges, and companies. Which brings us to:


I don't see any evidence of the death of small entrepreneurship in these statistics. (It ends on a down note, with a number of firms going out of business between 2001 and 2002, but that was a particularly bad year, not the start of a trend.) More from the Small Business Administration:


Source


I'm glad you mentioned communism here, and that your phrasing "to a very large extent" leaves room for communist countries' imperialism in the history of the past sixty years. An earlier post by quarkhead had America consistently fighting against "self-determination" and "democracy" in places where there was actually another superpower involved in the fight.

But that gets into the question of whether America is imperialist, which is a different question from whether it's fascist. I'll just say that America's support for right-wing dictatorships has dropped off sharply since the demise of the Soviet Union. Fighting against an expansionist, imperialist power like the Soviet Union could be seen as anti-imperialism.

I am intrigued, as well, by Mrs. P's offering. However, I don't think that the opinions of Americans is necessarily important for this discussion. I imagine that MOST Germans under Hitler didn't perceive themselves to be helpless wretches, having lost all self-determination; the helpless subjects of their state. I imagine instead that they saw little change in their daily lives when the National socialist party took over. The changes they did see were good ones. There was a better economy and Germans started believing in themselves after a time of great doubt. Germans surely entered a plethora of enterprises both personall and professionally in that time. They were, however, being monitored. When the great heeled boot finally did come crashing down those who had proven themnselves to be enemies WERE crushed.

Point is, there is no way for us to know if that will not happen here. Our habits can be and often ARE being tracked and monitored. We "feel" free but every American knows that those freedoms can be lost in a minute. There have been plenty of mistaken identities and abuses (accidental I'm sure) of the Patriot Act but we say to ourselves, "It is OK because you only need fear it if you are doing something wrong." I can't find a quote because I saw it in a documentary on Nazi Germany but that is EXACTLY what one woman said was the general consensus about the German government in the '30's and '40's.

This is not to say that we are certainly headed for out and out fascism and a total loss of freedoms. It is simply meant to frame the situation in a different context.
Perhaps, when Mussolini's public heard his slogan "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State" many of them saw it as simple politicking. That is how I see George Bush's repeated claims that the "President's job is to protect the people." simple politicking. Perhaps one day that slogan will be alongside Mussolini's? Perhaps it is just a sales pitch for the war on terror?

Either way it is a loaded statement. And still we enjoy our freedoms in this country... as long as they don't cause any problems.

Let us sit back for a moment and re-think the entire question- because, we are using a semantics argument vs economic argument IMHO-

How are we defining fascist? As an economic system, or a governing system, or both?

I think both facsim and communism, when they become dictatorships, become fuedalist really- and the oligarchy is family power oriented- just like the old kings and nobles.

Wertz and Bucket- I see merit in both your sides-

for instance- Wertz- Stalin, though using the language of communism as propaganda basically set up, in reality, a fuedalistic czarist regime of his own- the basic laws of the land really didn't change, with the exception of items that made sure Stalin stays in power- and interestingly enough- Putin has done the same thing, but more profoundly change the actual economic system. But I digress- since Stalin ruled by :

Oligarchy of powerful supporters that basically controlled industry and the military, military was supreme, and Stalin the supreme military leaders etc- so in reality, if we define fascism as a type of governence, I would say there is an argument to be made that stalin was fascist-

I had to think about this whole question for a couple days, because this type of question fascinates me- this is one of those "how do I categorize the reality of this goverment vs what is the propaganda on both sides saying" type of deals.

I think, fascism, as a utopian state, (Utopian meaning a stable goverment- not heaven or anything) as it was imagined- is a benevolent oligarchy of nice educated businessman (management) that run the state in an enlightened manner so everyone is fed and housed etc- according to thier ability more than thier "need"

And communism, as a utopian state, is where each according to thier need, is run by a oligarchy of "workers" rather than "managers" and run the country in an enlightened manner so that everyone is fed and housed = by "need" instead of ability to manage.

Capitalism I feel, as a word, still has (mostly) only it's economic definition - doesn't really have a " this system runs the goverment" connotation to it-

Now- when any of the above systems slip into a dictatorship- they leave those definitions completely and de-evolve into a type of fuedalism- where the dictator is the "king" if you will, and the "nobles" are those that help him pass out favors and economic bounty to those that support him.

To me, the 14 things mentioned DO define as a fascist state- we are run by an oligarchy of corporations.

But some would say "gee, we aren't gassing gays and jews, so we aren't fascist"-

But I don't think the reality of the much more populated and "wired" global world will even support a straight dictatorship much longer- I think they will die out or get gobbled up by the current corporate state model we have now.

So instead, we have a "fascist state" of competing oligarchies that keep each other in some type of check.

I think the whole world is on the "cusp" if you will, of a new model of world citizen- with the increasing power of corporations- the most important vote you may cast may be stock ownership LOL- but, in all seriousness- all the definitions of "communism, facsicm, capitalism" really don't apply to both the economic and governing realities. - so, in the realm of debate- it is kind of meaningless, because no one can come to terms with a single definition of the system.

I would say that the US is probably the supreme new model of what a stable fascist goverment is going to be- and perhaps, after we are gone- we will be THE definition of the "modern fascist state" - which, by that time, will not be a good definition of the new paradigm THEY are discussing.

ANY definition used in the context of 1900-1955 defining "fascism, communism, capitalism" just doesn't fit any more. Capitalism in America probably left it's purist-utopian state at the start of the great depression- turns out, Calvin Coolidge free market capitalism is simply NOT sustainable- in fact, I don't think any country in the world actually practices it anymore- something to think about eh? - fascism, or whatever we call it now- is more stable than true free market capitalism?

So what is the reality vs the propaganda of the systems we are discussing?

I think crusingram hits on many points very nicely, in that a general consensus of what is fascism in relation to the topic is being subtle in difficulty towards obtaining... Another point I will agree on with is the proposed model citizen. Its not hard to see the impact growing up in a certain culture has on an individual, the most easily noticed is that a typical child with a blank slate say in the nation of Syria is most likely going to grow up with that local mindset( language, etc). Now as I live in a society I am impacted on by a system one could dub socialist if not for how it works the money. If I go an commit a crime society will punish me if I am caught, or if I do the right things in relation to society, I could win a ton of money thus economic mobility or more freedom I guess.

So if the type of person and or behavior is to become standardized, via various mean such as politically correct thought, or being faith based in actions and law as dictated by government, then yes, I would find that such could easily find the fascist statement, for being conservative to this model ultimately means rejections of any variance to it and or change, but that is just the confliction you find in any singular nation with political variation of conservative to liberal.

The standard and gradual change to such is a rich cache in human history and Americas history also, being even if it does seem a joke to some to vote, people still can, you can only hope for corruption to not take place or people using power to corrupt a system based on popular opinion, not just the opinion of a few, which would then lead back to fascism I believe.

So basically, I can go legally mangle my flesh with metal and or become a porn star if I so choose, so at this point the basic standardization is not absolute to such an extreme that fascist could be applied in that arena.

Groups of people with similar beliefs have a tendency to reject each other. Just as extremist religious types may reject the idea of same sex marriage as a hippie will reject the idea of cutting the rain forest down to make birthday hats.

So I would opt to say the current government could easily be dubbed hard line on its positions, but as long as people can make free choice in a democratic society, withholding many academic positions here such as animal behavior and learning, the system is always open to change then in a personal setting excluding money of course.

Is capitalism fascist then? What organized or civil form of survival could escape perfectly from having such a label pinned to it at times, only in sci-fi do I feel such exists.

Also, to the admin, I find it hard on this topic to stay on topic, I mean the question itself is rather broad, and if it helps I am really trying to stay on topic but I feel my posts definitely associate with the topic, even if not from historical text.

Nothing to do with fascism but everything to do with America. ..or so you claimed. Look we are all asked to squint our eyes and turn our heads just so and maybe in the right light we just might see the similarities of fascism in America today as it was in Italy or Germany 60+ years ago. We are told it is not as clear of an illusion to some of us because it has taken on a new form..a fascist drag. Yet when I ask you to recognize eugenics today and how it is still implemented and still supported and still in common practice I am some how using faulty analogies.

How is prenatal screening meant to identify any unwanted versions of human form in order to eliminate it's conception not eugenics? Or selective breeding?
Were you aware that in cases of down's syndrome babies America has one of the lowest abortion rates and some nations like Austria have close to 100% ? Is this a form of fascism?

Also I remember when I lived in CH the government was finally admitting to the population that they only chose to end their own forced sterilization programs in the late 1970s. It was not just an American trend or fascination. One of the more classic facades of fascism is the insistence for the definement of nationality or of a race. This denial that the world's people exists as one but rather as different designs incompatible or incapable of one another's thoughts, or beliefs . It is not that Americans in America created the basis of hitler's ideals..this is not the origin of the original sin..it is the human mind itself.



Oh I know you and moif feel the dictionary offers more insight than any other source for discussing politics and history. Nevermind the age old art of word manipulation by the state. And I am not "confused" or "ignorant" I just have a different opinion than you or moif..as I feel fascism can be implemented by a right wing or a left wing ideal. The fourteen tell tell signs that you live in a fascist state do not require for you to identify if the state is right wing or left wing. You seemed to be fairly impressed with these indications of fascism so how do you explain the lack or need to have these characteristics leaning in one direction?

I view the word fascist much like nazi..I don't really feel it alone describes or encompasses a political system..I believe it can be a main characteristic of, I believe it can partially define one, but I think other political basis are needed. I don't feel fascism is enough to carry a state's system successfully.
Here many of you are asking us to accept the idea that a open party, democratically elected nation can be fascist..yes well so can a more socialistic nation too.

All it takes is a quick glance to history to make my point..let's use Mussolini the man who created the word and used it's ideals to create his political power. Many of the political ideals he used then are today considered far more left wing ideals then they would right wing in America. Mussolini was a recovering Marxist and he still held many of the more socialistic views on the economy, the evils of liberalism (what we would now call neo-liberalism) the importance of unions, the need to demand power from the elite, and class struggle was a constant theme. Mussolini's fascism was born from his initial belief and practice in socialism and he referred to his way as the "third way" a place inbetween the right and the left.

I think to claim that the word fascist has no bases in left wing ideals or any relevance to socialistic philosophies and any individual who claims otherwise is "ignorant and confused' devalues the debate on what fascism is and how it can be implemented greatly.



Well many of the opponents of FDR's policies called him fascist. And as I already noted if we use these 14 definers that you seem to support as good indicators of fascism then FDR was a fascist and the new deal was an American form of fascism.

I think you would better understand my view if you accepted the reality that Fascism is not a state system in and of itself and that is must base itself on something more and that something is a variable.

I think when we universally apply the terms right and left to politics of today and those in history we not only get and inaccurate view it limits how well we can understand and define our political selves.
I am not a believer in in this natural split within the universe and politically along some straight line. I believe we can and do share, implement and exchange our ideals all the time...we are in a constant flux and the human mind does not think as statically as you wish us to believe.


Yet I take comfort with my disabilities to comprehend..as I know I am not alone.
Many argue , not just me with my lame understanding of language and rampant ignorance of words, that Fascism was more along the lines of a creation and inception of socialistic ideals. And it more predominately lies in direct opposition to liberalism not socialism. And as my argument began America more acutely aligns herself with liberalism than she does socialism. And I make this basis on the very general but all encompassing political ideal of the state vs. the individual.


Well I already stated I believed fascist trends were apparent in all western nations..I even said I believed they were apparent in America itself but I also said I felt that the American political system is there to prevent fascist trends from taking hold. If you can give examples of fascist trends in America that have withstood a true test of the American political system then please share. The fact is trends are just crazes of whimsy...they are not constant, solidified tradition.


I asked you if you have ever heard of the term Islamofascism Have you? Why did you not answer this? Or are you telling me you are only aware of my own confused hallow interpretation of the word and it's current applications ?

Terrorism is not a political philosophy.

You will give me Iraq but not Syria? Care to explain why? Syria and Iraq both were/are Baathist nations. And if Baathism is not a form or fascism then I guess I am really confused after all. The PLO wishes to represent a state as does al Qaeda and they wish to do so in a very fascist manner they are without question a fascist movement..and even more specifically they are islamofascists
This is a fairly well documented debate...but the application of fascism to Islamic nations is not opposed on the basis of the misuse of the word fascist but rather the ideal that fascism can not encompass religious beliefs , from your posts I infer you believe it can, and also the idea that associating islam with fascist is offensive and culturally insensitive. Now I would be more accepting to your argument if it was based more along these disputes, but the idea that I am just some bumbling idiot who has problems using words properly is not really supported by the many great political minds today and their own well documented and recorded debates on the word fascist and how it applies to religion and politics today.

While you enjoy your time in retirement if I may suggest some things for you (or anyone) to read...
Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman

The Mystery of Fascism by by David Ramsay Steele
Apart from its ardent nationalism and pro-war foreign policy, the Fascist program was a mixture of radical left, moderate left, democratic, and liberal measures, and for more than a year the new movement was not notably more violent than other socialist groupings.

And lastly
The Nature of Fascism by Roger Griffin which thoroughly explains the concept behind the definement of "generic fascism".

1.) Is the United States a fascist system?

If you compare the U.S. with the fascist regimes in Europe ...

link

link

link

... then, no the U.S. is not a fascist state, eventhough some developments in the U.S. are leaning towards certain aspects. (#1, 2#, #3, #7,#9, #12 of the list, which is in my opinion not without flaws: #9 and #12 apply, in different levels, to all the western democratic countries at this moment, #5 is something I cannot figure out. Rampant sexism, or dominance of men, is still unfortunately omnipresent. Men should be the leaders, this picture hasn't changed eventhough it is changing.)


But one can argue times have changed, and indeed they have. The world has become much smaller due to the globalization process and after the fall of Russia the U.S. was left as the sole superpower and became de facto the leader of the world. If one would compare aspects of US leadership in the world and compare it with the basic principles fascist than maybe the similarities are more clear. But that is a different topic.

[quote=bucket,Oct 31 2005, 04:50 PM]

One would think it more likely that "extreme" conservatives are culled from the ranks of the more moderate conservatives. So one would think then that it is more likely that fascists would be getting their votes from the more traditional and conservative areas of a country.

Yet the evidence does not show this. On the contrary, in germany and Italy, the conservative parties and regions which had generally known as being conservative held their own in national elections and saw no real defections by their base. Yet the Social Democrats and Communists were constantly beseieged by their traditional voters flocking to the brown flag. This is something which also seems to be occurring in contemporary Europe, where the left wing parties are facing defections from their ranks to the "neo-nazis. Such voting would suggest that fascism appeals more to the Left, and the concen of "extreme" conservatism evolving into fascism ought to be non-existent.

Moreover, National Socialism and Fascism is not about dismantling a welfare state, but rather expanding it. A dismantling of "new Deal" would not be an act of fascism, but an act of conservatism. This is probably why the Silver Shirts and the like denounced FDR NOT for creating a welfare state, but not going far enough.

[

There is absolutely nothing wrong with searching out fascist traits. The question becomes whether traits claimed to be "fascist" are in fact fascist, or whether the traits claimed are so vague as to be meaningless. Claiming a chatacteristic of fascism is "Superiority of the millitary" seems a bit hollow when one realised that the German millitary was under such strict civilian control (I.e. the National Socialists and Hitler), many historians believe it led to millitary catastrophes for Germany. Or claiming that fasism is about "Control of the mass media" is so vague as obviously there was control of mass media by the communists as well.




So what is the difference between "American" fascism and "European" fascism?





I think here one needs to be careful. One runs the risk of labelling any government which whom one does not support as being "fascist."

fixed quotes. -Amlord

Well, the U.S certainly rejected the idea of communism, who knows how many lives that rejection ultimately cost. Then the nice scorched earth policy and arming of lesser evils to the current leadership to combat what was perceived threat of some form of chain reaction of communism devouring the world.

The U.S has a rich history of using military force in ways it deems fit, from stopping genocides to now using force to make democratic nations, and the whole time you cant find some 100% agreement on exactly if its good or evil the actions of such, or extreme, or fascist or however you may like to label such.

So from a social body or a society, how does an individual get the label as fascist, and could you maybe compare the two, or what separates a society from an individual. For even in Hitler’s Germany, many in the ranks did not fully agree with what was going on, some probably liked it even more then Hitler himself.

I just basically find it hard on how America as a society, or even its government in total could be so dubbed fascist. To look at Iran’s religious regime, one could say its fascist, but then with the support it seems to have, I guess most the individuals of Iran are thus fascist, simply because they deeply care for what the believe is true, and thus do not find themselves in some for of internalization of there actions of habits to be fascist and or evil.

So then, I feel to go outside the human definition in the human dictionary, ultimately takes on or still can not escape human logic, and anything that can be tied to that, such as personal feeling of growing up in the U.S mindset and not the Iranian one.

I don't believe that there is such thing as a "left-wing fascist state"
At the heart of fascism is patriarchy. The leader makes decisions that the populace is unable or unwilling to make. The leader in a fascist state is a father-like figure who is due respect..or else. This is a philosophy that bears much resemblance to the ideals of the right: There IS a moral authority and people should be FORCED to adhere to it. Right is right and there are no shades of gray. One should not stray from the original course of the Republic. etc...

On the left side of the aisle we have the antithesis of patriarchy. The left celebrates the individual over the state, over the culture and even over the divine. It is the ultimate expression of Humanism which is, of course, the birth of humankind's psyche from the womb of the Church and the King.

If you have a truly "left-wing" government there can be no fascism. I think it can be argued that there are no true leftist governments as the act of "allowing yourself to be governened" immediately subjects you to a geometrically expanding list of abuses.
All of the "evils" of fascism in that list apply. Corruption and cronyism, corporate power, dwindling individual rights: these are inevitable when humans are handed power over other humans.

Plato's Republic can exist only as a thought experiment because a Philosopher-King, it seems, cannot be. (perhaps I'm just a bitter American who is tired of his broken system of cronies hacking away at their pinata legislation)
Hmm..werre I a cartoonist of any merit I'd be drawing this picture already!


Anyway, it occurs to me that people are correlating the term fascism with "despot" and "dictator" and thus we are getting confusion between history and plain ideology.
Fascism as an ideology is a completely different animal than fascism as a historical study. It is entirely possible to dissect each fascist government in history and scrape from it only those elements which were common in all examples. Check for contamination from cultural and environmental trends and you would have a vague skeleton of a fascist state. From there one could "rebuild" a state by adding layers: numbers of leaders, houses of government, types of industry, homogeneity of population, etc. In the ned you could create, from just the theoretical bones, any number or various "states" that are all different but are inherently fascist.

In order to try to see the "fascist skeleton" at the core of our country one must first clear their mind of the historical context. We are not exterminating people. But are we practicing our xenophobia in a different, albeit, less maniacal way?

La Herring Rouge wrote




So then, I can surmise for what I can that any pattern or context in which the true ruler of a persons destiny is not purely of their own consent is then fascist to a certain extent maybe?

Going from that logic all parenting then to a certain regard must be fascist, or any form of politics that has a central authority must share in fascism.

Then we could go on to say any form of law to a certain extent must be fascist.

I could easily agree with your opinion, but I feel its an open ended position in that the fascism perceived surely is in the eye of the beholder.

bucket

Would you mind not putting words into my mouth!?

If you read my posts you'll see that in point of fact you do not have a difference of opinion with me since we have both argued that America is not a fascist state.

Where I have take exception from you is only in your sloppy use of the word fascism which you seem to think means something other than it does which in a debate regarding the nature of fascism and whether or not the USA is a fascist state is not some irrellevent detail that can be manipulated to mean what you think it should.

Nor does it matter what mental laziness has prompted people like David Ramsay Steele or Roger Griffin to wax lyrical on what they perceive to be fascism. The word, like any other has a meaning and that meaning doesn't change because some pointy headed intellectuals decide to tamper with it.

The same goes for 'Islamofascism'. There is no such thing. It is a word, constructed by lazy minds simply to create the false illusion of something which doesn't exist in order to blackguard Muslims.
There is no such thing as 'Islamofascism' since fascism is a system of national politics and Islam is a religion not a nation.


Lemon tree

Who are these neo nazi's to whom you refer?


edited to add:

whyshouldi

This is kind of my point also. I don't think fascism is the right word to describe what America is at all. By using this specific word the question opens up all kinds of misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

It would have been much more to the point to ask if America is becoming an authoritarian state... or even just a tyranny.

It is probably more accurate to describe the nazis as "big brother." They referred to each other, and other Germans as "comrades" (exactly as did the communists).
Nor is it clear that nazis in Germany made decisions which the German people were unwilling to make thmeselves. It is fairly well agreed that Hitler was extremely popular, probably the most popular German chancellor ever. So it really can't be said that Hitler was doing those things which the Germans opposed.



The nazis were quite anti-Christianity (at least of the established Lutheran and catholic churches). They were also quite antimonarchial, being staunch enemies of a Habsburg or Hohenzollern restoration (which were serious proposals in the 20s and 30s). As Goebbels said, "Kings exist for us only in fairy tales. Ours is a republican fuherer state." And some ofthe first acts of the nazis after being elected was to remove religious symbols from public building. Mussolini set up his his Italian social State after 1943 which expressly abolished the monarchy and seriousy divided church and state.




This seems to mean that the term "fascism" means nothing.



It is also possible to do the same with other types of regimesd as well. Are Social Democrats "fascist" when they demand state control over the media?

Having never lived in a fascist state, I can't compare America to a fascist state. I do find it interesting though that liberals always break out the fascist complaint when republicans are in power. Of course fascism is the ultra right, but the ultra left, communism was, is and will be much more dangerous and antagonistic towards freedom, happiness and liberty. Funny how liberals never mention communism and its mammoth evils and crimes. Joseph Stalin was far worse than Adolf Hitler, in fact if you just count dead people he caused the innocent deaths of at least 30 million people, barricaded the Eastern half of Europe in misery for decades, supported terrorism, and in general was the most evil person to ever live. On a scale of evil, communism and its modern incarnations like Fundamentalist Muslim states far outweigh any puffed up claims about fascist crimes. Communism, Muslim fundamentalism, socialism, they are marked by intolerance of religious freedom, individual rights, rights to own and bear arms, dissent against the state, private ownership of property, individual intiative, So please spare me the outdated worries about fascism, when the real concerns and dangers today come from far left governments and their terrorist goals.

Your comparison is faulty on several levels. Mainly, because while men like Franco and Mussolini actually were fascists, Stalin used merely the trappings of Communist ideology to spread his autocratic malevolence. The Soviet Union (and Soviet-influenced countries) never reflected actual Communism as set forth by Marx and Engels. I have never met a liberal who did not think that Stalin (and other so-called Communist leaders) was evil. In fact I agree with you that he was worse than Hitler in many ways.

I'm also not sure how you're making the leap from Communism (even as you have defined it) to Islamic fundamentalism. I can see you are trying to pull off some sort of "Coulteresque" polemic, trying to tie various evils to liberalism. In fact, Islamic fundamentalism, as any fundamentalism, is inherently conservative in nature. In fact it fits the very definition of conservative - traditionalist, reluctant to change, intolerant of diversity. (Please note, I am not talking about "conservatives" here in the same way you are mentioning "liberals" - I know plenty of conservatives who don't fit that description. I am merely pointing out that by definition, religious fundamentalism is conservative, and is in fact anathema to liberalism.)

As for this:


Read through this thread. You will find more than one example of Republicans referring to Clinton's administration as fascist. You are also making a dangerous blanket statement. Liberals (who can apparently all be treated as a monolithic entity) "always" (so every time....?) pull the fascism card when Republicans are in power. The idea is ridiculous on its face, and hardly needs to be rebutted again.

I'm interested in what else you think liberals "always" do. For that matter, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what conservatives "always" do?

You might try re-reading what JeepMan actually said, Quarkhead before you start going all ballistic on us here......




No blanket statement there, he didn't say "all liberals". Rather he just said "liberals". And, that's true, we see it here from those who will at least admit to being liberal all the time. Bush=Hitler.... How many times have we seen that in a post in this forum?

Breaking my silence on this thread to raise a semantic point about blanket statements. "Liberals always break out the fascist complaint when republicans are in power" sounds like a generalization, though you are right - technically, it's not. All it would take to render JeepMan's statement true would be any two "liberals" anywhere in the world mentioning the word "fascist" in relation to the White House each time a Republican has been in power since the word emerged. And that is no doubt the case. It is also the case that there have been at least two conservatives who have used the word "fascist" in relation to the White House each time a Democrat has been in power since the word emerged. So, with an equal lack of generalization, JeepMan could just as easily - and truthfully - have said:


If what you are arguing here is that, rather than a blanket generalization, JeepMan's point was absolutely devoid of meaning (and was completely gratuitous into the bargain), I agree with you 100%.

If he didn't mean "I find it interesting that at least two liberals somewhere in the world use the term 'fascist' in relation to the White House each time a Republican is in power", I think we can only assume that, however poorly phrased, it was intended to be a blanket generalization. Either way, such statements should probably be avoided here, no?

Please, re-read the history of communism and then make connections JeepMan. There is no similarity, except in the name, between what Marx said and what happened in USSR. Communism is about equal distribution of wealth and capital. You can't call Stalinist Russia "Communist". It was a twisted form of a noble ideal.

Fundamentalist behavior (of any religion) has nothing to do with communism. In fact Marx himself said that "Religion is the opium of the masses.". Making such comparisons is only a sypmtom of biased history.

Besides, America has done some of things you have described. Supporting terrorism when it met with their objectives.. Of course, who do you think armed and paid Osama in the Cold War? Who do you think installed that butcher Pinochet? Who do you think strangled the people of Iraq for many years with an unjust embargo and killed perhaps thousands of people? Please reread the history of the past century and do it without bias and prejudice. You might be shocked.

You seem to still be using the "loaded" meaning of fascism. As well you are arguing a bifurcation. Between "humanism" and "fascism" there is a boundless array of variety. There are countless shades of gray. You seem to think that, if you are patriarchal at all then you are fascist. Not true. It is either an abuse of the word "fascist" or a black/white fallacy. My post was an attempt to focus the thread on the ideology and to help us disregard the "loaded" term.




This is quibbling. "Big Brother" or "Father Figure"...it is the same end effect. The root of the control is nestled in the societies concept of family hierarchy. As well, the use of "brotherly" or "sisterly" salutations is a method of creating the "one big family" feeling that is neccessary to develop the link between family control and national control. Confucious laid this all out long ago.
As far as Hitler not "doing those things which the Germans opposed"..
Did they do those things before he came along? It is easy to argue that they were unable to do those things without him, even if they truly wanted those things before he convinced them that they did.


Explain how...
I can study communism by reading Marx and Engels and realize that the study of the history of the Soviets sheds little light on communism as a system.
I can read Mill's principles of Utility and then watch our government legislate morality anyway and realize that the idea exists completely seperate from a historical context.

So why can't I do this with fascism?

This is yet another bifurcation. Because someone argues for some control of the government does not mean they are necessarily "fascist" or patriarchal. However, the more control they want the more "fascist" leaning they are certainly. but there are variables to consider:

A person who is NOT in power but who asks the government to take control in a situation might be doing it out of fear, a feeling of powerlessness or out of ignorance. (there are many more possible reasons)
A person who is in a position of power who is arguing for mroe power is another matter because they certainly don't have as many excuses.

Also, there are other contextual circumstances that weigh in. For example, our president recently pitched the idea that the national military should be automatically in charge of any states emergency situation should he, or the situation (according to whom?) demand it. The Constitution, however, is very clear in limiting the authority of a national armed forces and putting such powers in the hands of state militias.
In this context the president is trying to overcome a rather critical document to set a new precedent. This could be contrued as "leaning toward fascism" in that it is a clear violation of precedent and core principles in an attempt to put more power in the central authority.

It's all shades of gray and context. Just tossing around the term "fascist" like a badminton birdie does not make for a good debate.

La Herring Rouge wrote;





That’s basically the whole endeavor of my posts. There is no point of view gun, it would be nice. So in order for me to escape what I feel is a pit of chimps yelling at each other, my whole point to create a focus on is what is fascism, what are those participating seeing as fascist in any form. I put my questions to you in just that form, not as an attempt to validate anything personal on my side, or to attack anything on yours. I see a lot of “fascist” things on this board, as in it seems people really just want to win rather then debate, that aside.

I still do not find a clearly labeled form of fascism, or something to use to judge the relative fascism level of our current government. I can say its fascist and going against the constitution to favor establishment of religion by congress with faith based or federally based Christian morality as law. Is this position purely subjective, am I fascist for holding it? I guess some could say I am.

Each post seems to add a .005% mutation to the debate, so at this point I don’t really know what organism I am dealing with or how to orientate, which seems to be the real issue to me in understanding this, confusion, or human ignorance? I see a lot of posts with links that still just add to opinion really to me, maybe it’s a fascist stance to take on it, I can’t really say at this point you know.

So maybe fascist in this day in age is just people feeling the system or laws they must live under are oppressive, and they people in control simply don’t care, but is that not just tyranny. Or maybe the trendy world of television that staples the norm to everything is fascist, maybe Marilyn Manson is fascist for how he feels, or maybe I am just lost on the whole issue and I should just not participate in this debate anymore, I feel that’s the fit route to take.

[QUOTE]As far as Hitler not "doing those things which the Germans opposed"..
Did they do those things before he came along? It is easy to argue that they were unable to do those things without him, even if they truly wanted those things before he convinced them that they did.[/QUOTE]

All German political parties despised the Versailles system, the reparations, the restrictions of the movement of German troops in Germany ect. But the predescessor governments were, at best, able to blunt its impact. The National Socialists destroyed that system and the rest of the West aquiesced.


[QUOTE]This seems to mean that the term "fascism" means nothing.[/quote]
Explain how...
I can study communism by reading Marx and Engels and realize that the study of the history of the Soviets sheds little light on communism as a system.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps Marx and Engels were wrong.


[QUOTE]This is yet another bifurcation. Because someone argues for some control of the government does not mean they are necessarily "fascist" or patriarchal. [/QUOTE]

Quite true. They could be communist.

[QUOTE]However, the more control they want the more "fascist" leaning they are certainly. [/QUOTE]

Why? Is a theocracy a "fascist" state? Even though the the Fascists were quite stern about separation of church and state? The term "fascism" needs to mean more than simply standing for something which one opposes.


[QUOTE]Also, there are other contextual circumstances that weigh in. For example, our president recently pitched the idea that the national military should be automatically in charge of any states emergency situation should he, or the situation (according to whom?) demand it. The Constitution, however, is very clear in limiting the authority of a national armed forces and putting such powers in the hands of state militias.
In this context the president is trying to overcome a rather critical document to set a new precedent. This could be contrued as "leaning toward fascism" in that it is a clear violation of precedent and core principles in an attempt to put more power in the central authority.[/QUOTE]

Could the USSC decision in Roe v Wade be considered leaning toward fascism as it set a new precedent (ending state control of the subject) and placing it in the hands of a central authority (the Supreme Court)?

And with respects to Germany: It is clear that the senior officers despised the National Socialists, yet basically obeyed as the nazis were of course the civilian leadership. I am curious why an erosion of civilian control (if that is in fact what is being claimed about Bush's views of using the millitary in emergency situations) is viewed as "leaning toward fascism" when in the actual fascists states which existed there was NO question as to the role of the millitary and who was ultimately in charge?

Could you please explain me how this could be? I am very interested how you will defend this statement. In my opinion, La Herring Rouge has correctly tried to seperate the filosical side (the social class struggle for power) from the practical side (how can one implement communism doctrine into a society?).



Or they are trying to find better solutions for certain problems in society. Not everybody who promotes more governmental participation is communistic, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, an admirer of Stalin and Mao, etc. etc.

Your statement has very little meaning, and it seems that you are still trapped in a Cold-War mentality.



Some basic principles of Fascism:

dominance of one party or person, agressive propaganda and opportunistic populism, disregard towards democracy (p.e. fraudulent elections, agressive attitude towards political opponents) and harsh punishment of crime. Order, discipline and obedience are forced upon the people. Secret police are being installed to closely monitor the general population and opinion.

The list could go on, but I think it is clear that fascism, as I see it, is more than just standing for something other people oppose. As I said earlier I do not think the U.S is a fascist State (especially not if one would compare them with Hitler Germany, Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain). But as I said before there are some tendencies in the Bush administration that are dangerously close to certain aspects of fascism. (Patriot Act comes to mind)

[QUOTE]Perhaps Marx and Engels were wrong. [/quote]

Could you please explain me how this could be? I am very interested how you will defend this statement. In my opinion, La Herring Rouge has correctly tried to seperate the filosical side (the social class struggle for power) from the practical side (how can one implement communism doctrine into a society?). [/QUOTE]

I am not sure why the statement should be so remarkable. Marx and Engels held certain opinions about society. Perhaps those opinions were wrong.


[QUOTE]Quite true. They could be communist.[/quote]

Or they are trying to find better solutions for certain problems in society. Not everybody who promotes more governmental participation is communistic, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, an admirer of Stalin and Mao, etc. etc.

Your statement has very little meaning, and it seems that you are still trapped in a Cold-War mentality. [/QUOTE]

They could be indeed "fascist" as well, or communist, or how you describe it. My comments have been along the lines of demanding that "fascist" tendencies being searched and discovered were in fact tendencies of actual fascists. Rather than vague amd meaningless generalizations as what made up so much of the original 14 points of this thread.


[QUOTE]Some basic principles of Fascism:

dominance of one party or person, agressive propaganda and opportunistic populism, disregard towards democracy (p.e. fraudulent elections, agressive attitude towards political opponents) and harsh punishment of crime. Order, discipline and obedience are forced upon the people. Secret police are being installed to closely monitor the general population and opinion.

The list could go on, but I think it is clear that fascism, as I see it, is more than just standing for something other people oppose. As I said earlier I do not think the U.S is a fascist State (especially not if one would compare them with Hitler Germany, Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain). But as I said before there are some tendencies in the Bush administration that are dangerously close to certain aspects of fascism. (Patriot Act comes to mind)

[/quote][/QUOTE]

All of which could be considered principles of communism as well. Its too vague a characterisation, especially when one wishes to apply it to contemporary events. After all, why not worry about the slide toward communism during the Bush administration?

Communism is about equal distribution of wealth and capital. It is an unfortunate fact that communism in Russia turned out to be fascist but under no conditions you can blame the principles of communism for that. Read Marx if you want to know about communism.

By the way, how can Bush admin. be leaning towards communism? Would you care to explain that? Last time looked, US still had very powerful private corporations and industries.

Perhaps Marx and Engels were wrong.

they may very well have been wrong. but what they were describing was a very specific form of communal living which was decentralized in government.
Therefore, any government that purports to be following the theories of MArx and Engels would have to be decentralized as well. If they are not it is the governemnt who is wrong. They simply are NOT doing what Marx wrote about.
So, as I already pointed out, no government that is actually following a "communist" ideology can be fascist as well.

communist = decentralized power, shared state resources

fascist = all power focused in in few people, controlled state resources, etc..

So sure Lemon Tree you can tell us that Marx and Engels were wrong. Perhaps communism can't work. But that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread and you should start a new one if you want to talk about it.
Just understand that it is absolutely impossible to be both fascist and communist.
They are ideas. It's like being bigoted and open-minded at the same time.
Tall and short. Good and evil. They are mutually exclusive events.



This is a verbal hurricane. Out of it I think you are saying that you don't like the abstract definitions of fascism and prefer to deal with concrete examples in history. ??
I can't help you with that. It is always neccessary to deal with the archetypes first. History offers us probably hundreds of ways to have a fascist government. Philosophy can offer us the skeleton of all of them. Which way would you prefer to go about understanding the idea? ...Debating questionable histories for dozens of autocracies or trying to whittle "fascism" down to its basic concepts first?


You have a total misunderstanding of communism. I must agree with Renger now that you are stuck in a cold-war mentality. Read even just the first few sections of this article and you will see the difference.
In communism the working class (proletariat) is the center of government. Liberating them from the control of a centralized authority that is in cahoots with big business is "raison d'etre" for a comminist. A fascist, on the other hand, intends to control every aspect of the proletariats existence. Fascism preaches that individuals must sometimes suffer for their motherland. A communist would rather the motherland suffer for her proletariat. Would this work? Who knows. But they are 100% different form eachother. Please understand this.

[QUOTE]Communism is about equal distribution of wealth and capital. It is an unfortunate fact that communism in Russia turned out to be fascist but under no conditions you can blame the principles of communism for that. Read Marx if you want to know about communism.[/QUOTE]

Communism in the USSR developed as it one can reasonably expect it to. Marx was wrong.

[QUOTE]By the way, how can Bush admin. be leaning towards communism? Would you care to explain that? Last time looked, US still had very powerful private corporations and industries.

[/quote][/QUOTE]

I didn't claim it was leading toward communism. I asked, based upon the vagueness of the 14 points listed, why not worry about a turn toward communism, since those 14 points can basically apply to communism as well.

1.) Well, I am breaking my wish to remain silent on this debate, but what the heck. The United States is not a fascist state by any means. While we may exhibit some ideals of a communist/fascist system, we are not. I'd daresay as long as a coup does not ensue to eliminate all other political idealogies that would require fascism to take effect are wiped out, we will never know fascism. While fascism is loosely defined as having elements of both far-right and far-left doctrine, it would require far-right followers to take over completely, I foresee no sudden shift of public opinion to one political party that would allow such a case to occur.

2.) Of the fourteen calling-cards of a fascist state, America has the following (in my opinion):

Rampant sexism- we see it all the time when we turn on the television, radio, open a newspaper, drive down the side of the road or read a magazine.

Controlled mass media- well, someone's got to be censoring it, all hinges on who is pulling the strings.

Obsession with national security- anyone care what the Threat level is today?

Religion and government are intertwined- Bush thinks God talks to him... need I say more?

Corporate power is protected- anyone else concerned about Eminent Domain?

Obsession with crime and punishment- I'd like to cite Texas's belief that you do the crime, skip the time and go head-first into the grave.

Rampant cronyism and corruption- the current administration has all of the president's close college friends in important government positions and scandals are running wild.

Fraudulent elections- this all hinges on point of view, I admit.


So, in the end, it is not America that is fascist, it just happens to be its leader. Seriously, what president and his administration do not exhibit a healthy number of these things though. There is no real way to measure fascism however, because that is like trying to say that one person is more American that another. A fascist is a fascist is a fascist. Right now we're just Americans and the country is in a state of dirty politics... so what's changed?

I did not bring up Marx and Engels. But perhaps the ideas of Marx and Engels are wrong. Therefore, attempting to apply a wrong theory leads to skewered results.



So is the theory. The application of that theory, however, does n