Full Version: Has America become a Fascist State?
I had been reading a forum about an AntiWalmart film and came across a few threads with 2 people calling each other a fascist. An intelligent person came along and offered the following explanation of the word 'fascist.'
http://www.walmartmovie.com/stories/viewto...er=asc&start=15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini
The 14 listed characteristics are consistent with the dictionary definition of fascism. The 14 characteristics may look biased towards the US but those same features existed in Italy when Mussolini took over as dictator in the 1920s. Like Mussolini, George Bush has built his power mostly with the help of connections and clever use of the media, as opposed to using violence like Hitler did.
So the questions for this debate are,
1.) Is the United States a fascist system?
2.) Which of the 14 features does the United States have?
Mussolini, to his credit, was not nearly as evil as Hitler was. So hopefully this debate won't be about whether Bush is good or evil.
QUOTE
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
http://www.walmartmovie.com/stories/viewto...er=asc&start=15
QUOTE
Mussolini was attracted to fasces, the ancient Roman symbol of the life-and-death power of the state, bundles of the lictors' rods of chastisement which, when bound together, were stronger than when they were apart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini
The 14 listed characteristics are consistent with the dictionary definition of fascism. The 14 characteristics may look biased towards the US but those same features existed in Italy when Mussolini took over as dictator in the 1920s. Like Mussolini, George Bush has built his power mostly with the help of connections and clever use of the media, as opposed to using violence like Hitler did.
So the questions for this debate are,
1.) Is the United States a fascist system?
2.) Which of the 14 features does the United States have?
Mussolini, to his credit, was not nearly as evil as Hitler was. So hopefully this debate won't be about whether Bush is good or evil.
QUOTE
1.) Is the United States a fascist system?
Oh yes. I think someone mentioned earlier the Patriot Act´s similarities to Gestapo in another thread for example. United States is today what Post War Germany was. And Mussolini´s Italy where. Everyone is aware of this except the Americans themselves, which is consistent with history too.
QUOTE
2.) Which of the 14 features does the United States have?
5. Rampant Sexism perhaps? Only the strong religious groups mention the "position" which woman "should" have. (chauvinism and so forth) And even they are a bit carefull. A Mr Hovind comes to mind
Else all the other points are pretty right on.
EricStanze, have anything outside invectitude and broad, shallow observations with which to substantiate your claims?
First of all, that list does not very well represent fascism as it was constituted in Germany or Italy. Art and architecture were in fact huge elements of the fascist zeitgeist. The problem with fascist "art" was not that it was surpressed, but that it was awful. The joke about Mussolini's architecture is that it looked like it was ordered over the phone.
More to the point, corporatism and industry weren't "protected" by fascist governments, they were controlled by them. Fascism is a command economy, make no mistake. There wasn't necessarily direct ownership of industry, but the control was omnipresent... and one could easier make the case that certain industries controls the U.S. government; the case for government control of industry is weak. That's why nobody ever makes it, present company included.
The control of the mass media argument is a specious one as well, and to be honest one that I am finding a bit tiring after so many reiterations. Is the U.S. news media going soft on the government, yes. Is this a function of control by the government? Well, lets see. A government agent, Patrick Fitzgerald had to imprison a reporter just to get her to reveal a source... which she perjured herself out of doing anyways. If this is control it's pretty damn ineffective. Daily stories litter the headlines criticizing various actors in government, from both sides of the aisle. Seems to me that a government that controlled the media wouldn't have to endure criticism.
You can in fact make a stronger case arguing that the deregulation of media ownership, relaxing broadcasting standards, and the whole HDTv debacle demonstrates how much influence the media has over government; not through news outlets but through the powerful corporations that run pretty much all of the American media.
The fact is that each "point" on that list has similar anomolies when contrasted to the American system at present. I've only pointed out the more egregious. However, if people persist on making these claims, I can (and will) go through them one by one.
Just for the record, I am in fact highly critical of both the U.S. system of governance, and the practices of the current administration. But that does NOT mean I will simply sling mud.
First of all, that list does not very well represent fascism as it was constituted in Germany or Italy. Art and architecture were in fact huge elements of the fascist zeitgeist. The problem with fascist "art" was not that it was surpressed, but that it was awful. The joke about Mussolini's architecture is that it looked like it was ordered over the phone.
More to the point, corporatism and industry weren't "protected" by fascist governments, they were controlled by them. Fascism is a command economy, make no mistake. There wasn't necessarily direct ownership of industry, but the control was omnipresent... and one could easier make the case that certain industries controls the U.S. government; the case for government control of industry is weak. That's why nobody ever makes it, present company included.
The control of the mass media argument is a specious one as well, and to be honest one that I am finding a bit tiring after so many reiterations. Is the U.S. news media going soft on the government, yes. Is this a function of control by the government? Well, lets see. A government agent, Patrick Fitzgerald had to imprison a reporter just to get her to reveal a source... which she perjured herself out of doing anyways. If this is control it's pretty damn ineffective. Daily stories litter the headlines criticizing various actors in government, from both sides of the aisle. Seems to me that a government that controlled the media wouldn't have to endure criticism.
You can in fact make a stronger case arguing that the deregulation of media ownership, relaxing broadcasting standards, and the whole HDTv debacle demonstrates how much influence the media has over government; not through news outlets but through the powerful corporations that run pretty much all of the American media.
The fact is that each "point" on that list has similar anomolies when contrasted to the American system at present. I've only pointed out the more egregious. However, if people persist on making these claims, I can (and will) go through them one by one.
Just for the record, I am in fact highly critical of both the U.S. system of governance, and the practices of the current administration. But that does NOT mean I will simply sling mud.
1.) Is the United States a fascist system?
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
First of all, there is a difference between patriotism and between nationalism. Patriotism deals with strong support of the government while nationalism deals witht strong support for ones cultural identity such as people with a common language, history, traditions and whatnot. So in all reality nationalism by its definition in the United States is not something very prevalent since the country is full of so many different histories, cultures, and types of people. In Italy or Germany during WW2, the peoples in the nation were pretty much all of the same culture and traditions.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
US has one of the best records on human rights in the world.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Going to need evidence for this point but i would like to find any government where such thing is not present. It is the nature of government.
4. Supremacy of the Military
Military is under civilian control in this country.
5. Rampant Sexism
Rampant is such a harsh word. Is it rampant in society or in government? Condaleeza Rice is one of the most powerful positions of authority that it is possible for anyone to be in. The Bush administration has more minorities and women in his cabinet and such than previous presidents.
6. Controlled Mass Media
I don't know how anyone can argue that this government has control over the media.
7. Obsession with National Security
Difference between obsession and realization. Before 9/11, we had our guard down. It is not obsessive to finally right the wrongs and ensure safety.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
To my knowledge religion and government are intertwined.
9. Corporate Power is Protected
This point is kind of deceiving. First, it is assuming that corporate power is automatically bad and that people are being taken advantage of. We are a capitalist state. Is corporate power was not protected, we would be something different entirely.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
Unions are extremely powerful in this country in comparison to many others like Britain and France. Also I am going to need facts of labor surpression to respond to this fully.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Again, obsession is a harsh word. I could just as easily call it an obsession with justice and then it wouldnt sound as negative. This country gives more rights to the accussed than almost every other country. Dont really see this point aply.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
In any government there will be corruption. Government is evil...a necessary evil. But in this democracy we have the power to change our representatives and leaders if such occurs. We have the power.
14. Fraudulent Elections
If you have hard evidence of such an occurrence please share it with the rest of the class. I would find it amazing that you would have facts about it and yet some prosecutor somewhere in DC doesnt and has yet to indict someone for criminal actions in the election.
2.) Which of the 14 features does the United States have?
None to the extent of what can be considered a fascist state. This whole concept is wholly ridiculous. If the people don't like the government in power, they can use the most powerful check on government possible...vote them out. We choose the government we get and we can change it if we dont like it. THATS not fascism.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
First of all, there is a difference between patriotism and between nationalism. Patriotism deals with strong support of the government while nationalism deals witht strong support for ones cultural identity such as people with a common language, history, traditions and whatnot. So in all reality nationalism by its definition in the United States is not something very prevalent since the country is full of so many different histories, cultures, and types of people. In Italy or Germany during WW2, the peoples in the nation were pretty much all of the same culture and traditions.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
US has one of the best records on human rights in the world.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Going to need evidence for this point but i would like to find any government where such thing is not present. It is the nature of government.
4. Supremacy of the Military
Military is under civilian control in this country.
5. Rampant Sexism
Rampant is such a harsh word. Is it rampant in society or in government? Condaleeza Rice is one of the most powerful positions of authority that it is possible for anyone to be in. The Bush administration has more minorities and women in his cabinet and such than previous presidents.
6. Controlled Mass Media
I don't know how anyone can argue that this government has control over the media.
7. Obsession with National Security
Difference between obsession and realization. Before 9/11, we had our guard down. It is not obsessive to finally right the wrongs and ensure safety.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
To my knowledge religion and government are intertwined.
9. Corporate Power is Protected
This point is kind of deceiving. First, it is assuming that corporate power is automatically bad and that people are being taken advantage of. We are a capitalist state. Is corporate power was not protected, we would be something different entirely.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
Unions are extremely powerful in this country in comparison to many others like Britain and France. Also I am going to need facts of labor surpression to respond to this fully.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Again, obsession is a harsh word. I could just as easily call it an obsession with justice and then it wouldnt sound as negative. This country gives more rights to the accussed than almost every other country. Dont really see this point aply.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
In any government there will be corruption. Government is evil...a necessary evil. But in this democracy we have the power to change our representatives and leaders if such occurs. We have the power.
14. Fraudulent Elections
If you have hard evidence of such an occurrence please share it with the rest of the class. I would find it amazing that you would have facts about it and yet some prosecutor somewhere in DC doesnt and has yet to indict someone for criminal actions in the election.
2.) Which of the 14 features does the United States have?
None to the extent of what can be considered a fascist state. This whole concept is wholly ridiculous. If the people don't like the government in power, they can use the most powerful check on government possible...vote them out. We choose the government we get and we can change it if we dont like it. THATS not fascism.
Fascist like so many labels these days is just no longer relevant or anywhere near accurate.
America is just too large and diverse to be labeled anything. We just do not fall under any one defining umbrella term.
The many signs of fascism are easy to fuill if one wants them to stick and easy to refute as well.
The terms of the old world and 50 years ago are worthless. The world is too large now to fall into simple terms any longer.
New definitions will be born as we evolve into something new, both here and globally as well.
America is just too large and diverse to be labeled anything. We just do not fall under any one defining umbrella term.
The many signs of fascism are easy to fuill if one wants them to stick and easy to refute as well.
The terms of the old world and 50 years ago are worthless. The world is too large now to fall into simple terms any longer.
New definitions will be born as we evolve into something new, both here and globally as well.
QUOTE(christopher @ Oct 29 2005, 03:13 PM)
Fascist like so many labels these days is just no longer relevant or anywhere near accurate.
America is just too large and diverse to be labeled anything. We just do not fall under any one defining umbrella term.
The many signs of fascism are easy to fuill if one wants them to stick and easy to refute as well.
The terms of the old world and 50 years ago are worthless. The world is too large now to fall into simple terms any longer.
New definitions will be born as we evolve into something new, both here and globally as well.
America is just too large and diverse to be labeled anything. We just do not fall under any one defining umbrella term.
The many signs of fascism are easy to fuill if one wants them to stick and easy to refute as well.
The terms of the old world and 50 years ago are worthless. The world is too large now to fall into simple terms any longer.
New definitions will be born as we evolve into something new, both here and globally as well.
I couldn't disagree more Christopher. The term "fascism" is just as relevant today as it was 50 years ago. And its definition hasn't changed. However, what seems to have changed is people's understanding of what the term actually means. It is nothing less than absurd to apply the term to the United States. Not a single "factor" on the list can be applied to the U.S. in the sense intended by the very definition of the term fascism.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism : What nationilism? Perhaps some patriotism, but not nationalism. How can anyone even suggest our country is nationalistic when half the population is consistently and loudly criticizing the current administration and its policies?
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights : Laughable. ACLU.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause : what scapegoats?
No idea how this could apply.
4. Supremacy of the Military : Again, how so? No basis. Involvement in a war does not equal "supremacy of the military".
5. Rampant Sexism : Where?
6. Controlled Mass Media : Not by a long shot. If the government controlled the media, there would be no criticism of the administration. End of story.
7. Obsession with National Security : Again, what evidence? Our color coded alert system?
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined : Constitution stringently guarantees separation of church and state.
9. Corporate Power is Protected : In what regard?
10. Labor Power is Suppressed : Again how so? Think: National Labor Relations Act
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts : Government funded N. P. R.; Hollywood is thriving.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment : What, all of the Law and Order and CSI shows???
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption : Key word -- rampant.
14. Fraudulent Elections : Where? When?
I think anyone who would seriously go down this list and assert that any of these factors is salient in the U.S., is simply misunderstanding that the factor is meant to imply an extreme level. If the factors are not understood in this context the meaning of fascism is entirely lost. And that is what I think is happening Christopher and not that the term "fascism" itself is no longer relevant.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Probably the strongest thing in comparison on the list. But by no means a defining and controlling aspect of our social lives. I still have the first amendment guarantees that allow me to shower contempt on the United States of America without disappearing.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Okay, so emergency mentalities have swung the United States to the right when it comes to other people's civil liberties. But I see no concentration camps on the horizon to root out political enemies.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Yes. To a degree. We have clung together against a vaguely defined terrorism in the aftermath of 9-11. And we have sabre rattled more than we should the last few years. But evil-doers and Jews are entirely different categories of scape goats.
4. Supremacy of the Military
Nope.
5. Rampant Sexism
Nope. There is not a movement for young women to know their place and make lots of babies for the fatherland.
6. Controlled Mass Media
Nope. Not close.
7. Obsession with National Security
I'm not sure that this is a fascist trait. Fascism wants the nation to prove its virility on the battlefield. Obsession with national security seems to be more a concern that an attack is coming and nothing will be done.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
Again, not what I see in fascism. The religious right in this country would chuckle at this as they pull their children out of the "God-less" public schools in growing numbers, the pledge of allegiance in under fire for the words "under god" and some long existing monuments are being removed from public places because of their overtly Christian text.
9. Corporate Power is Protected
I think Mussolini's corporatism protected private ownership but cooperation with the state is mandated in the fascist system.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
Not in the sense that unions are being abolished and rights \\of labor organization are being removed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
As UJ said. It was disdain for independent expression in the arts. The arts are coopted as a powerful tool of the state, not disdained.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Again, I think fascism was obsessed with controlling the state, not necessarily with crime. In fact they came to power violating laws and bullying and murdering. I don;t see the point here for fascism.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Yes, that is on the rise in the United States, but this is also a component often found in democratic capitalism with light regulation.
14. Fraudulent Elections
Not in the sense that bullies are at the polls physically intimidating those who vote against the one legal party.
Again, democracy is full of stories about voting irregularities.
Probably the strongest thing in comparison on the list. But by no means a defining and controlling aspect of our social lives. I still have the first amendment guarantees that allow me to shower contempt on the United States of America without disappearing.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Okay, so emergency mentalities have swung the United States to the right when it comes to other people's civil liberties. But I see no concentration camps on the horizon to root out political enemies.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Yes. To a degree. We have clung together against a vaguely defined terrorism in the aftermath of 9-11. And we have sabre rattled more than we should the last few years. But evil-doers and Jews are entirely different categories of scape goats.
4. Supremacy of the Military
Nope.
5. Rampant Sexism
Nope. There is not a movement for young women to know their place and make lots of babies for the fatherland.
6. Controlled Mass Media
Nope. Not close.
7. Obsession with National Security
I'm not sure that this is a fascist trait. Fascism wants the nation to prove its virility on the battlefield. Obsession with national security seems to be more a concern that an attack is coming and nothing will be done.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
Again, not what I see in fascism. The religious right in this country would chuckle at this as they pull their children out of the "God-less" public schools in growing numbers, the pledge of allegiance in under fire for the words "under god" and some long existing monuments are being removed from public places because of their overtly Christian text.
9. Corporate Power is Protected
I think Mussolini's corporatism protected private ownership but cooperation with the state is mandated in the fascist system.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
Not in the sense that unions are being abolished and rights \\of labor organization are being removed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
As UJ said. It was disdain for independent expression in the arts. The arts are coopted as a powerful tool of the state, not disdained.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Again, I think fascism was obsessed with controlling the state, not necessarily with crime. In fact they came to power violating laws and bullying and murdering. I don;t see the point here for fascism.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Yes, that is on the rise in the United States, but this is also a component often found in democratic capitalism with light regulation.
14. Fraudulent Elections
Not in the sense that bullies are at the polls physically intimidating those who vote against the one legal party.
Again, democracy is full of stories about voting irregularities.
QUOTE
1.) Is the United States a fascist system?
Not this old chestnut again! 
According to my dictionary, fascism is...
QUOTE(OED)
1 The totalitarian principles and organization of the extreme right wing nationalist movement in Italy (1922-43). 2 a any similar nationalist and authoritarian movement. b (loosely) any system of extreme right-wing or authoritarian views.
...by the latter definition, then the USA, as a nation completely dominated by extreme right wing politics (by European standards, I'd say even the democrats are right wing) and under the authority of a government so heavily controlled by corporate and military interests, then the USA, could, from one particular perspective, be considered a fascist state. Especially in the light of the US voting system which does not allow for political pluralism and where the biggest bag of money buys the oval office...QUOTE
2.) Which of the 14 features does the United States have?
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism?
QUOTE(OED)
nationalism. 1 a Patriotism is defined as a patriotic feeling, principles, etc. b an extreme form of this; chauvinism. 2 a policy of national independence.
Yes.2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
U.S.: License to Abuse Would Put CIA Above the Law
The detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
Kidnapping people in other countries
Is the US really against torture?
Japanese Internment Camps (lessons not learned)
Yes.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Your either with us or against us...
Yes.
4. Supremacy of the Military
QUOTE(President Eisenhower)
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Eisenhowers farewell addressThis conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
World military spending in 2004. USA accounts for one half of all military spending.
Yes.
5. Rampant Sexism
I have no idea... I think the whole world is pretty much sexist, so I guess, this would be a tentative...
Yes.
6. Controlled Mass Media
This is a tricky one. I'm not sure. I've heard bad things about Karl Rove and the conservative media, and I don't think the US media is truly independent... but it seems more like collaboration than direct control...
No.
7. Obsession with National Security
Given the creation of an entire government department simply for this one purpose, then...
Yes.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
The president's rhetoric worries even some evangelicals
QUOTE
Not since the days of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln has a president put so much stock in his Christian faith and prayer life for making decisions and leading the United States in its hour of crisis. According to BBC correspondent Justin Webb: "Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W. Bush. The Bush administration hums to the sound of prayer. Prayer meetings take place day and night. It's not uncommon to see White House functionaries hurrying down corridors carrying Bibles
GW Bush and faith in the White HouseIn my opinion.
Yes.
9. Corporate Power is Protected
Oooof....
I don't know.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
I don't know.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
No.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Half the nation is armed and people are routinely put to death by the justice system.
Yes.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Given the current republican president is the son of the last republican president, and this in a nation of circa 300,000,000 people which professes not to subscribe to the rule of royalty, then yes, I would say that the USA has rampant cronyism and corruption.
Yes.
14. Fraudulent Elections
I don't know, but what does it mean when the party with the biggest war chest routinely wins the election?
If thats not buying into power, then I don't know what is.
Conclusion.
I don't know if the USA is a fascist state. Despite that it appears to meet so many of the criteria for such a state, the people of the USA appear to be very free. There is freedom of expression and there is no sign of the brutal oppression of the population that Mussolini's Italy was noted for.
On the other hand, there does appear to be a strong, nationalist, militaristic tendency towards American domination of the planet. The USA is the worlds leading manufacturer and seller of weapons and few nations use as much ammunition as the USA does.
On the plus side, a lot of the military expenditure of the USA does go towards assisting other countries, and even if this is done with ulterior rather than altruistic motives, the populations of the nations truly allied to the USA (as opposed to those who pay lip service and call it alliance) are universally better off than those which oppose the USA.
I don't like to think the USA is a fascist state then, even though I'm not sure. I see a lot that is wrong with the USA, and I'm not comfortable with the level of undemocratic control the USA and US interests have over my nation, but I wouldn't describe the USA as being fascist.
editted to reformat a quote
The problem is- none of the labels given by pundits is really accurate anymore- I have posted on threads like this before- and tried to come to some kind of middle ground when it comes to certain definitions- and like the double axis libertarian quiz-
In short- I think our definitions are horribly outdated- we called the USSR communist- when, it clearly was not- but we just associated the two names together because our propagandists told us too.
AS with anything- stuff evolves into something different.
I would say we are FACSIST LEANING and propose a new definition of this type- CORPORIST- a new syndicist/fascist hybird wher competing corporate big businesses basically form all the govermental power- which would be pretty accurate- they manipulate nationalism in such a manner to support this issue or hate that one- for instance- the insurance industries clever manipulation of the universal health care debate during Clintons term- that was an issue entirely driven by corporate interests on both sides, with only the average american citizen as a loser.
We have features of most of the 14 without a doubt- as a couple posters, especially Moif provided- but features does not a definition make-
I would say, that, fascism as it has evolved into something no longer just like our 50 some year old definition.
I have always thought we needed a complete category of threads called "definitions" that we can come to some kind of understanding about the words we use- because they are so slippery. Just look at the conservative vs liberal labels- they seem completely out of whack in idealogy from the old definition now- they don't even really apply anymore.
But yeah, I think we are , by virtue of our extreme right wing culture, a fascist state.
In short- I think our definitions are horribly outdated- we called the USSR communist- when, it clearly was not- but we just associated the two names together because our propagandists told us too.
AS with anything- stuff evolves into something different.
I would say we are FACSIST LEANING and propose a new definition of this type- CORPORIST- a new syndicist/fascist hybird wher competing corporate big businesses basically form all the govermental power- which would be pretty accurate- they manipulate nationalism in such a manner to support this issue or hate that one- for instance- the insurance industries clever manipulation of the universal health care debate during Clintons term- that was an issue entirely driven by corporate interests on both sides, with only the average american citizen as a loser.
We have features of most of the 14 without a doubt- as a couple posters, especially Moif provided- but features does not a definition make-
I would say, that, fascism as it has evolved into something no longer just like our 50 some year old definition.
I have always thought we needed a complete category of threads called "definitions" that we can come to some kind of understanding about the words we use- because they are so slippery. Just look at the conservative vs liberal labels- they seem completely out of whack in idealogy from the old definition now- they don't even really apply anymore.
But yeah, I think we are , by virtue of our extreme right wing culture, a fascist state.
Characteristics of Communism under Lenin:
1. Propaganda used.
2. Control of Mass Communications.
3. Strong Police force
4. Control of armament.
5. Control of Economy
Huh, looks like we might be a communist-leaning country. We have gun control laws, labor laws, a strong police force, the FCC.....
As has been noted, the listed 12 criteria don’t even apply to all fascist states, nor do they apply to only fascist ones. I could come up with a list of selective criteria for a thriving democracy, or for a communist state, or for a socialist one, or some perfect theoretical Platopia and all could apply to us. I could even use selective criteria to “prove” that Santa is similar to Satan, or that Bush is Christlike.
No, we aren’t a fascist state, or even close. Aside from everything others have posted which disprove this theory.....Where is the mass unquestioning loyalty to an all-powerful central leader which is so fundamental to those types of regimes? We don't have that …well, unless you count our national devotion to Dick Cheney.
1. Propaganda used.
2. Control of Mass Communications.
3. Strong Police force
4. Control of armament.
5. Control of Economy
Huh, looks like we might be a communist-leaning country. We have gun control laws, labor laws, a strong police force, the FCC.....
As has been noted, the listed 12 criteria don’t even apply to all fascist states, nor do they apply to only fascist ones. I could come up with a list of selective criteria for a thriving democracy, or for a communist state, or for a socialist one, or some perfect theoretical Platopia and all could apply to us. I could even use selective criteria to “prove” that Santa is similar to Satan, or that Bush is Christlike.
No, we aren’t a fascist state, or even close. Aside from everything others have posted which disprove this theory.....Where is the mass unquestioning loyalty to an all-powerful central leader which is so fundamental to those types of regimes? We don't have that …well, unless you count our national devotion to Dick Cheney.
Is the United States a fascist system?
No. But the problem with this question is that fascism tends to be defined in an historical context. Even the "fourteen features" discussed here - taken from an essay by Laurence W. Britt, by the way - are based on commonalities between Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia. Before moving on, I should mention that the fourteen points are common to all of those regimes - despite Ultimatejoe's attempt to debunk one or two of them. No offense, Joe, but I do not see how, for example, you can seriously claim that art was not suppressed in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. Does the term entartete Kunst ring any bells? Hitler soundly denounced "degenerate art", as he characterized modernism, and embraced "Heroic art", which you characterized as simply "awful' - which is arguable. Adolf Ziegler, president of the Reich Chamber of Art, banned listed "avant-garde artists" from producing work and from seeking employment at universities. They were also subjected to state sanctions and raids by the Gestapo and many - including artists like Paul Klee and Max Ernst - fled the country. Sorry, but Britt's list holds up extremely well.
However, in order to address the questions here, we need to look beyond the "symptoms" of fascism and examine what fascism, as a system of governing, really is. In essence, fascism is authoritarianism - and, as Mrs. P indicated, there is a lot of overlap between fascism and Stalinism. The only difference is that one is a form of authoritarianism from the left and the other from the right. At root, fascism is an extreme reaction against liberalism. It is any system that attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life from a conservative position, usually a government in collaboration with business and corporate interests and (especially in "clerical fascism" like that of Franco) in league with a religious ideology. Its power is generally derived through direct control of the military and industry, both of which support its ruling elite. But one of the main reasons fascism is so difficult to identify is that it has no guiding principles - except a will to power. And a right-wing bent.
While I answered that the US is not (yet) a fascist state, I believe that we are clearly leaning in that direction - or, more accurately, leaning toward what David Niewert calls pseudo-fascism - fascism that "presents itself under a normative, rather than a revolutionary, guise" and "rather than openly exulting in violence, it pays lip service to law and order":
Fascism - and pseudo-fascism - are anti-intellectual (as Mussolini's official philosopher, Giovanni Gentile, said, "We think with our blood"). Umberto Eco, in his essay on "Ur-Fascism" describes this as "irrationalism". In fact, his essay probably better defines the features of fascism than Laurence Britt's historical shopping list. Eco defines the first feature of fascism as "the cult of tradition" - and his fourteen features of "Ur-Fascism" include a fear of difference and/or diversity, a frustrated middle class, contempt for weakness, a cult of heroism, perpetual warfare, selective populism, and the employment of Newspeak. It might be interesting to take up Eco's list in another thread. For now, I'll just look at the points that Britt has identified through his meta-analysis of seven previous fascist regimes - even though I feel there are much better indicators of a fascist leaning.
Which of the 14 features does the United States have?
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism This would really only apply if there were a rise in overt patriotism with politicians resorting to jingoist sloganeering and, as Britt describes it, "prominent displays of flags and bunting... pride in the military... and demands for unity". Well, we've seen none of that in the US recently, have we?
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights This would really only apply if a country were, say, employing torture or abusing prisoners or incarcerating people without due process - and we've certainly seen none of that lately. It might also apply, I suppose, if a country passed legislation that curbed any of its traditional rights like obtaining records without judicial oversight or surreptitious search warrants and seizures without court review - and, God knows, that could never happen here. And, I guess, this could also refer to things like securing rights for certain classes of people - like, say, heterosexuals - and excluding other classes of people - say, homosexuals - from those same rights. And we know that would would never happen here.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause Unless some perceived external threat were conjured up to instill fear in a majority of people in order to garner support for the ruling elite - like, oh I don't know, let's say "terrorists", for example - this could never apply. Of course, implied threats from within could be used to the same end - like creating some bugaboo along the lines of "a homosexual agenda" or even something as insidious as "activist judges" - but the American people would never fall for something like that, right? As this kind of thing is generally used to shift blame for failures, something as simplistic as "obstructionism" in a legislative body would probably also count, but again, no one in our government would stoop to that kind of tactic - nor would they resort to labelling their opposition as "traitors" or even "unpatriotic". So we needn't lose any sleep over that one.
4. Supremacy of the Military As Britt puts it in his assessment of the seven fascist regimes he analyzes, "A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite." That would never happen here in a million years.
5. Rampant Sexism In our post-feminist age, this would probably only apply if, say, a majority of business or religious leaders or legislators or judges were still male. Or - hahaha! - if women still earned less then men for doing the same job. It could also be argued that any questioning of reproductive rights would count as rather rampant sexism - and, of course, homophobia would be another class of sexism altogether - but, here in the US, we've moved beyond all that.
6. Controlled Mass Media This would only be a symptom of a fascist state if the media were in the hands of very few multinational corporations, all of which supported, collaborated with, and profited through deals engineered by the central government. As all of our national dailies and newsmagazines are owned by individual entrepreneurs and all of our television networks are in the hands of small independent companies that never indulge in lobbying and would perish at the thought of parroting government press releases, we have nothing to fear here, either. As Joe pointed out, Judith Miller alone is enough to demonstrate that we have an eminently free press. She was able to single-handedly invent justification for an invasion of Iraq with no interference from the federal government whatsoever - while on the payroll of a "liberal" paper!
7. Obsession with National Security Good grief. Until we establish a cabinet level agency specifically dedicated to national security in addition to a "Defense Department" and our leadership makes perceived external threats the top issue in all of their discourse or until our defense spending accounts for 80% of our national debt and agencies as diverse as the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation dedicate up to 50% of their budgets to homeland security, this is just a paranoid fantasy.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined This one is just outrageous. As has already been stated, our Constitution stringently guarantees separation of church and state. No leader would even dream of advocating a "faith-based" initiative, no legislator has even contemplated framing a law based on the narrow moral beliefs of a single religion, no court has ever even had to hear a case based on the establishment clause, and not one citizen could even conceive of the US as "a Christian nation" any more than they could think of the US as "a Hindoo nation".
9. Corporate Power is Protected As we all know, the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted to treat corporations as individuals. Therefore, corporations themselves pay federal income tax with no more exemptions or loopholes than you or I and, should they commit fraud or pollute the air or water or knowingly endanger their employees or consumers, they are immediately liquidated and imprisoned. No corporation has ever profitted from ties to the government. Why, we even prohibit corporate leaders from holding public office, just so there's no conceivable conflict of interest. Right?
10. Labor Power is Suppressed We all know that in the good ol' US of A, labor unions are the ultimate authority in determining the rights of every worker in the country. Such a ridiculous notion as a "right to work" state will never fly here, no illegal immigrant can possibly find a job before every single citizen is gainfully employed, no worker can have so much as one cent of their pension threatened by white collar crime, not a single job can be farmed out to cheaper labor in another country, and everyone who earns a living wage (which is, well... everyone, right?) is guaranteed health benefits. So, obviously, we don't have to worry about this, either.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts Puh-lease! Intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Edward Said and J.K. Galbraith and Arthur Schlesinger are among the most respected people in the country! And until artists like Robert Mapplethorpe or Andres Serrano have their work banned from publicly funded galleries or there are books removed from our school libraries or films are subjected to ratings and censorship or internet content is proscribed, this will be no threat at all.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment This would only apply if we punished victimless crimes or tried to abolish prostitution or regulated gambling or instituted something as flawed as "three strikes" laws or as inhuman as capital punishment or declared a "war" on drugs. Clearly, there's not a whiff of fascism in relation to crime in the US.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption This one doesn't even bear addressing. Hello - this is the United States we're talking about, people. Corruption? Cronyism? Don't make me laugh!
14. Fraudulent Elections As we all know, the United States still uses nothing but paper ballots, so that there's a record of every vote - and that each of those votes is counted by hand. There has never been and will never be a disputed election here, never mind an election that requires extraordinary intervention by the Supreme Court in order to decide a vote in favor of the loser or which requires oversight by an international body. Until there comes a day when someone can say "democracy is full of stories about voting irregularities" as though this were to be expected, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
I do not, of course, see any of the above as necessarily indicating that the US is headed toward fascism. But, as fascism is essentially an extremist reaction to liberalism, every step away from the progressive agenda of our founders is a step toward a fascist state. Again, I feel that Eco's description of "Ur-Fascism" is much more enlightening than Britt's historical list - and even more closely reflects some of what is happening in our country under our current leadership (even though it was written in 1995). It's worth a look.
Eco concludes his piece with a quote from FDR and it bears repeating here: "If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." Are we moving forward? Are we bettering the lot of our citizens? All of our citizens? And through peaceful means? Or is fascism growing in strength in our land?
No. But the problem with this question is that fascism tends to be defined in an historical context. Even the "fourteen features" discussed here - taken from an essay by Laurence W. Britt, by the way - are based on commonalities between Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia. Before moving on, I should mention that the fourteen points are common to all of those regimes - despite Ultimatejoe's attempt to debunk one or two of them. No offense, Joe, but I do not see how, for example, you can seriously claim that art was not suppressed in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. Does the term entartete Kunst ring any bells? Hitler soundly denounced "degenerate art", as he characterized modernism, and embraced "Heroic art", which you characterized as simply "awful' - which is arguable. Adolf Ziegler, president of the Reich Chamber of Art, banned listed "avant-garde artists" from producing work and from seeking employment at universities. They were also subjected to state sanctions and raids by the Gestapo and many - including artists like Paul Klee and Max Ernst - fled the country. Sorry, but Britt's list holds up extremely well.
However, in order to address the questions here, we need to look beyond the "symptoms" of fascism and examine what fascism, as a system of governing, really is. In essence, fascism is authoritarianism - and, as Mrs. P indicated, there is a lot of overlap between fascism and Stalinism. The only difference is that one is a form of authoritarianism from the left and the other from the right. At root, fascism is an extreme reaction against liberalism. It is any system that attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life from a conservative position, usually a government in collaboration with business and corporate interests and (especially in "clerical fascism" like that of Franco) in league with a religious ideology. Its power is generally derived through direct control of the military and industry, both of which support its ruling elite. But one of the main reasons fascism is so difficult to identify is that it has no guiding principles - except a will to power. And a right-wing bent.
While I answered that the US is not (yet) a fascist state, I believe that we are clearly leaning in that direction - or, more accurately, leaning toward what David Niewert calls pseudo-fascism - fascism that "presents itself under a normative, rather than a revolutionary, guise" and "rather than openly exulting in violence, it pays lip service to law and order":
QUOTE
Moreover, even in the areas where it resembles real fascism, the similarities are often more familial than exact. It is, in essence, less virulent and less violent, and thus more likely to gain broad acceptance within a longtime stable democratic system like that of the United States.
Fascism - and pseudo-fascism - are anti-intellectual (as Mussolini's official philosopher, Giovanni Gentile, said, "We think with our blood"). Umberto Eco, in his essay on "Ur-Fascism" describes this as "irrationalism". In fact, his essay probably better defines the features of fascism than Laurence Britt's historical shopping list. Eco defines the first feature of fascism as "the cult of tradition" - and his fourteen features of "Ur-Fascism" include a fear of difference and/or diversity, a frustrated middle class, contempt for weakness, a cult of heroism, perpetual warfare, selective populism, and the employment of Newspeak. It might be interesting to take up Eco's list in another thread. For now, I'll just look at the points that Britt has identified through his meta-analysis of seven previous fascist regimes - even though I feel there are much better indicators of a fascist leaning.
Which of the 14 features does the United States have?
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism This would really only apply if there were a rise in overt patriotism with politicians resorting to jingoist sloganeering and, as Britt describes it, "prominent displays of flags and bunting... pride in the military... and demands for unity". Well, we've seen none of that in the US recently, have we?
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights This would really only apply if a country were, say, employing torture or abusing prisoners or incarcerating people without due process - and we've certainly seen none of that lately. It might also apply, I suppose, if a country passed legislation that curbed any of its traditional rights like obtaining records without judicial oversight or surreptitious search warrants and seizures without court review - and, God knows, that could never happen here. And, I guess, this could also refer to things like securing rights for certain classes of people - like, say, heterosexuals - and excluding other classes of people - say, homosexuals - from those same rights. And we know that would would never happen here.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause Unless some perceived external threat were conjured up to instill fear in a majority of people in order to garner support for the ruling elite - like, oh I don't know, let's say "terrorists", for example - this could never apply. Of course, implied threats from within could be used to the same end - like creating some bugaboo along the lines of "a homosexual agenda" or even something as insidious as "activist judges" - but the American people would never fall for something like that, right? As this kind of thing is generally used to shift blame for failures, something as simplistic as "obstructionism" in a legislative body would probably also count, but again, no one in our government would stoop to that kind of tactic - nor would they resort to labelling their opposition as "traitors" or even "unpatriotic". So we needn't lose any sleep over that one.
4. Supremacy of the Military As Britt puts it in his assessment of the seven fascist regimes he analyzes, "A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite." That would never happen here in a million years.
5. Rampant Sexism In our post-feminist age, this would probably only apply if, say, a majority of business or religious leaders or legislators or judges were still male. Or - hahaha! - if women still earned less then men for doing the same job. It could also be argued that any questioning of reproductive rights would count as rather rampant sexism - and, of course, homophobia would be another class of sexism altogether - but, here in the US, we've moved beyond all that.
6. Controlled Mass Media This would only be a symptom of a fascist state if the media were in the hands of very few multinational corporations, all of which supported, collaborated with, and profited through deals engineered by the central government. As all of our national dailies and newsmagazines are owned by individual entrepreneurs and all of our television networks are in the hands of small independent companies that never indulge in lobbying and would perish at the thought of parroting government press releases, we have nothing to fear here, either. As Joe pointed out, Judith Miller alone is enough to demonstrate that we have an eminently free press. She was able to single-handedly invent justification for an invasion of Iraq with no interference from the federal government whatsoever - while on the payroll of a "liberal" paper!
7. Obsession with National Security Good grief. Until we establish a cabinet level agency specifically dedicated to national security in addition to a "Defense Department" and our leadership makes perceived external threats the top issue in all of their discourse or until our defense spending accounts for 80% of our national debt and agencies as diverse as the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation dedicate up to 50% of their budgets to homeland security, this is just a paranoid fantasy.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined This one is just outrageous. As has already been stated, our Constitution stringently guarantees separation of church and state. No leader would even dream of advocating a "faith-based" initiative, no legislator has even contemplated framing a law based on the narrow moral beliefs of a single religion, no court has ever even had to hear a case based on the establishment clause, and not one citizen could even conceive of the US as "a Christian nation" any more than they could think of the US as "a Hindoo nation".
9. Corporate Power is Protected As we all know, the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted to treat corporations as individuals. Therefore, corporations themselves pay federal income tax with no more exemptions or loopholes than you or I and, should they commit fraud or pollute the air or water or knowingly endanger their employees or consumers, they are immediately liquidated and imprisoned. No corporation has ever profitted from ties to the government. Why, we even prohibit corporate leaders from holding public office, just so there's no conceivable conflict of interest. Right?
10. Labor Power is Suppressed We all know that in the good ol' US of A, labor unions are the ultimate authority in determining the rights of every worker in the country. Such a ridiculous notion as a "right to work" state will never fly here, no illegal immigrant can possibly find a job before every single citizen is gainfully employed, no worker can have so much as one cent of their pension threatened by white collar crime, not a single job can be farmed out to cheaper labor in another country, and everyone who earns a living wage (which is, well... everyone, right?) is guaranteed health benefits. So, obviously, we don't have to worry about this, either.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts Puh-lease! Intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Edward Said and J.K. Galbraith and Arthur Schlesinger are among the most respected people in the country! And until artists like Robert Mapplethorpe or Andres Serrano have their work banned from publicly funded galleries or there are books removed from our school libraries or films are subjected to ratings and censorship or internet content is proscribed, this will be no threat at all.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment This would only apply if we punished victimless crimes or tried to abolish prostitution or regulated gambling or instituted something as flawed as "three strikes" laws or as inhuman as capital punishment or declared a "war" on drugs. Clearly, there's not a whiff of fascism in relation to crime in the US.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption This one doesn't even bear addressing. Hello - this is the United States we're talking about, people. Corruption? Cronyism? Don't make me laugh!
14. Fraudulent Elections As we all know, the United States still uses nothing but paper ballots, so that there's a record of every vote - and that each of those votes is counted by hand. There has never been and will never be a disputed election here, never mind an election that requires extraordinary intervention by the Supreme Court in order to decide a vote in favor of the loser or which requires oversight by an international body. Until there comes a day when someone can say "democracy is full of stories about voting irregularities" as though this were to be expected, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
I do not, of course, see any of the above as necessarily indicating that the US is headed toward fascism. But, as fascism is essentially an extremist reaction to liberalism, every step away from the progressive agenda of our founders is a step toward a fascist state. Again, I feel that Eco's description of "Ur-Fascism" is much more enlightening than Britt's historical list - and even more closely reflects some of what is happening in our country under our current leadership (even though it was written in 1995). It's worth a look.
Eco concludes his piece with a quote from FDR and it bears repeating here: "If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." Are we moving forward? Are we bettering the lot of our citizens? All of our citizens? And through peaceful means? Or is fascism growing in strength in our land?
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
President Bush has had a pretty narrow minded focus on routing out any perceived terrorist in the Middle East, as well as repeatedly use his War on Terror
to shore up support back home.
4. Supremacy of the Military
This is a big one. The US Military has an annual budget of almost a half trillion dollars per year. Over the past 10 years, many Americans have increasingly looked to the military as a solution to problems that should be solved otherwise. Officially, the military is under civilian control. But with a very large footprint, America has created a very large dragon indeed.
7. Obsession with National Security
President Bush for the past couple years have been very narrow minded in the pursuit of the war on terror and has largely ignored most of the other issues until after the 2004 election. Thankfully, the other Republicans have focused on the other issues.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
Bush does talk about his Christian Values on election time. But its mostly showtime for the election. With the Military and the Senior Citizen social programs taking most of the Federal budget, I doubt that his faith based initiatives are anything but that, just faith.
9. Corporate Power is Protected
According to the GrandFather Debt report, total Government spending (Federal, State, and Local) takes up almost 50 percent of America's economy.
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/piechart.htm
This is way too much Government for a free market economy.
With the Government divided up between Federal and State level, the Federal Government cannot hope to have the same amount of economic control that Mussolini's government had. But make no mistake. In a large part of the economy, the Government either directly or indirectly decides which individuals have jobs and which corporations make a profit.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
The United States has a very high incarceration rate compared to other countries and routinely gives harsh prison sentences for drug offenses.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Very recently, one of Bush's assistants got indicted for taking part in a CIA leak. Bush also also has nominated incompetent people to run government agencies, as in the case of having Brownie run FEMA.
After 9/11, Bush has pushed the fear button as far as possible in an effort to get people to follow him. I don't see him having enough brutality or wits to be a dictator. I would be very concerned about how far the Government has grown in its ability to wage war and hold "enemy combatants" without trial. If someone like Richard Nixon got elected in 2008, the United States could very well end up with fascist system and have the brutality associated with it.
President Bush has had a pretty narrow minded focus on routing out any perceived terrorist in the Middle East, as well as repeatedly use his War on Terror
to shore up support back home.
4. Supremacy of the Military
This is a big one. The US Military has an annual budget of almost a half trillion dollars per year. Over the past 10 years, many Americans have increasingly looked to the military as a solution to problems that should be solved otherwise. Officially, the military is under civilian control. But with a very large footprint, America has created a very large dragon indeed.
7. Obsession with National Security
President Bush for the past couple years have been very narrow minded in the pursuit of the war on terror and has largely ignored most of the other issues until after the 2004 election. Thankfully, the other Republicans have focused on the other issues.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
Bush does talk about his Christian Values on election time. But its mostly showtime for the election. With the Military and the Senior Citizen social programs taking most of the Federal budget, I doubt that his faith based initiatives are anything but that, just faith.
9. Corporate Power is Protected
According to the GrandFather Debt report, total Government spending (Federal, State, and Local) takes up almost 50 percent of America's economy.
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/piechart.htm
This is way too much Government for a free market economy.
With the Government divided up between Federal and State level, the Federal Government cannot hope to have the same amount of economic control that Mussolini's government had. But make no mistake. In a large part of the economy, the Government either directly or indirectly decides which individuals have jobs and which corporations make a profit.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
The United States has a very high incarceration rate compared to other countries and routinely gives harsh prison sentences for drug offenses.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Very recently, one of Bush's assistants got indicted for taking part in a CIA leak. Bush also also has nominated incompetent people to run government agencies, as in the case of having Brownie run FEMA.
After 9/11, Bush has pushed the fear button as far as possible in an effort to get people to follow him. I don't see him having enough brutality or wits to be a dictator. I would be very concerned about how far the Government has grown in its ability to wage war and hold "enemy combatants" without trial. If someone like Richard Nixon got elected in 2008, the United States could very well end up with fascist system and have the brutality associated with it.
QUOTE
Fascism
1. a)A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
(www.dictionary.com)1. a)A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
While any of those 14 points could describe a Fascist regime it doesn't necessarily mean that any system that meets those 14 points has to be Fascism.
For example:
Football players are:
1. African-American
2. Big
3. Fast
4. Can catch the football well
Does that fit football players? Well some yes. Is everyone who meet those qualifications a football player? No.
The same applies to the list given.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism Hmm. I don't see this one. Maybe in government officials but is seems like most of the attention right now is on the anti-government crowd and I don't see any "suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship"
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Abu Ghraib anyone? Uh yah but the soldiers there are currently being prosecuted for what happened.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause Okay 1 out of 3 so far.
4. Supremacy of the Military Supremacy over what? The rest of the world? I could see that but our Military is not really thought of good enough at home to keep up recruiting numbers.
5. Rampant Sexism - Don't see this one at all. Female SoS, Female Supreme Court Nominee. etc.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Do you really think the government controls the media? You might get that to stick with Fox but where is the censorship???
7. Obsession with National Security 2 for 7 now.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined Nope. President Bush is a religious man but where is the state sponsored/repressed religion?
9. Corporate Power is Protected 3 for 7....maybe. I could see a strong argument for this though.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed another maybe. I don't see it suppressed so much as shooting itself in the foot. Labor doesn't have near the power it used to but not a lot of that is government induced.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts Don't know enough about this to argue either way.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment I could see arguments for and against this.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption I can see the Cronyism...maybe. Don't see any more corruption with this administration than with previous ones.
14. Fraudulent Elections I know the 2000 election will be trotted out as proof of this one but it doesn't fly. The only point you have on this would be your argument that the SCotUS is corrupt. If any fraud occurred it was limited to one state. I don't take that as rampant fraud that would indicate fascism.
I have read a lot of responses here from people who appear to be convinced that the US is either fascist or headed there fast. Sorry but it just doesn't fly with me. Your arguments seem to be based on a straw-man argument. The 14 points either don't apply or don't apply in the same way you would seem to want them to. Of course this is my opinion and you are certainly welcome to have and publish your own opinion. Unless of course we are living in a fascist state. In which case you will be drug from your house and tortured for disagreeing with the government.
Syfir- you kind of ignored the post by Wertz- and, he and I both made the point that we are not Mussolini/hitler fascist state but a new type of fascism.
Wertz pretty much pointed out that we are going that way on all fourteen points.
Like I said - we probably need a modern definition of fascism, that basically is defined by the current American political reality.
Though I would like to see someone actually rebut Wertz's post point by point on this one
Wertz pretty much pointed out that we are going that way on all fourteen points.
Like I said - we probably need a modern definition of fascism, that basically is defined by the current American political reality.
Though I would like to see someone actually rebut Wertz's post point by point on this one
I like playing the heavy I guess, so here's the unadulterated truth.
Anyone who claims that modern day America is a fascist state is engaged in intellectual dishonesty on an ridiculous level.
Furthermore, I think we all know it.
Complaints about US policy aside is is clear that by and large civil liberties are alive and well in the US.
The fact that we can raise a hue and cry about measures that, although regretable, pale in comparison to states that are still considered nominal democracies like Russia says as much.
Anyone who believes the US is a dictatorship is so far off target that it's almost pointless to argue.
Fortunately I've neve been one to object to a waste of time.
A question of scale, even the most free societies on the planet have some degree of nationalism.
If someone were to burn the Finnish flag on national television, I suspect even the Finns would get a bit peeved.
The fact is no law has been passed to ban the practice and even it one was, the is far removed from anything we could call fascism.
Hooey.
Tos argue that the US shows disdain for human rights is simply false. Human rights violations do occur, and are soundly rejected as policy and punished. the punishment is certainly not as harsh as it should be, but disdain for human rights would indicate outright support for denying said rights.
Which simply isn't the case.
This is another no-brainer like nationalism.
The fact is the US is under some threat from terrorists, any reasonable response to said threat would fit the mold of this so-called criteria for fascism.
Context is being tossed to the wind here. If the threat was manufactured then I could see a point. The threat, although ocassionaly exaggerated in the way of panicky human beings, is real.
That's enough for one post as I can see this is going to be a long talk, but I simply issue a plea for realism here.
I don't like the Bush administration anymore than anyone else, but the play-acting about fascism is entirely unnecessary.
Anyone who claims that modern day America is a fascist state is engaged in intellectual dishonesty on an ridiculous level.
Furthermore, I think we all know it.
Complaints about US policy aside is is clear that by and large civil liberties are alive and well in the US.
The fact that we can raise a hue and cry about measures that, although regretable, pale in comparison to states that are still considered nominal democracies like Russia says as much.
Anyone who believes the US is a dictatorship is so far off target that it's almost pointless to argue.
Fortunately I've neve been one to object to a waste of time.
QUOTE(Wertz)
Powerful and Continuing Nationalism This would really only apply if there were a rise in overt patriotism with politicians resorting to jingoist sloganeering and, as Britt describes it, "prominent displays of flags and bunting... pride in the military... and demands for unity". Well, we've seen none of that in the US recently, have we?
A question of scale, even the most free societies on the planet have some degree of nationalism.
If someone were to burn the Finnish flag on national television, I suspect even the Finns would get a bit peeved.
The fact is no law has been passed to ban the practice and even it one was, the is far removed from anything we could call fascism.
QUOTE(Wertz)
Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights This would really only apply if a country were, say, employing torture or abusing prisoners or incarcerating people without due process - and we've certainly seen none of that lately. It might also apply, I suppose, if a country passed legislation that curbed any of its traditional rights like obtaining records without judicial oversight or surreptitious search warrants and seizures without court review - and, God knows, that could never happen here. And, I guess, this could also refer to things like securing rights for certain classes of people - like, say, heterosexuals - and excluding other classes of people - say, homosexuals - from those same rights. And we know that would would never happen here.
Hooey.
Tos argue that the US shows disdain for human rights is simply false. Human rights violations do occur, and are soundly rejected as policy and punished. the punishment is certainly not as harsh as it should be, but disdain for human rights would indicate outright support for denying said rights.
Which simply isn't the case.
QUOTE(Wertz)
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause Unless some perceived external threat were conjured up to instill fear in a majority of people in order to garner support for the ruling elite - like, oh I don't know, let's say "terrorists", for example - this could never apply.
This is another no-brainer like nationalism.
The fact is the US is under some threat from terrorists, any reasonable response to said threat would fit the mold of this so-called criteria for fascism.
Context is being tossed to the wind here. If the threat was manufactured then I could see a point. The threat, although ocassionaly exaggerated in the way of panicky human beings, is real.
That's enough for one post as I can see this is going to be a long talk, but I simply issue a plea for realism here.
I don't like the Bush administration anymore than anyone else, but the play-acting about fascism is entirely unnecessary.
I'm not sure that I would accept the above list as the most salient features of a fascist state. In any case, the comparison of fascism to the current deplorable government of the United States invites sterile discussion. Fascism in Italy and Spain was much different than Nazism in Germany. Indeed, it is easy enough to illustrate the anti-democratic tendency or our current one party government: the militarism, the use of manufactured facts to stir up war hysteria, the excessive appeal to nationalism and fear, the corruption of elections, the use of government to further the interests of corporations over the interests of the general public, the cynical use of religion for political gain, the indifference and apparent facilitation of torture and other prisoner mistreatment, and the supreme importance given to ideological conclusions over careful analysis drawing on different points of view. Nevertheless, this is not fascism and has not even reached the level of the authoritarianism that existed in Argentina and Chile under the generals. As we have just experience the judicial system still has some independence. Even the Congress, sufficiently aroused, can oppose the administration as the Senate did in its vote on the McCain anti-torture amendment to the defense authorization. More importantly, the people once disillusioned from the hysterical propaganda retain the capacity to resist and overthrow this regime through elections.
Let's not get side tracked on debating whether the excesses of the GWB Administration are fascist or not but instead concentrate on the excesses themselves and ways to return ourselves to a more enlightened republic. While we are at it we need to discuss the support of militarism of both parties and the excessive political power that corporations exert on both parties.
Let's not get side tracked on debating whether the excesses of the GWB Administration are fascist or not but instead concentrate on the excesses themselves and ways to return ourselves to a more enlightened republic. While we are at it we need to discuss the support of militarism of both parties and the excessive political power that corporations exert on both parties.
QUOTE(skeeterses @ Oct 30 2005, 03:16 AM)
If someone like Richard Nixon got elected in 2008, the United States could very well end up with fascist system and have the brutality associated with it.
When Richard Nixon was president, we hit your 14 points far more squarely than we do today. Sexism was more "rampant", censorship more stringent, we were in the middle of the cold war and involved in the Vietnam war, government corruption, hello? Were we under fascist dictatorship then?
Your 14 points are missing a lot. Things like suspension of civil liberties, complete media control by the government, martial law, summary executions......
QUOTE
Anyone who believes the US is a dictatorship is so far off target that it's almost pointless to argue.
Turnea, you hit it on the head! This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the original thread. I think people are losing sight of the fact that every country has something (however small) that might fall under one of the factors. The fact that we are having to go through the list and debate and balance the factors speaks volumes as to how it is absurd to classify the U.S. as fascist.
In other words-- when a country is a fascist regime it is pretty darn clear to everyone concerned such that debating and balancing the factors is pointless.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 30 2005, 11:25 AM)
Syfir- you kind of ignored the post by Wertz- and, he and I both made the point that we are not Mussolini/hitler fascist state but a new type of fascism.
Wertz pretty much pointed out that we are going that way on all fourteen points.
Like I said - we probably need a modern definition of fascism, that basically is defined by the current American political reality.
Though I would like to see someone actually rebut Wertz's post point by point on this one
Wertz pretty much pointed out that we are going that way on all fourteen points.
Like I said - we probably need a modern definition of fascism, that basically is defined by the current American political reality.
Though I would like to see someone actually rebut Wertz's post point by point on this one
But that is the point Cruising Ram. You have to come up with an entirely new term to describe what the U.S. is-- cuz it ain't fascism.
QUOTE
In other words-- when a country is a fascist regime it is pretty darn clear to everyone concerned such that debating and balancing the factors is pointless.
I digress this point strongly. Most americans believe(d) that Soviet Union was Communistic, not even knowing what communism is.
Now, You are saying that to say that the U.S is facist is ludicrous (if i may put words in your mouth). So to avoid further confusion. What do you consider facism then?
And as Moif so delicate put it, and trying to avoid being to "anti-american" (which i presume anyone thinking the U.S is facist is labeled as), he would´nt like calling it a facist state. But in truth, its becoming very clear that this is the direction its going. And i find it amusing seeing some people pointing out that they could change the current goverment if they wanted, because they are a democracy. Last time i saw the voting poll, they did, but for some reason, the goverment itself change the ruling, making the richest man the winner........
EricStanze wrote:
A reasonable assumption wasn't it? Given that the Soviet Union labeled itself communist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Par...he_Soviet_Union
When a country unequivocally meets most of the factors described above.
QUOTE
In other words-- when a country is a fascist regime it is pretty darn clear to everyone concerned such that debating and balancing the factors is pointless.
I digress this point strongly. Most americans believe(d) that Soviet Union was Communistic, not even knowing what communism is.
I digress this point strongly. Most americans believe(d) that Soviet Union was Communistic, not even knowing what communism is.
A reasonable assumption wasn't it? Given that the Soviet Union labeled itself communist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Par...he_Soviet_Union
QUOTE
Now, You are saying that to say that the U.S is facist is ludicrous (if i may put words in your mouth). So to avoid further confusion. What do you consider facism then?
When a country unequivocally meets most of the factors described above.
EricStanze
Its not a question of being delicate. I don't care if any one considers me 'anti American' or not. If I did, then I wouldn't be posting here.
Its a question of accuracy. The United States simply isn't a fascist nation. I know you want to think it is, lots of people do, but I've seen this debate several times before, and nothing I've seen has convinced me that the USA is a 'fascist' nation, even if it does live up to some of the criteria. It seems to me that any one who thinks this is in dire need of reading a few books on what it was like to live in Italy in the 1930's.
What ever is wrong with the USA, it isn't fascism. I think what we are seeing now is exactly what Eisenhower predicted. A nation controlled by an 'industrial military complex' and who's population is largely ignorant, and/or indifferent as to what is done in their name.
Its obvious from the responses the charge of fascism draws from many Americans that they have a very different perspective on their nation than many of us non Americans have. Even though I agree that the USA is not a fascist state, I find the naiveté displayed by these posters to be astounding in the light of America's military spending. Currently the global military budget is almost on a par with the amount spent during the height of the cold war.
It ought to be plain and sobering to any sane observer that this budget, borne almost exclusively by one super power instead of two super powers and their allies (as was the case in 1988) is a clear indication of American aggression and intent to dominate. Terrorism alone cannot account for the massive increase in American military and defence spending. The level of threat posed by terrorism, even nuclear terrorism, is far and away lesser than the threat of global nuclear war.
So, I do not consider America to be a fascist state, and neither do I seek to imply it is. I do however consider America to be a potential danger to world peace.
QUOTE
And as Moif so delicate put it, and trying to avoid being to "anti-american" (which i presume anyone thinking the U.S is facist is labeled as), he would´nt like calling it a facist state. But in truth, its becoming very clear that this is the direction its going. And i find it amusing seeing some people pointing out that they could change the current goverment if they wanted, because they are a democracy. Last time i saw the voting poll, they did, but for some reason, the goverment itself change the ruling, making the richest man the winner........
Its not a question of being delicate. I don't care if any one considers me 'anti American' or not. If I did, then I wouldn't be posting here.
Its a question of accuracy. The United States simply isn't a fascist nation. I know you want to think it is, lots of people do, but I've seen this debate several times before, and nothing I've seen has convinced me that the USA is a 'fascist' nation, even if it does live up to some of the criteria. It seems to me that any one who thinks this is in dire need of reading a few books on what it was like to live in Italy in the 1930's.
What ever is wrong with the USA, it isn't fascism. I think what we are seeing now is exactly what Eisenhower predicted. A nation controlled by an 'industrial military complex' and who's population is largely ignorant, and/or indifferent as to what is done in their name.
Its obvious from the responses the charge of fascism draws from many Americans that they have a very different perspective on their nation than many of us non Americans have. Even though I agree that the USA is not a fascist state, I find the naiveté displayed by these posters to be astounding in the light of America's military spending. Currently the global military budget is almost on a par with the amount spent during the height of the cold war.
It ought to be plain and sobering to any sane observer that this budget, borne almost exclusively by one super power instead of two super powers and their allies (as was the case in 1988) is a clear indication of American aggression and intent to dominate. Terrorism alone cannot account for the massive increase in American military and defence spending. The level of threat posed by terrorism, even nuclear terrorism, is far and away lesser than the threat of global nuclear war.
So, I do not consider America to be a fascist state, and neither do I seek to imply it is. I do however consider America to be a potential danger to world peace.
1.) Is the United States a fascist system?
No. Any state might have a few features but, as others have pointed out, it would take a majority to begin calling the U.S. fascist.
2.) Which of the 14 features does the United States have?
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
5. Rampant Sexism (although, relatively speaking, the U.S. ranks far better than most)
7. Obsession with National Security (arguable, although in "wartime" this is somewhat to be expected)
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption ("rampant" if applied in relative terms to the U.S. is IMO more perception than reality)
In addition, #9 does not belong on the list as worded. Fascist governments such as the Nazis controlled the corporations. They allowed nominal ownership and were nice enough to sometimes leave existing officials in charge, but make no mistake — the government called the shots.
Realistically, that leaves perhaps three or four out of 13.
No. Any state might have a few features but, as others have pointed out, it would take a majority to begin calling the U.S. fascist.
2.) Which of the 14 features does the United States have?
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
5. Rampant Sexism (although, relatively speaking, the U.S. ranks far better than most)
7. Obsession with National Security (arguable, although in "wartime" this is somewhat to be expected)
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption ("rampant" if applied in relative terms to the U.S. is IMO more perception than reality)
In addition, #9 does not belong on the list as worded. Fascist governments such as the Nazis controlled the corporations. They allowed nominal ownership and were nice enough to sometimes leave existing officials in charge, but make no mistake — the government called the shots.
Realistically, that leaves perhaps three or four out of 13.
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier,
just so long as I'm the dictator."
George W. Bush, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."
George W. Bush, July 27, 2001
just so long as I'm the dictator."
George W. Bush, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."
George W. Bush, July 27, 2001
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Oct 30 2005, 03:32 PM)
But that is the point Cruising Ram. You have to come up with an entirely new term to describe what the U.S. is-- cuz it ain't fascism.
And it ain't federalist republicanism, either. Not any more.
No one is claiming that the US is a dictatorship (though at least one American seems to be suggesting that he wishes it were). And few are claiming that the US is currently a fascist state. But many see a definite leaning in that direction. Fascism is an extremist reaction to liberalism - and that is exactly what we are witrnessing in this country at this moment. And it is getting more extreme on a daily basis.
While, again, I don't feel that Britt's fourteen features are the best determinants of fascist trends, I would like to address a couple points that turnea made.
QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 30 2005, 12:54 PM)
QUOTE(Wertz)
Powerful and Continuing Nationalism This would really only apply if there were a rise in overt patriotism with politicians resorting to jingoist sloganeering and, as Britt describes it, "prominent displays of flags and bunting... pride in the military... and demands for unity". Well, we've seen none of that in the US recently, have we?
A question of scale, even the most free societies on the planet have some degree of nationalism.
Yes, it is a question of scale. And, in the 21st century, I can think of no other country on earth that is more fervently nationalistic than the United States (excluding any given European nation during the World Cup). Can you? I have never seen so many public displays of "patriotism" in my rather long life - and that includes the "Love It or Leave It" Vietnam years and the Iran hostage crisis, during which stock in yellow ribbon shot through the roof. And, as lederuvdapac failed to point out, an awful lot of this "patriotism" does have a decidedly nationalst bent - it is based on the notion of a common culture. It has been accompanied by suggestions that English be made our "official language" and much rhetoric about the US being a "Christian country" - not to mention proposed legislation that would ban flag-burning. Our discourse has been permeated with the notion of "us" versus "them", of being "with us or with the terrorists". A seige mentality has been fostered here - and "good" America must stand strong against "evil" (i.e., the rest of the world, with the possible exception of the UK - and Poland) in an ongoing and eternal struggle.
Of course, the boom in the SUV flag and magnetic ribbon industries has much to do with the September 11 attack and the unrelated invasion of Iraq, but this fervor has been ruthlessly exploited by the administration at every conceivable step and every word uttered in Congress has been draped in bunting to the strains of John Philip Sousa. And who was responsible for both failing to prevent the September 11 attack and deciding to illegally invade Iraq in the first place?
QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 30 2005, 12:54 PM)
QUOTE(Wertz)
Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights This would really only apply if a country were, say, employing torture or abusing prisoners or incarcerating people without due process - and we've certainly seen none of that lately. It might also apply, I suppose, if a country passed legislation that curbed any of its traditional rights like obtaining records without judicial oversight or surreptitious search warrants and seizures without court review - and, God knows, that could never happen here. And, I guess, this could also refer to things like securing rights for certain classes of people - like, say, heterosexuals - and excluding other classes of people - say, homosexuals - from those same rights. And we know that would would never happen here.
To argue that the US shows disdain for human rights is simply false. Human rights violations do occur, and are soundly rejected as policy and punished. the punishment is certainly not as harsh as it should be, but disdain for human rights would indicate outright support for denying said rights.
Which simply isn't the case.
Since when is "disdain" defined as "outright support for denial"? To me - and most dictionaries - "disdain" is more aligned to "contempt". As a nation, we have practised torture - and the "sound rejection" only came after such practices got a bit of media attention, the "punishment" (of few) accompanied by much rationalization. We have people in our government who have argued - strenuously - in favor of abrogating the Geneva Conventions, redefining torture to include human rights violations that we've already been practising, and allowing the sort of executive privilege that would enable the use of even more widespread torture. One of them is our current Attorney General. Another was just elevated to the United States Supreme Court. To me this indicates at least a modicum of "disdain".
QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 30 2005, 12:54 PM)
QUOTE(Wertz)
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause Unless some perceived external threat were conjured up to instill fear in a majority of people in order to garner support for the ruling elite - like, oh I don't know, let's say "terrorists", for example - this could never apply.
The fact is the US is under some threat from terrorists, any reasonable response to said threat would fit the mold of this so-called criteria for fascism.
Context is being tossed to the wind here. If the threat was manufactured then I could see a point. The threat, although occasionaly exaggerated in the way of panicky human beings, is real.
The fact is that the US has always been under some threat from terrorists - though, more often than not, they have been homegrown. Context is, indeed, being tossed to the wind here. Terrorism was the "context" used to justify an illegal invasion of Iraq, for example. Where a perceived threat starts crossing over into crypto-fascism is when the threat is exploited for political ends. The Bush administration has been doing exactly that on a daily basis ever since about September 14, 2001.
Does anyone need to be reminded that George W Bush refers to "9/11" and "terrorism" more often than he refers to "God" or "freedom" or "democracy" or even "tax cuts"? Is anyone unaware of the extent to which fear was a key factor in Bush's reelection campaign? Do you remember the "Wolves" ad? Here's a transcript courtesy of FactCheck.org:
QUOTE
Announcer: In an increasingly dangerous world... Even after the first terrorist attack on America... John Kerry and the liberals in Congress voted to slash America ’s intelligence operations. By 6 billion dollars... Cuts so deep they would have weakened America ’s defenses. And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm.
(On Screen: Several wolves eye the camera, as if preparing to attack.)
Bush: I’m George W Bush and I approve this message.
(On Screen: Several wolves eye the camera, as if preparing to attack.)
Bush: I’m George W Bush and I approve this message.
How about all of the coupling of fear with what Eco calls "a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology", contempt for weakness. Here's President Bush on the campaign trail:
QUOTE
The terrorists who killed thousands of innocent people are still dangerous, and they're determined to strike. The outcome of this election will set the direction of the war against terror. The most solemn duty of the American President is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty or weakness in these troubling times, the world will drift toward tragedy.
And Dick Cheney a few weeks earlier:
QUOTE
It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war.
These are fairly random - and very typical. The fact that the raising of terror alerts, without exception, corresponded to setbacks the administration had in other arenas has already been discussed on this site. What no one has yet mentioned, though, is that despite six national orange alerts leading up to the 2004 election, there has not been a single one since that election. I guess all those terrorists were themselves terrified that John Kerry might actually win.
Anyone who doesn't see the whole "vote for us or your family will be killed by terrorists" ploy as scare-mongering in order to maintain power is - how did you put it? - engaged in intellectual dishonesty on an ridiculous level. Context, as you say, turnea, is everything.
No I do not believe America politically is a ”fascist system” as I feel the American constitution and the political system it supports and sustains is decidedly not fascist.
Of course anyone could come up with a laundry list of fascists traits..altho I feel the one here offered is inadequate..and apply them to any nation to make themselves look cleverly insightful to our fate. It’s just random observations and this means of determining the political climate of a nation has more in common with divination then it does with political discourse.
I don’t feel any of the arguments supporting the belief that the USA’s political system is fascist show a pattern or anything resembling a cohesive movement that can in any form be considered the main mechanisms of our political system.
All Western societies have some form of fascists ideals present. All of which flow in and out of mainstream favor, all of which I feel fairly well protected by in America because of our political system in place.
This argument that European Fascism..eg Hitler, Mussolini.. is now experiencing a rebirth in America and is not as easily recognized by us less sensitive, more common people because it is in the new form of fascism to me has many faults....entertaining yes..but logical?..err..no.
This ignores the fact that fascism never died in Europe and was successfully “Internationalized”.
It also seems to support the idea that the year 2000 was somehow fascism’s new incarnation which again ignores the fact it has been reincarnated many times over. We have other, more relevant, examples to make comparisons to then just those they televise on the History Channel. Why not use the modern, current applications of fascism as a divining rod? Perhaps because their relevance and likeness is much harder to blur since they are so sharply in practice and in contrast to America's own system... not vague distant black and white memories.
But most importantly I feel the juxtaposition of this debate is severely misleading..as the American system has for the most part in all forms and nations most acutely represented the anti-thesis of fascism. Many forms of the “fascist system” recognize America as their enemy. When was the American system embraced by the “fascist system”?
I think a few of the most important aspects of fascism are not evident in the US..
Economic control
Media control
The denial of the individual
I personally feel that in these three arenas that the US practices one of the least fascist systems.
Of course anyone could come up with a laundry list of fascists traits..altho I feel the one here offered is inadequate..and apply them to any nation to make themselves look cleverly insightful to our fate. It’s just random observations and this means of determining the political climate of a nation has more in common with divination then it does with political discourse.
I don’t feel any of the arguments supporting the belief that the USA’s political system is fascist show a pattern or anything resembling a cohesive movement that can in any form be considered the main mechanisms of our political system.
All Western societies have some form of fascists ideals present. All of which flow in and out of mainstream favor, all of which I feel fairly well protected by in America because of our political system in place.
This argument that European Fascism..eg Hitler, Mussolini.. is now experiencing a rebirth in America and is not as easily recognized by us less sensitive, more common people because it is in the new form of fascism to me has many faults....entertaining yes..but logical?..err..no.
This ignores the fact that fascism never died in Europe and was successfully “Internationalized”.
It also seems to support the idea that the year 2000 was somehow fascism’s new incarnation which again ignores the fact it has been reincarnated many times over. We have other, more relevant, examples to make comparisons to then just those they televise on the History Channel. Why not use the modern, current applications of fascism as a divining rod? Perhaps because their relevance and likeness is much harder to blur since they are so sharply in practice and in contrast to America's own system... not vague distant black and white memories.
But most importantly I feel the juxtaposition of this debate is severely misleading..as the American system has for the most part in all forms and nations most acutely represented the anti-thesis of fascism. Many forms of the “fascist system” recognize America as their enemy. When was the American system embraced by the “fascist system”?
I think a few of the most important aspects of fascism are not evident in the US..
Economic control
Media control
The denial of the individual
I personally feel that in these three arenas that the US practices one of the least fascist systems.
1.) Is the United States a fascist system?
2.) Which of the 14 features does the United States have?
Hmm. I don't think so, really. America has some serious problems, in my opinion (where doesn't?), and many of them have not yet been fully recognised by most of the American population, though they seem obvious to many outside (what was that about planks and splinters?).
And yes, some of them bear some similarities to these fourteen "signs of fascism", often uncomfortably so.
However, it's also worth mentioning that the real fascists were not afraid to admit what they were; and indeed took some pride in their fascism. Mussolini and Franco would certainly fit this bill - they thought fascism was a positive good. Now, since WW2, fascism has lost some of it's appeal as label, so post-war fascists might conceivably be less likely to wear the label with as much pride. But most post-war fascists who have got into power are open about who their political heroes are. Fascists are not generally a secretive bunch, so unless I missed the press conference where GWB announced his belief that Hitler was a misunderstood genius, the current administration are (at the very least) an entirely novel kind of fascist. One which is so different to all predecessors that the word "fascist" loses much of it's usefulness in describing them accuratley. Even "neofascist" doesn't really do it.
But my real problem with these kinds of discussions (it would be just as easy to dig up an academic anti-communist's list of defining features of communism, and then point them at France. Many would fit, but it wouldn't make the French communists) is that there tend to be self fulfilling.
Analogy:
Cosmetics advertisers have, in the last 5 years or so, started talking about "the seven signs of ageing" or "the five signs of dry hair". They rarely spell out exactly what those lists are, but if you go digging, you find that "wrinkles", "colour spots" "lack of youthful elasticity" and the like are in the list (for skin, not hair). It's a list of the bleeding obvious, in other words, which has been cobbled together to sound scientific by some Madison Avenue suit wanting to flog more expensive (and higher margin) skin cream. The cheap stuff will do exactly the same job.
But before I disappear into a rant on the scientific illiteracy of the public permitting this kind of thing, let's concentrate on the list.
First off, it's obvious only after a certain point has been passed. Ageing happens from conception, it's just that it's only our cultural assumption that after a certain point it stops being a good thing (growing up) and starts being a bad thing (getting old). The signs are side effects of something else, as well as being a symptom of something.
Plus, ageing is something that in truth ONLY happens from advancing years. Yet the "signs of ageing" can be caused by a number of things - chemical or environmental harshness, lifestyle, radiation exposure (including sunlight). and so on.
If I have all of the "signs of ageing", it doesn't mean I'm old. I might just have spent six weeks on a high mountain, or a six years at sea in a mostly open boat, or have been like the woman in the anti-drug advert who looked about sixty before she hit thrity because of the substances she'd abused and the lack of care she'd taken for herself. or maybe just spent far too long on a sunbed. There are other ways of getting the same signs.
Similarly, with this list of fascist features, most of them also apply - could certainly be argued to apply - to 19th Century England. But they were not fascists.
Ultimately, though, if these things are negative (and I would agree they all are) does it really matter what political category their proponents fit into? People who condone torture are wrong because torture is wrong, stupid, counter-productive, self-polluting and to all intents and purposes ineffective. They may or may not be fascist. But they are still wrong either way.
People who manipulate the public through misdirection for selfish endsare in advertising are wrong because doing that is wrong, not because of the political philosophy they use to rationalise their actions to themselves.
Oppose Bush and his administration by all means - I have never been, and will never be, able to condone 99% of the things they do or say - but do it because they are wrong, bad, stupid, anti-intellectual, malicious, covertly elitist, corrupt, corporatist, ignorant, vindictive, Bible-thumping twerps with no humility who wouldn't know how to learn from history if a library fell on their heads (or whatever your own particular take on them, or anyone else you feel you need to oppose).
Don't oppose them because they are fascists, because they aren't, and even if they were, it's the things they do that make them wrong, and not the reason they do them, nor the label that may or may not apply to the particular mix of wrongness that they practise.
2.) Which of the 14 features does the United States have?
Hmm. I don't think so, really. America has some serious problems, in my opinion (where doesn't?), and many of them have not yet been fully recognised by most of the American population, though they seem obvious to many outside (what was that about planks and splinters?).
And yes, some of them bear some similarities to these fourteen "signs of fascism", often uncomfortably so.
However, it's also worth mentioning that the real fascists were not afraid to admit what they were; and indeed took some pride in their fascism. Mussolini and Franco would certainly fit this bill - they thought fascism was a positive good. Now, since WW2, fascism has lost some of it's appeal as label, so post-war fascists might conceivably be less likely to wear the label with as much pride. But most post-war fascists who have got into power are open about who their political heroes are. Fascists are not generally a secretive bunch, so unless I missed the press conference where GWB announced his belief that Hitler was a misunderstood genius, the current administration are (at the very least) an entirely novel kind of fascist. One which is so different to all predecessors that the word "fascist" loses much of it's usefulness in describing them accuratley. Even "neofascist" doesn't really do it.
But my real problem with these kinds of discussions (it would be just as easy to dig up an academic anti-communist's list of defining features of communism, and then point them at France. Many would fit, but it wouldn't make the French communists) is that there tend to be self fulfilling.
Analogy:
Cosmetics advertisers have, in the last 5 years or so, started talking about "the seven signs of ageing" or "the five signs of dry hair". They rarely spell out exactly what those lists are, but if you go digging, you find that "wrinkles", "colour spots" "lack of youthful elasticity" and the like are in the list (for skin, not hair). It's a list of the bleeding obvious, in other words, which has been cobbled together to sound scientific by some Madison Avenue suit wanting to flog more expensive (and higher margin) skin cream. The cheap stuff will do exactly the same job.
But before I disappear into a rant on the scientific illiteracy of the public permitting this kind of thing, let's concentrate on the list.
First off, it's obvious only after a certain point has been passed. Ageing happens from conception, it's just that it's only our cultural assumption that after a certain point it stops being a good thing (growing up) and starts being a bad thing (getting old). The signs are side effects of something else, as well as being a symptom of something.
Plus, ageing is something that in truth ONLY happens from advancing years. Yet the "signs of ageing" can be caused by a number of things - chemical or environmental harshness, lifestyle, radiation exposure (including sunlight). and so on.
If I have all of the "signs of ageing", it doesn't mean I'm old. I might just have spent six weeks on a high mountain, or a six years at sea in a mostly open boat, or have been like the woman in the anti-drug advert who looked about sixty before she hit thrity because of the substances she'd abused and the lack of care she'd taken for herself. or maybe just spent far too long on a sunbed. There are other ways of getting the same signs.
Similarly, with this list of fascist features, most of them also apply - could certainly be argued to apply - to 19th Century England. But they were not fascists.
Ultimately, though, if these things are negative (and I would agree they all are) does it really matter what political category their proponents fit into? People who condone torture are wrong because torture is wrong, stupid, counter-productive, self-polluting and to all intents and purposes ineffective. They may or may not be fascist. But they are still wrong either way.
People who manipulate the public through misdirection for selfish ends
Oppose Bush and his administration by all means - I have never been, and will never be, able to condone 99% of the things they do or say - but do it because they are wrong, bad, stupid, anti-intellectual, malicious, covertly elitist, corrupt, corporatist, ignorant, vindictive, Bible-thumping twerps with no humility who wouldn't know how to learn from history if a library fell on their heads (or whatever your own particular take on them, or anyone else you feel you need to oppose).
Don't oppose them because they are fascists, because they aren't, and even if they were, it's the things they do that make them wrong, and not the reason they do them, nor the label that may or may not apply to the particular mix of wrongness that they practise.
I'm not sure why it is that so many people - especially liberals - seem to shy away from calling spades spades. No one, myself included, has any apparent qualms about identifying socialist trends under more liberal administrations - such as those of FDR or LBJ - but when it comes to identifying the fascistic trends of a Reagan or a Bush, this suddenly becomes "mud-slinging" or "a waste of time" or "entertainment" rather than objective political analysis. Are we that much more amenable to fascism than socialism that we are willing to ignore even the most obvious propensities toward this type of authoritarianism in our leadership? How is it shying away from militarism and seeking every peaceable means possible to contend with such threats?
What, exactly, is illogical about suggesting that the US is becoming increasingly conservative? What is illogical about suggesting that we are ever more driven by fear of threats from outside and "degeneracy" from within? What is illogical about further suggesting that our leadership is exploiting such fears to secure their power base and is building a coalition of both religious and economic conservatives? That is, at root, all that several of us are arguing here (and some of us have been at pains to make distinctions between American fascism and historic European fascism). If you are arguing the contrary, I'd like to see your foundation. How, exactly, is the Bush administration distancing itself from conservative ideals, from the religious right, and from crony capitalism?
I appreciate your acknowledgement that fascism has become "internationalized" (largely through the encouragement and support of the United States of America) and that, with financial and military support from the US, it has been reincarnated many times over. But who's eschewing more recent incarnations? Britt's list was based on regimes that include Salazar, whose thirty-five year regime in Portugal lasted until 1968, Papadopoulos, who ruled Greece through 1974, Franco, whose reign in Spain lasted until 1975, Pinochet, who ruled Chile through 1990, and Suharto, who was president of Indonesia until 1998. That may all be History Channel stuff to you, but I;ve lived through them all. We're not entirely talking about ancient (or European) history here. Which other "applications of fascism" did you have in mind? I'm sure we'd be more than willing to compare and contrast.
When? How about from the very start? In 1937, William Dodd, the US Ambassador to Germany, wrote:
These people included William Randolph Hearst, who openly supported Hitler, Andrew Mellon of Alcoa, the boards of Standard Oil, General Motors, Morgan Bank, and ITT, the DuPonts (who actually lead a plot to overthrow FDR and install a fascist government in the US), and, of course, Henry Ford, whose 1927 tract The International Jew was more virulently anti-Semitic than anything Hitler (whose photo sat on Ford's desk throughout the war) ever produced. And let's not forget Alan Dulles (later director of the CIA), who created massive financing networks for the Nazis. And let's please not forget that Prescott Bush made such a fortune collaborating with the Nazis before and during WWII that his family could successfully finance not one, but two presidential contenders.
Many of the same industrialists sponsored Franco - notably Ford and General Motors again - while the US remained neutral, refusing to back Spain's democratic movement. The US did, however, back Salazar's colonialist claims throughout the world and welcomed him into NATO, as well as providing his regime with copious financial support. George Papadapoulos, the ruthless fascist dictator of Greece, was on the CIA payroll for fifteen years and received US aid throughout his rule (as well as hosting US military bases). A CIA-organized coup brought General Suharto to power in Indonesia and we provided him with military support throughout his ruthlessly brutal dictatorship. The CIA also managed the assassination of Allende and the coup that brought Pinochet to power in Chile - and we provided that fascist scum with financial support throughout the bloody reign of terror in which tens of thousands of Chileans were tortured and slaughtered.
And let's also remember that we've actively supported such fascistic regimes as that of Turgut Ozal in Turkey, Haile Selassie in Ethiopia, Ian Smith in Rhodesia, Park Chung Hee in South Korea, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, the Somozas in Nicaragua, and Manuel Noriega in Panama - to name but a few. And we installed the fascistic Mohammed Reza Pahlevi in Iran and financed apartheid in South Africa under Botha. For that matter, we gave early support to Saddam Hussein and virtually invented the Taliban.
It's all very well to claim that America represents the antithesis of fascism, but you do so with no foundation whatsoever. In fact, I can't think of a single fascist regime in the history of the world that US corporations and/or the US government hasn't promoted, sponsored, financed, collaborated with, or created. You assert that many fascist rulers "recognize America as their enemy". Okay... which ones???
The US may not yet be a fascist state itself, but we've sure as hell done our part to see that fascism thrives everywhere else in the world. As many of our government and business leaders are so found of fascism as a system of government, why wouldn't they be interested in trying it out here at home? And what indications do you have that they're not?
And, Julian, I agree with you about the application of labels and judging governments by their deeds. But I also believe in learning from history and being able to spot trends before it's too late. Of course, judging by the reaction these sorts of discussions usually spawn, I should probably change my name to Cassandra.
QUOTE(bucket @ Oct 30 2005, 10:00 PM)
This argument that European Fascism..eg Hitler, Mussolini.. is now experiencing a rebirth in America and is not as easily recognized by us less sensitive, more common people because it is in the new form of fascism to me has many faults....entertaining yes..but logical?..err..no.
What, exactly, is illogical about suggesting that the US is becoming increasingly conservative? What is illogical about suggesting that we are ever more driven by fear of threats from outside and "degeneracy" from within? What is illogical about further suggesting that our leadership is exploiting such fears to secure their power base and is building a coalition of both religious and economic conservatives? That is, at root, all that several of us are arguing here (and some of us have been at pains to make distinctions between American fascism and historic European fascism). If you are arguing the contrary, I'd like to see your foundation. How, exactly, is the Bush administration distancing itself from conservative ideals, from the religious right, and from crony capitalism?
QUOTE(bucket @ Oct 30 2005, 10:00 PM)
This ignores the fact that fascism never died in Europe and was successfully "Internationalized".
It also seems to support the idea that the year 2000 was somehow fascism’s new incarnation which again ignores the fact it has been reincarnated many times over. We have other, more relevant, examples to make comparisons to then just those they televise on the History Channel. Why not use the modern, current applications of fascism as a divining rod? Perhaps because their relevance and likeness is much harder to blur since they are so sharply in practice and in contrast to America's own system... not vague distant black and white memories.
It also seems to support the idea that the year 2000 was somehow fascism’s new incarnation which again ignores the fact it has been reincarnated many times over. We have other, more relevant, examples to make comparisons to then just those they televise on the History Channel. Why not use the modern, current applications of fascism as a divining rod? Perhaps because their relevance and likeness is much harder to blur since they are so sharply in practice and in contrast to America's own system... not vague distant black and white memories.
I appreciate your acknowledgement that fascism has become "internationalized" (largely through the encouragement and support of the United States of America) and that, with financial and military support from the US, it has been reincarnated many times over. But who's eschewing more recent incarnations? Britt's list was based on regimes that include Salazar, whose thirty-five year regime in Portugal lasted until 1968, Papadopoulos, who ruled Greece through 1974, Franco, whose reign in Spain lasted until 1975, Pinochet, who ruled Chile through 1990, and Suharto, who was president of Indonesia until 1998. That may all be History Channel stuff to you, but I;ve lived through them all. We're not entirely talking about ancient (or European) history here. Which other "applications of fascism" did you have in mind? I'm sure we'd be more than willing to compare and contrast.
QUOTE(bucket @ Oct 30 2005, 10:00 PM)
But most importantly I feel the juxtaposition of this debate is severely misleading..as the American system has for the most part in all forms and nations most acutely represented the anti-thesis of fascism. Many forms of the "fascist system" recognize America as their enemy. When was the American system embraced by the "fascist system"?
When? How about from the very start? In 1937, William Dodd, the US Ambassador to Germany, wrote:
QUOTE
A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime.
Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there.
Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there.
These people included William Randolph Hearst, who openly supported Hitler, Andrew Mellon of Alcoa, the boards of Standard Oil, General Motors, Morgan Bank, and ITT, the DuPonts (who actually lead a plot to overthrow FDR and install a fascist government in the US), and, of course, Henry Ford, whose 1927 tract The International Jew was more virulently anti-Semitic than anything Hitler (whose photo sat on Ford's desk throughout the war) ever produced. And let's not forget Alan Dulles (later director of the CIA), who created massive financing networks for the Nazis. And let's please not forget that Prescott Bush made such a fortune collaborating with the Nazis before and during WWII that his family could successfully finance not one, but two presidential contenders.
Many of the same industrialists sponsored Franco - notably Ford and General Motors again - while the US remained neutral, refusing to back Spain's democratic movement. The US did, however, back Salazar's colonialist claims throughout the world and welcomed him into NATO, as well as providing his regime with copious financial support. George Papadapoulos, the ruthless fascist dictator of Greece, was on the CIA payroll for fifteen years and received US aid throughout his rule (as well as hosting US military bases). A CIA-organized coup brought General Suharto to power in Indonesia and we provided him with military support throughout his ruthlessly brutal dictatorship. The CIA also managed the assassination of Allende and the coup that brought Pinochet to power in Chile - and we provided that fascist scum with financial support throughout the bloody reign of terror in which tens of thousands of Chileans were tortured and slaughtered.
And let's also remember that we've actively supported such fascistic regimes as that of Turgut Ozal in Turkey, Haile Selassie in Ethiopia, Ian Smith in Rhodesia, Park Chung Hee in South Korea, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, the Somozas in Nicaragua, and Manuel Noriega in Panama - to name but a few. And we installed the fascistic Mohammed Reza Pahlevi in Iran and financed apartheid in South Africa under Botha. For that matter, we gave early support to Saddam Hussein and virtually invented the Taliban.
It's all very well to claim that America represents the antithesis of fascism, but you do so with no foundation whatsoever. In fact, I can't think of a single fascist regime in the history of the world that US corporations and/or the US government hasn't promoted, sponsored, financed, collaborated with, or created. You assert that many fascist rulers "recognize America as their enemy". Okay... which ones???
The US may not yet be a fascist state itself, but we've sure as hell done our part to see that fascism thrives everywhere else in the world. As many of our government and business leaders are so found of fascism as a system of government, why wouldn't they be interested in trying it out here at home? And what indications do you have that they're not?
And, Julian, I agree with you about the application of labels and judging governments by their deeds. But I also believe in learning from history and being able to spot trends before it's too late. Of course, judging by the reaction these sorts of discussions usually spawn, I should probably change my name to Cassandra.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Oct 29 2005, 01:52 PM)
14. Fraudulent Elections
If you have hard evidence of such an occurrence please share it with the rest of the class. I would find it amazing that you would have facts about it and yet some prosecutor somewhere in DC doesnt and has yet to indict someone for criminal actions in the election.
Since you asked - Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (reg required). Sorry to report that it was Democratic voter registration drives, not fascist-Rethuglicans though.If you have hard evidence of such an occurrence please share it with the rest of the class. I would find it amazing that you would have facts about it and yet some prosecutor somewhere in DC doesnt and has yet to indict someone for criminal actions in the election.
QUOTE
Racine, Kenosha voter application fraud alleged
2 charged, including a candidate
Posted: Oct. 28, 2004
Racine - Authorities Thursday filed felony election fraud charges against two Milwaukee men accused of falsifying voter applications in Racine.
With fears of voter fraud on the rise, the charges are the first in the area filed in connection with Tuesday's election, but prosecutors are also probing voter registration irregularities in Milwaukee.
Michael Nieskes, the deputy district attorney in Racine County, said his investigation of the work of Project Vote in Racine did not indicate a coordinated effort to commit voting fraud at the polls. Project Vote's bonus pay for meeting quotas likely motivated the two men to falsify voter registration applications, he said.
2 charged, including a candidate
Posted: Oct. 28, 2004
Racine - Authorities Thursday filed felony election fraud charges against two Milwaukee men accused of falsifying voter applications in Racine.
With fears of voter fraud on the rise, the charges are the first in the area filed in connection with Tuesday's election, but prosecutors are also probing voter registration irregularities in Milwaukee.
Michael Nieskes, the deputy district attorney in Racine County, said his investigation of the work of Project Vote in Racine did not indicate a coordinated effort to commit voting fraud at the polls. Project Vote's bonus pay for meeting quotas likely motivated the two men to falsify voter registration applications, he said.
QUOTE(journal sentinel oct 25 2005)
More than a dozen people in Milwaukee have been charged so far in federal court with election fraud as a result of an ongoing federal-local investigation into last year’s elections, with more charges expected. While Milwaukee’s Election Day mess has captured most of the headlines, new accounts of voter fraud have surfaced throughout the state.
One month ago, the nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) issued a report that found more than 100 potential cases of voter fraud in six Wisconsin cities. The report also said most municipalities don’t have proper procedures in place to prevent felons from voting and found significant problems with voter registration lists and address verification cards. Wisconsin is one of six states that allow same day registration.
Not to mention those convicted of slashing the tires of Republican campaign vehicles, vandilizing campaign offices, etc. etc. etc. - Kerry won Wisconsin by 10,000 votes...One month ago, the nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) issued a report that found more than 100 potential cases of voter fraud in six Wisconsin cities. The report also said most municipalities don’t have proper procedures in place to prevent felons from voting and found significant problems with voter registration lists and address verification cards. Wisconsin is one of six states that allow same day registration.
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 30 2005, 04:28 PM)
Its obvious from the responses the charge of fascism draws from many Americans that they have a very different perspective on their nation than many of us non Americans have.
Well, we do live here, so it's good that we have a different perspective on America. QUOTE(moif)
Even though I agree that the USA is not a fascist state, I find the naiveté displayed by these posters to be astounding in the light of America's military spending. Currently the global military budget is almost on a par with the amount spent during the height of the cold war.
Question for you moif - if America were to stop spending billions on defending Europe, would that make America less of a threat to world peace? Seems to me that when left to its own devices, Europe has tended to be more of a threat to peace (WWI, WWII, breakup of Yugoslavia). On the other hand, when the USA has 'meddled in European affairs,' over-spending on the military, and even putting missles in Germany, we actually achieve some level of peace (Cold War). Or at least détente.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Oct 30 2005, 07:00 PM)
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier,
just so long as I'm the dictator."
George W. Bush, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."
George W. Bush, July 27, 2001
just so long as I'm the dictator."
George W. Bush, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."
George W. Bush, July 27, 2001
This doesn't really move the debate forward Wertz.
"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people"
-- Bill Clinton 1993 on MTV
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans"
-- Bill Clinton in 1993 from USA Today
You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say."
-- Bill Clinton in 1993, Philadelphia
QUOTE(Wertz)
And let's also remember that we've actively supported such fascistic regimes as that of Turgut Ozal in Turkey, Haile Selassie in Ethiopia, Ian Smith in Rhodesia, Park Chung Hee in South Korea, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, the Somozas in Nicaragua, and Manuel Noriega in Panama - to name but a few. And we installed the fascistic Mohammed Reza Pahlevi in Iran and financed apartheid in South Africa under Botha. For that matter, we gave early support to Saddam Hussein and virtually invented the Taliban.
We supported Hussein against an emerging Islamic fascist government in Iran, true. As to inventing the Taliban, that is a bit of a myth. Apologies for the fox news link, I know the Guardian ran something but I can't find it. (darn lefties - put it down the memory hole!)
QUOTE(Richard Miniter -author of Losing Bin Laden)
Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk (search) in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: “We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.”
In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and bin Laden, I interviewed Bill Peikney, who was CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986, and Milt Bearden, who was CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989. These two men oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance. Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: “I don’t even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there.”
In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and bin Laden, I interviewed Bill Peikney, who was CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986, and Milt Bearden, who was CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989. These two men oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance. Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: “I don’t even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there.”
QUOTE(Wertz)
It's all very well to claim that America represents the antithesis of fascism, but you do so with no foundation whatsoever. In fact, I can't think of a single fascist regime in the history of the world that US corporations and/or the US government hasn't promoted, sponsored, financed, collaborated with, or created. You assert that many fascist rulers "recognize America as their enemy". Okay... which ones???
Iran tops my list.But really - how many fascist rulers are there? HERE you can find a list of fascist movements by country. Only a very few have ever come to power. Most historically- acknowledged fascist states were German puppet governments in WWII. Almost none of the movements listed are or have been supported by the USA.
As for your Latin American example, it's a fair one. ARENA in El Salvador could possibly fit, but were their death squads are worse than the FMLN's terror bombings... Seems a bit revisionist to decry the bloody fascists when the alternative were the bloody communists. Just like today's Uzbekistan - how could we work with that awful dictator? Well, the alternative isn't parlimenary democracy, it's Islamic fascism.
QUOTE
The US may not yet be a fascist state itself, but we've sure as hell done our part to see that fascism thrives everywhere else in the world. As many of our government and business leaders are so found of fascism as a system of government, why wouldn't they be interested in trying it out here at home? And what indications do you have that they're not?
See my link above for a lists of the real fascist movements in the USA - all of these continue to be targeted by the Justice Department.
Is the United States a fascist system?
I've a feeling if Dems were in control of both branches the question could be "Is the U.S. a communist system?" That's not to say neither questions are worth exploring, but I find sticklers for old school terminology afloat in both scenarios. heylayanne thinks "the term 'fascism' is just as relevant today as it was 50 years ago," but I bet she'd take issue with being labeled a socialist for her support of universal healthcare. (Arch-moralist may be closer to the mark except she supports a pro-choice amendment.)
Instead of freeze drying history to support answering in negatives we could determine the characteristics of a fascist inclination by asking ourselves which trends between communism and fascism don't overlap, and why said trends surface at all.
Are you suggesting fascism is the lesser of these two evils? Doesn't that in itself support a reluctant fascist preference for economic purposes?
A third alternative is removing the illusion that we have a Constitutional authority to prop up dictatorships at all so that... you know... you can still support democracy abroad and only democracy even though your former party doesn't.
I've a feeling if Dems were in control of both branches the question could be "Is the U.S. a communist system?" That's not to say neither questions are worth exploring, but I find sticklers for old school terminology afloat in both scenarios. heylayanne thinks "the term 'fascism' is just as relevant today as it was 50 years ago," but I bet she'd take issue with being labeled a socialist for her support of universal healthcare. (Arch-moralist may be closer to the mark except she supports a pro-choice amendment.)
Instead of freeze drying history to support answering in negatives we could determine the characteristics of a fascist inclination by asking ourselves which trends between communism and fascism don't overlap, and why said trends surface at all.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Oct 31 2005, 02:00 PM)
ARENA in El Salvador could possibly fit, but were their death squads are worse than the FMLN's terror bombings... Seems a bit revisionist to decry the bloody fascists when the alternative were the bloody communists. Just like today's Uzbekistan - how could we work with that awful dictator? Well, the alternative isn't parlimenary democracy, it's Islamic fascism.
Are you suggesting fascism is the lesser of these two evils? Doesn't that in itself support a reluctant fascist preference for economic purposes?
A third alternative is removing the illusion that we have a Constitutional authority to prop up dictatorships at all so that... you know... you can still support democracy abroad and only democracy even though your former party doesn't.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Oct 31 2005, 05:38 AM)
I'm not sure why it is that so many people - especially liberals - seem to shy away from calling spades spades. No one, myself included, has any apparent qualms about identifying socialist trends under more liberal administrations - such as those of FDR or LBJ - but when it comes to identifying the fascistic trends of a Reagan or a Bush, this suddenly becomes "mud-slinging" or "a waste of time" or "entertainment" rather than objective political analysis. Are we that much more amenable to fascism than socialism that we are willing to ignore even the most obvious propensities toward this type of authoritarianism in our leadership? How is it shying away from militarism and seeking every peaceable means possible to contend with such threats?
Wertz, you felt so strongly that the term "Democratic" is inflammatory that you started a topic in the comments and suggestions forum a while back requesting that it not be used. Now, you can't understand why conservatives would take issue with the term "fascist"?
I don't see liberals shying away from this term myself. As moif mentioned, the subject comes up again and again. QUOTE
What, exactly, is illogical about suggesting that the US is becoming increasingly conservative? What is illogical about suggesting that we are ever more driven by fear of threats from outside and "degeneracy" from within? What is illogical about further suggesting that our leadership is exploiting such fears to secure their power base and is building a coalition of both religious and economic conservatives? That is, at root, all that several of us are arguing here (and some of us have been at pains to make distinctions between American fascism and historic European fascism). If you are arguing the contrary, I'd like to see your foundation. How, exactly, is the Bush administration distancing itself from conservative ideals, from the religious right, and from crony capitalism?
Mussolini rejected Capitalism as we practice it (fascism rejects individualistic economic policy), and conservatism (which as we know was called liberalism then). Fascist doctrine
QUOTE
Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in how much it coincides with the State, conscience and universal will of the man in its historical existence. It is against classical liberalism, which rose from the need to react to absolutism and has exhausted its historical function from when the State has transformed in the same conscience and popular will. Liberalism denied the State in the interest of the particular individual; the fascism reaffirms the State like the true truth of the individual. And if the freedom must be the attribute of the real man, and not of that separating puppet to which it thought the individualistic liberalism, then fascism is for the freedom. It is for the single freedom, the freedom of the State and the individual in the State. Since, for the Fascist, all is in the State, and nothing of spiritual human or it exists, and has much less value, outside of the State.
It is my opinion that Conservative ideology in America (even today) does not reflect the above or anything close. Now, if you wish to make the point that America is headed in the wrong direction there is no need to use the term "fascist" or "a new type of fascism" to do so. It is counterproductive because it simply doesn't historically fit (which is the subject of the 14 points for this thread), and the term is overused to the point of simple name-calling. "It's fascism, just with civil liberties intact, democratic representation, laissez-faire economics, freedom of speech rights....." doesn't make a lot of sense to me. For what it is worth, we aren't the only ones having trouble balancing individual rights and security issues .
QUOTE
QUOTE(bucket @ Oct 30 2005, 10:00 PM)
But most importantly I feel the juxtaposition of this debate is severely misleading..as the American system has for the most part in all forms and nations most acutely represented the anti-thesis of fascism. Many forms of the "fascist system" recognize America as their enemy. When was the American system embraced by the "fascist system"?
When? How about from the very start? In 1937, William Dodd, the US Ambassador to Germany, wrote:A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime...
But she didn't say "no Americans have ever supported any fascist regimes, for any reason", she said that no fascist system has ever embraced the American system as desireable.
Mussolini's summary of the Fascist philosophy:"Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" (Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State). I think a good case could be made that this is the antithesis of American philosophy.
Edited to add: The Fascist take on Capitalism... Lo Stato Corporativo
QUOTE
When does the capitalist enterprise stop being an economic fact? When its dimensions lead it to being a social fact. The precise moment is when the capitalistic enterprise, in difficulty, is thrown of lead in the arms of the State. The moment is this in which it is born and the participation of the State becomes more and more necessary. And those who ignored it search gasping.
*snip*
The corporation plays on the economic land as the Great Council and the Military service played on the political land! The corporativismo is the disciplined economy, and therefore also controlled, because it cannot be thought next to a discipline that it does not have a control. The corporativismo exceeds Socialism and exceeds liberalism, creates one new synthesis.
A fact is symptomatic, a fact on which perhaps it is not sufficiently reflected: that decaying of Capitalism coincides with the decaying of Socialism!
Here because, the corporative economy rises in the determined historical moment, when the two concomitant phenomena, Capitalism and Socialism, have already given all which they can give. From one and the other we inherit what they had that was vital.
*snip*
The corporation plays on the economic land as the Great Council and the Military service played on the political land! The corporativismo is the disciplined economy, and therefore also controlled, because it cannot be thought next to a discipline that it does not have a control. The corporativismo exceeds Socialism and exceeds liberalism, creates one new synthesis.
A fact is symptomatic, a fact on which perhaps it is not sufficiently reflected: that decaying of Capitalism coincides with the decaying of Socialism!
Here because, the corporative economy rises in the determined historical moment, when the two concomitant phenomena, Capitalism and Socialism, have already given all which they can give. From one and the other we inherit what they had that was vital.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
QUOTE(moif)
Its obvious from the responses the charge of fascism draws from many Americans that they have a very different perspective on their nation than many of us non Americans have.
Well, we do live here, so it's good that we have a different perspective on America. Sitting in the hospital waiting room today, I was subjected to a long period of waiting ...an hour and 47 mins
By the time the doctor finally called me in to see him, I was about ready to call him a fascist!My point is that people have different idea's as to where the line is drawn due to their different perspectives. One mans conservative politician is another mans fascist. Which is in the right?
Take for example a woman. Five men say she is beautiful and five men say she is ugly. So is the woman beautiful? Well, obviously she is both since beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
So it is with the USA. It is both beautiful and ugly.
A lot of Americans are proud of their nation, drape the flag on every wall available and sport eagle motif's when ever possible. To a European, such a display of unneeded nationalism recalls the nazi's and is near repugnant but then, as you p