The U.S., since the Industrial Revolution has had strong ties with industry, including defense contracting.
This is the most integral part of the fascist type of government/economy. Please do not mistake fascism for Nazism, as these are two different systems. Explanation of Fascism and Definition of Nazism
The questions for debate are:

Is the U.S. a fascist state?
Explain your answer.

Has the U.S. ever been a fascist state, in peace or war time?


Keep in mind the major characteristics of fascism:
Nationalism
Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism
Militarism
Corporatism
Collectivism
Anti-Communism
Opposition to Unregulated Laissez-Faire Economics

This topic kind of reminds me of a 'who would you vote for?' poll I've seen. It lists a few candidate descriptions without the names, and people ooo and ah that they chose Hitler (the 'vegetarian war hero') over Churchill (the drunk). But of course the poll means nothing whatsoever because is gives an entirely inaccurate picture by offering only tiny selective bits of the whole. You could do this with anything. Example: "Do you like having sex? Most rapists enjoy sex. Ergo, you might have the leanings of a rapist."

I could offer a similar list of "communist characteristics" and it would give as strong an indication that we have "Communist leanings". A fascist state is a police state with complete government control of nearly everything. No press freedom and very little to no personal liberties of any kind. Having a strong military does not offer chalkmark uno for evidence of a police state, nor does patriotism (aka nationalism here), nor is anti-Communism. Corporatism, as defined by fascism is complete goverment control over corporations, not what we think of as corporatism today.

Luckily, I managed to evade the brown shirts long enough to type this message... but I must be hasty.

Yes, the USA is a fascist state. We have no freedom of the press. Nothing is broadcast or printed that is in opposition to the current fascist rulers.

We must swear allegiance to the country and more importantly to its leader on a daily basis or face imprisonment. The corporatists at my place of employment are in charge of enforcing this, as they are all beholden to the state.

If we go by Mussolini's description of fascism:


Can a more perfect description of the current state of the USA be written? I think not...

Sorry, I'm late for the morning "We Love the President" celebration...

this is added confirmation to my long-standing view that Fascism is Communism applied to local circumstances. specifically, Mussolini (the orginal 'skinhead') invented Marxist-Leninism without the bothersome 'Marxism', which, even as early as the early 1920s, was obviously creating more economic problems in the Soviet Union (eg, famine) than it was solving.

Of course Fascism is Communism. They are clearly the same thing marketed slightly different. Whenever the "Common Good" is the goal bad things happen. Frank Zappa nailed it on the head when he said, "Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

Is US a Fascist State?

No.

It's getting really sad that some people _need_ the US to be a Fascist State, _need_ the US Economy to tank, _need_ our wars to be failures and _need_ the US Gov't to be culpable in 9/11 (etc) in order to forward their agendas. I'm sure no one on feels that way but take a stroll on some other boards and see the ugly side of Failure Politicking.

I voted, "No, but with elements of fascism."

White the United States has not become a fascist state, there are some aspects both of the state itself and of the culture here that do seem to tend toward fascism, and their relative prominence seems to be increasing. (When we speak of fascism, we can dispense with elaborate definitions and simply remember Franco, the Greek "Regime of the Colonels," Pinochet in Chile, and Galtieri in Argentina.)

Things about the state:

1. Covert investigation of non-violent dissenters. This has been aggresssive and widespread since shortly after World War II. It is most particularly obnoxious when pursued by the investigative branches of the military.

2. Selective prosecution based on the political beliefs of the accused.

3. Pursuit of foreign policy objectives held secret from the electorate.

4. The use of extreme methods held secret from the electorate.

5. Substantial weakening of the original protections against unreasonable searches and seizures under the cover of "The War on This" or "The War on That" (drugs, terror, baldness, whatever).

6. Arrest and imprisonment based on trumped-up charges (a very common response here to political dissent).

7. Strategic use of disinformation and/or propaganda to influence the electorate. Most particularly, spreading fear so as to facilitate the use of power.

8. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the like.

Things about the culture:

1. The Pledge of Allegiance. Flag-saluting and similar behavior.

2. "Support Our Troops" (and still more obnoxious, "How can you say you support our troops if you don't support their mission?")

3. "The Power of Pride" (the pride of power, more like), "Together We Stand" and many similar ideological formulations.

4. The equation of dissent with disloyalty, or still worse, with treason. E.g. "If you oppose this war, you support Our Enemies."

5. "My country, right or wrong."

6. The equation of power and greatness with goodness.

Every country has an element of fascism to it. Its the same in America, you can see it on this board with people that tell others what being patriotic should mean, or what America should mean, or what our values should be, etc...

It could be an individual issue of course, as a country we supposedly put the individual freedoms to a high esteem but in reality its not quite like that. I cant live independent of the system anymore then it typically allows me. I don’t think such is anything that has to do with America, or any real ideology as its basically just a symptom of human beings at large, being it comes into play in some form in any human culture, down to a family.

I would like to think I could go apply for a ceo job wearing glowing enlarged sunglasses with a smoking coat on that says "don’t blame me, I voted for kerry" but its just an example that fascism may not simply be one absolute extreme of communism. Simply just look at the drive to get green technology going, I mean bring that up and you are some communist tree hugger hippie, because all of those things are bad to some people. Its probably what brought along pc, but then again to some that’s fascist.

My vote was partially yes, simply because that’s the reality as I see it, and I would see that anywhere. My hopes and dreams basically are to get a job managing an ecosystem and being able to live in the sticks, along with hard working and honest squirrels, that will judge me also

I voted several days ago without posting, but recent postings have brought the dreck to an intolerable level. I will, in an attempt to drain the recent accumulation of toxic sludge, address certain "proofs" raised most recently. For the record, I chose Option #4.


Violent dissenters do not exist in a vacuum, and this is especially true since the rise of your favored ideology, communism. The widespread and very well documented utilization of "non-violent" front organizations in the service of foreign adversaries to gather intelligence, form a cadre of revolutionaries, foment civil unrest, and provide support to violent dissenters required the adoption of investigative techniques that had been rarely used in the past in this country. It should go without saying, but such is the nature of the obfuscation and willful ignorance over this set of issues that it must be said; very, very few people go from being non-violent agreerers to violent dissenters without spending some time as non-violent dissenters.


So much opportunity here for some partisan snark...
Examples, please.


Again, examples of such policy objectives that did not fit into the overall framework of the foreign policy that was known by the public.


Find a national government of a country of more than a million in the world that does not do this, and you may be able to make a case of this being a "fascist" characteristic, but I would maintain that its simply a government characteristic.


No more a characteristic of a fascist government than of any other government moving aggressively to combat a threat. You'll find the same in oter democracies, monarchies, socialist states, communist states (actually, there are no protections in communist states, but you knew that already ) and kleptocracies. While I do agree with you that the weakening of these protections is problematic, I also know that enemies of both our government, and more importantly, our society, are abusing these protections.

Ohhhhh, so much more ammo for partisan snarking here, must resist Scooter Libby

Welcome to politics.

Darn, we've been fascists since even before there were fascists! Flag saluting is a military tradition in this country that has been carried on by veterans since at least the Reconstruction Era, if not earlier. The Pledge was written by a socialist, not a lot of support for your argument there, eh?

Not nearly as obnoxious to the troops as saying "we support you" while attacking what they're doing. Your example reeks of dishonesty.

Such as Gay Pride, Black Pride, Code Pink, etc?

Equating "dissenting with the dissenters" with fascism is dishonest, a hypocritical attempt to silence those with whom you disagree. It is a mark of the weak communist and fascist. FWIW, at least strong communists and fascists don't bother with such cowardly machinations, they just have those who dissent against them tossed into the gulag, disappeared, or killed outright. They're much more straightforward in silencing opposition.

Blind patriotism is no more an exclusive indicator of fascism than any other absolute dedication to an ideology. There are blind patriots within all real-world forms of government except, of course, anarchism, which isn't a real world form.

Gee, that must mean that Machiavelli, Hammurabai, Alexander, the Ming Dynasty, Queen Victoria, George Washington, and Josef Stalin were all fascists as well. Or, perhaps, the equation is simply one of human nature. Unfortunately for you, the only thing worse than automatically equating power and greatness with goodness, is automatically equating them with badness. Such exhibits cowardice and envy, a misanthropic stew of bitterness, cynicism, and worst of all, malignant narcissism of Brobdignagnian proportions in a character of Lilliputian breadth and depth.

Funny this idea should be mentioned; we're studying (or just finished studying) a section on nationalism in my Political Theory class, and my teacher happened to read the following list on "the 14 characteristics of fascism" by Lawrence Britt:



The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

The class chuckled and gasped at each one, accepting the teacher's "expertise" without question.

Then take a look at this list from the Federal Debt Relief System about characteristics of communism:



The Characteristics of Communism Have Landed in America

Now, I'm not sure either of these lists are indicative of anything. They're all attributes of governments and societies in general; America may have some of them, but I also think we've had them for a long time, and still haven't "turned to the dark side," to borrow a phrase. In other words, we're still going on in the freedom department from what I can tell.

We see what we want to. America could be headed toward communism or fascism, or perhaps anarchy or perhaps nazism. Or really, it could just be going towards...nowhere. At least, nowhere different from here.

Well, it would appear from these remarks that nothing can be equated with fascism, and that there is no extent of strong-arm, nationalistic militarism that you would not regard as appropriate and normal on relatively shallow pretext. On these bases, it would seem that actions of Franco and Pinochet were eminently defensible, or for that matter, those of Adolph Hitler. There are matters of degree in all these things, of course, but I will maintain my view that the difference between the regime of the Greek colonels and that which succeeded it, or that of Franco and that which succeeded it, and so on with regard to Pinochet, Galtieri and the others, are chiefly the differences to which I pointed. And I think most objective people will agree. An informed citizen may draw his own conclusions as to how prevalent these things are in the United States.

I will forbear to make a point-by-point rejoinder, except on this highly topical question: if "support our troops" is anything more than a thinly veiled call to support some particular war, it must be a call to recognize the courage and sacrifice of those in uniform, and to concern oneself with their welfare. Since the former is a question of politics and the latter one of simple humanity, should be possible to do the latter without doing the former -- particularly since opposing a war is often based on the perception of the dire cost that will be born by "our troops." It should be possible to do that and not be called a hypocrite, particularly since those who have a great enthusiasm for war, while also claiming deep concern for the welfare our people in uniform, can themselves be accused of hypocrisy.

And it is a distinct feature of fascism that it demands national political unity -- as you do in this "support our troops" question.

I must refrain from contributing since any opinion may prejudice my ability to travel to the U.S. for business.

I have posted threads tangetal to this one for some time

because, these definitions are really definitions of history-not really the "here and now"- it is like tryig to compare Pax Roman-Pax America- we are empires , just different.

When we talk about communism and fascism- are we talking about the organization of goverment, or it's economic policies?

I would say, as an economic policy type goverment- communism has never even been tried, much less with any success, and darn few socialist goverments- probably only Cuba could even be called one really- otherwise- we call goverments "socialists" because of the level of thier public service programs (welfare) ?

The simplest explanation is that

In communism- the workers control capital and the work and is democratic, whereas fascism, the "bosses" or management controls the work and workers, and rules through an oligarchy- the "philosopher king" in a perfect world as imagined by plato.

Both have flaws- of course, and both have been claimed as a cause worth fighting for, and the public manipulated, though, in the end, all the economic stuff was just fecal matter being spread by the guy that wants to rule the world.

I would say that America is definately controlled by corporations, and we, as the voting public, the middle class, have damn little to say about it, and they can run roughshod over anyone and everyone and have no sanctions whatsoever- I would point to Ken Lay as a prime example.

So, if we are trying to define our culture or nation, I would say some kind fascism is where we are at now- though, certainly doesn't meet the old definition- it has morphed into something that doesnt' fit the old definition.

Ahh, if that were true, then I'd have objected to the invasion of Saddam's Iraq, an Arab nation organized on fascist lines.

Ahh, it is these "matters of degree" which present the stumbling block, even for the most objective of people. Given that you have demonstrated, as an avowed advocate of an ideology that has a long and bloody history of painting most of its opponents with the tar of fascism, I doubt if anybody here will consider you to be objective in this matter, eh? So, the "matters of degree" raises the same question for a "fascist USA" as it does for a person. When is a boy a man? When does a girl become a woman? When is a person "old"?

You are correct, it "should be possible", and yet where are those who oppose the war and are doing the scut work of "supporting the troops". I don't see them. Perhaps you'd like to point out the Code Pink members, who, rather than setting up a permanent demonstration outside of Walter Reed, are working as volunteers inside. Undoubtedly you have current, as you read this, knowledge of organizations that oppose the war and are expending massive amounts of money and time to help out the families of servicemembers in Iraq, who are quietly raising money to purchase and send improved body armor over to the troops, who are donating blood as often as possible, etc.

Very few are those who oppose the war based on that perception, and with the exception of the principled pacifists, the vast bulk of such "dissenters" cannot claim to support the troops because they do not respect the troops. The troops are all volunteers, and as such you have a very high bar to hurdle in order to support them when you oppose that for which they've volunteered. Furthemore when the certain outcome of your efforts, if successful, will be the failure of their mission, calling such "support" provided by the vast bulk of the Left "hypocrisy" is quite reasonable. Whether you cannot comprehend this, is simply choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your paradigm, matters not to me. The troops do not believe that you support them, and most look upon your "support" as falling under the rubric of "with 'supporters' like these, who needs enemies?"

In this, I'm not surprised, because the dynamic reminds me of the guy who hits his girlfriend while telling her that he loves her, and no, I'm not talking about a bit of S&M. For some reason, she is "skeptical".... I wonder why?



Would this be the same Ken Lay who dodged a potential sentence of 30 years in prison by having the roughshod audacity to die before being sentenced? Yup, no sanctions whatsoever, definitely a mark of corporate fascism, that whole "heart attack before sentencing" gig.

The list that was orginally posted as what elements of facism are, is a bogus list. Anti-communism? Anti-communism? Are you kidding me? If that were a way to judge facists, everyone would be then. And corpratism? Hitler didn't help any corporations out. We haven't annexed any terrioty, we are just occupying it. And by the way, the Republicans are the ones who love "Unregulated Laissez-Faire Economics"

BD- Ken Lay never spent even one day in Jail, not one- that is preferential treatment- his victims measured in the hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions.

When corporate execs have more rights than you or I, that is a form of corporatism, just like, in a police state, when the police are more protected by law than the general population, you have a police state.

Repubicans NOR democrats are for free markets- they are all for command economies- look at thier policeis- NOT thier rhetoric- supposedly, republicans are supposed to be "fiscal conservatives"- yet we have yet to see a fiscally conservative republican- EVER.

Yes, but "never spending one day in jail" does not equal "no sanctions", which is exactly what you said.

They don't have more rights, they simply have more resources. And, in case you haven't noticed, corporate execs can get unjustly hosed as well, or do you think Martha Stewart deserved jailing?

He died a very, very rich man, so ya, no sanctions- martha stewart, if anything, is a better example- she gave money to the wrong political party, and got waxed for it- her crime was really, really minor- and she did jail time.



I will go a step farther- when a corporation has every right as an individual citizen, and, due to thier money, is "more equal" than a citizen in every way, EXCEPT the right to vote- then ya, we are in a new type of fascist state. Corporate rights SHOULD ALWAYS be lessor than individual human rights, and they should not be given the same protections as a private citizen under law- that right there illustrates my point the most.

The main problem of this debate will always be the parameters and definitions of what we are talking about

communism is the most classic example- Russia was never a communist country by economic definition- but in the lexicon of US language- that is what we call it- anymore than China was/is a "poeple republic" etc- lots of misnomers like this in the world

Corporations in America have by far the upper hand in controlling our society now, and only thier competing interests keep them from taking over entirely- but they are not monolithic either- so you are not talking about one evil entity- you are talking about a large, out of control segment of our society/economy that has no real accountability. When Union Carbide murdered those thousands of poeple in Bhopal, India- not one single director had one single consequence for thier behavior.

Thier near invincibility in all things in our society makes them a privileged class.

Exxon polluted and nearly destroyed one of the most prestine fisheries in the world- and still have not paid thier 5 billion dollar judgement- the fact that they are allowed appeals until the principle dies, instead of having to pay, is a travesty. Had I done this on the scale of an individual- I would be in jail, and most certainly broke!

We recently changed bankruptcy rules to harm the poor and middle class, even those forced into bankrupcy court by medical bills (which is by far the majority in this country)- yet, we have no reform for corporate bankruptcy abuses, that allows K-mart, to buy Sears, while still in bankruptcy- and, there is no protection for the creditors for them- and on and on

What this all means is this- our old definitions of this kind of stuff is as obsolete as the whale oil lamp-

it would be as silly to thing of the US as the German or Italiam model of fascism as it would be to call a western nation "socialist"- since they clearly don't control the means of production.

so, perhaps a debate over the definition of the words themselves may be more accurate at this point.

Yes, corporations have a little too much control and they don't do enough profit sharing. And of course they impact our society, but they impact it positively and negatively. Throughout the course of our history, I'd say it's pretty obvious the positive outweighs the negative.

And they can only "run roughshod" over you if you let them. You, me, we all have plenty "to say about it." There are millions of entreprenuers out there starting their own businesses and doing very well for themselves while not subjecting themselves to the will of corporations. If you're afraid of another Ken Lay situation, don't work for a huge corporation. Even though unemployment is very low right now, there are plenty of job opportunities out there where one wouldn't be subjected to the potential evils befalling employees/former employees of big corporations. As usual, it's mostly about accountability and personal responsibility.

My emphasis.

Right. Out of the millions of Americans who want us out of Iraq, 67% of the electorate the last time I checked, you don't see a single loyal citizen. On that, I think I'll just rest my case. Die fahne hoch, and so forth, and so on, my dear patriotic friend.

http://ingeb.org/Lieder/diefahne.html

I think it could be argued the country is well on it's way. The problem is I doubt those most closest to it, the residents, will see it before it is too late.

I think we could get into a scholarly debate of why verses why not but the simple (re: lazy) explanation is just to link some easy to see parameters.

The US is not a fascist state... yet.

Over the past several years we've seen quite a few 'enhancements' to American politics and society that bear semblance to the hallmarks of past and present fascist states. While not all of these changes have occured in the last six years, we have seen a rapid decay of some very important tenets of a healthy democracy in that short time.

It's very important that we take a close look at who has the greater influence over policy in this country, the People, or the corporations.

First, if a group lends concrete aid to U.S. Armed Services personnel, and does not identify its stance on the Iraq war, it is impossible to know how many of its members oppose the war. And second, a ten-second Google search introduced me to the IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War), which fits your description pretty well.


Unless recruitment standards have changed dramatically since I was nineteen, service members voluntarily commit to a specific branch of service, not to a conflict or a theater of operations. To "oppose that for which they've volunteered," one must oppose the U.S. Army, not the conflict in which so much of the U.S. Army is currently deployed.

In fact, if one is opposing the specific deployment of the Army in a given conflict or potential conflict, the opposition cannot be directed at the Army, but rather, at those who order the Army to deploy... which is to say, the Congress and the President. To oppose the war in Iraq does not intrinsically oppose the troops in any way.


Again I point out that soldiers do not choose the mission; they choose only whether to follow the orders they are given and, in the absence of these orders, to support each other and honorably represent the United States. Since opposing the mission does not mean preventing the soldier from following orders, or preventing the soldier from protecting himself, or in fact negatively impacting the soldier in any way, I have to wonder why you brought this up.

In general, you appear to be conflating the decision to commit the United States to war with the service of the soldiers themselves. You surely know that there is no overlap between the two, and I submit that the bulk of those against the war know it as well.

Nationalism: No
Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism: Check-ish
Militarism: No
Corporatism: Check
Collectivism: Check
Anti-Communism: Check
Opposition to Unregulated Laissez-Faire Economics: Check

Almost. I wouldn't classify our society as "militaristic" nor as nationalistic. Patriotic, yes, overly so most of the time, but not nationalistic. I would argue that the Bush Administration has brought us close than any Republican President has ever brought us to fascism. He opposes laissez faire economics [flashback a few years when he attempted to impose a steel tariff that violated the WTO], he has brought a new level of corporatism to government [Haliburton being a prime example]. He, like most Presidents, is an authoritarian, though not a totalitarian, and that is a huge difference and obviously he is anti-communist.
Absolutely, FDR was a fascist.
Nationalism: Check
Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism: Check
Militarism: Check
Corporatism: Check
Collectivism: Check
Anti-Communism: Check
Opposition to Unregulated Laissez-Faire Economics: Check

The United States was never more nationalistic than it was during World War II. Never has there been a more totalitarian President in US history than FDR [what he did to Japanese, Italian and German Americans makes Gitmo look like Sesame Place], nor was there ever more goverrnment mettling/co-opertation with corporations. The military was glorified, and collectivism was essentially our national religion. Entertainingly enough, FDR was devoutly anti-communist despite the fact that he was America's first socialist President. Yes, America has been fascist, and we're headed in that direction again. After WWII there was anti-gov't backlash that resulted in a period of pro-liberty sentiment [the 60s and 70s], hopefully that will occur again.

CP

Partially yes.

The state does not own the corporations. The corporations own the state via lobbyists in both the federal and state levels. However, and this is very important, the people still have the power to vote the bums out and push for legislation that reduces the powers of corporations. Voters seem to be picking up on this, partly because we still do have a relatively free press -- and the entirely free Internet (very, very, mucho grande important).

The Bush administration has tried to bring this country closer to fascism and succeeded up to a point. This also happened in the states, my focus being on Colorado. But eventually the ham-handed ways of true fascists catch up with them, and out they go. I keep thinking of O Brother and the scene where the farmers came tromping in to run the bum out on a rail. That little scene says so much about what the United States is all about.

War changes any state to strong central control, a halmark of fascism that keeps the trains running. The difference here is that once the war is over, the strong central control lessens. I can see the take that our little fascists want to keep us in a constant state of war to pull off their dirty little tricks, but that doesn't stand either. The farmers tromping in with the rail, slight smiles at the corner of their stoic mouths, don't put up with it.

We're mostly not farmers any longer, but that spirit is still with us. Bernie Ebbers is in the slammer for the rest of his days, practically speaking, unless he lives well past 100 years. He's out of the scene. Verizon now pulls what's left of MCI back together, and by gosh I get to help out starting in July (woo-hoo, back in the saddle again!).

Now that's the part about corporations that I really like -- get'er done. We're talking about keeping a big hunk of the Internet backbone up and running, and my task will be to roll up the sleeves, dive right into broken code, and fix the bitch. Well, oftentimes it's not the code but the machines running out of capacity or funky network behavior, that sort of thing. Heh, here's where knowledge and experience is power way beyond smoke/mirrors/fear/uncertainty/despair. Certainly beyond fakers and smarmy sales types trying to be techies.

The war on drugs, war on terror, war on receding hairlines, war on [whatever] does not work. It did for a while, but the farmers of America aren't stupid. Just stoic. Sometimes the mouth edges curl up ever so slightly, and for the shysters out there, that spells trouble big time.

The US is partially fascist, partially communistic, partially anything you can think of. But mostly we're stoic farmers who want to get the bitch fixed, keep 'er running, get'er done. And we can handle rails like champs.

Thinking now about how several different programming tongues are used to build the whole of an application. Some languages are stronger than others at doing certain things. That's kinda what has developed in US politics. We go with what works, eventually. Sometimes that's partially fascist.