Full Version: Fascism and America
I've noticed that a number of posters have argued that the present Bush adminstration has Fascistic charasterics.
Do you agree that the Bush regime has fascist characteristics?
Do you agree that the Bush regime has fascist characteristics?
Which posters are you talking about? I really don't think Bush is leading a fascist regime, just because some of the public dislike him doesn't mean anything! People didn't like Clinton there is and always will be oposition to those in power. There is no way the government could get away with it, its just a crazy accusation... no offense~
I didn't say that Bush is leading a fascist regime, rather thinking students of history have argued, including some on this site (I can't remember their names), that a number of trends within the Bush Adminastration are fascistic.
From the top of my head:
- Militeristic foreign policy
- Use of patriotism to unify the people behind the president, who personifies the Nation at war.
- Attacks on Americans who oppose policies of the government as 'subversives', 'traitors'and 'unamericans', for examplr th Dizie Chicks.
- Close connection between the State and a cilque of favoured corporations - Haliburton.
- The systematic favourment of certain corporations in contracts.
- The conquering for strategic resources using the Army on triumpthed up charges - Iraq (so it seems)
- Attacks on civil liberties (Patriotic Act/Patriotic Act II)
- Diverting the public through war from internal social and economic problems.
- Cutbacks on the social welfare state to pay for the military-industrial-complex.
- Efforts to control through either the State or through self-Censorship the mass media to the policiees of the War Party (Notice the biased pro-war stance of most networks, although the public wanted that
From the top of my head:
- Militeristic foreign policy
- Use of patriotism to unify the people behind the president, who personifies the Nation at war.
- Attacks on Americans who oppose policies of the government as 'subversives', 'traitors'and 'unamericans', for examplr th Dizie Chicks.
- Close connection between the State and a cilque of favoured corporations - Haliburton.
- The systematic favourment of certain corporations in contracts.
- The conquering for strategic resources using the Army on triumpthed up charges - Iraq (so it seems)
- Attacks on civil liberties (Patriotic Act/Patriotic Act II)
- Diverting the public through war from internal social and economic problems.
- Cutbacks on the social welfare state to pay for the military-industrial-complex.
- Efforts to control through either the State or through self-Censorship the mass media to the policiees of the War Party (Notice the biased pro-war stance of most networks, although the public wanted that
QUOTE(Thomas @ Jun 27 2003, 01:27 PM)
Do you agree that the Bush regime has fascist characteristics?
No. One of the core tenets of fascism is state control of industry, and the Bush administration seems rather inclined to make things the other way around. Our government shares no more characteristics with fascism than it does with any other form of government.
I can understand why some would say that Bush exhibits some fascist traits. He does come across as authoritarian as far as Judeo-Christian ideals go. He will continue to nominate for the Supreme Court pro-life conservatives. The cynicism in me suggests that he is placating the religious factions that supported him in the last election. That kind of behavior is pretty typical for a President of Congressperson to do regardless of political stripe.
The Patriot Act is not representative of "That government is best which governs least." It could be fascist or totalitarian quite easily. Though Nixon would have been quite happy with the Patriot Act, I'm not sure that Republicans who constantly complain about big government are that comfortable with it.
Certainly prolonged detention of suspected terrorists and Americans of Arab descent is reminiscent of fascist and totalitarian regimes.
But the man knows what side his bread is buttered on. He is not for any increases in corporate regulation, the federal prosecution of Enron or Martha Stewart notwithstanding.
I think Dubya is more of a corporatocrat than a fascist. If it makes money, it's okay. His laissez-faire attitude toward corporate pollution and the way corporations use pension funds and deal with the rank and file merely demonstrates that he is quite comfortable with having money and power and has no problem schmoozing with those with money and power--maybe that's the "big tent" the Republicans keep talking about--why change? Especially with a Presidential election coming up.
(Edited)
The Patriot Act is not representative of "That government is best which governs least." It could be fascist or totalitarian quite easily. Though Nixon would have been quite happy with the Patriot Act, I'm not sure that Republicans who constantly complain about big government are that comfortable with it.
Certainly prolonged detention of suspected terrorists and Americans of Arab descent is reminiscent of fascist and totalitarian regimes.
But the man knows what side his bread is buttered on. He is not for any increases in corporate regulation, the federal prosecution of Enron or Martha Stewart notwithstanding.
I think Dubya is more of a corporatocrat than a fascist. If it makes money, it's okay. His laissez-faire attitude toward corporate pollution and the way corporations use pension funds and deal with the rank and file merely demonstrates that he is quite comfortable with having money and power and has no problem schmoozing with those with money and power--maybe that's the "big tent" the Republicans keep talking about--why change? Especially with a Presidential election coming up.
(Edited)
Here is a great article about how the German people were so easily led down the road to fascism by the Nazi government. (Meaning it's a great read even if you don't recognize any similarities between 1933 Germany and 2003 America.)
Below is something I've posted before. This is just for use as a comparison and each one of you can decide for yourselves how little or how much you see in common between the regimes mentioned below and our own government. I make no judgements in either agreement or disagreement regarding the signs...I'm simply passing on an interesting and related article for reference sake. My answer to the question in the OP is neither Yes or No - it's both and it varies by degree.
Below is something I've posted before. This is just for use as a comparison and each one of you can decide for yourselves how little or how much you see in common between the regimes mentioned below and our own government. I make no judgements in either agreement or disagreement regarding the signs...I'm simply passing on an interesting and related article for reference sake. My answer to the question in the OP is neither Yes or No - it's both and it varies by degree.
QUOTE
Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, recently studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile) and found the regimes all had 14 things in common. He calls these the "identifying characteristics of fascism".
The 14 characteristics are:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symb ols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda i s neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
The 14 characteristics are:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symb ols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda i s neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
I can see some parallels, but like everything else, there's a percentage of similarity and not a one-to-one sameness. Paladin's take is the most accurate--don't expect anything but sucking up to big money from this administration, and also don't expect any apology for this behavior. It is part of the natural ways of things, in these people's minds.
Fascism really can't get a toe hold in this country due to what is usually a healthy economy. If the economy doesn't rebound, then I can see a gradual descent coming up, and as usual, this will come from the right wing military/industrial complex side of things due to the attempt to preserve what wealth is left.
However, and this is a big counter balance, an election is also coming up. The opposition knows that feelings run deep regarding how the present administration has 1) preferred unilateral military action over consensus action or diplomacy 2) taken no sincere action to bolster the economy 3) ignored the plight of the unemployed 4) stomped all over environmental programs 5) encouraged denial and possibly the ongoing attacks on journalists who disagree 6) embraced a radical and dangerous world politics philosophy that could have very well married the US with Iraq in an unholy union.
Two things happened yesterday. The first was six Demos got together to debate environmental issues; the second was a Bush fundraiser in California where Dennis Miller quipped how the Demo lineup reminded him of the Mets' lineup just before a losing season. These two events came across my radar screen quite by chance.
I think the display of arrogance from the more fascist side of our politics tends to crystallize the opposition's forces. One of the thing the Demos were talking about was bringing Ralph Nadar and the Green party onto its side. This will take some backbone since the attempt will likely mean loss of support from major industries. Oil for sure, but maybe more significantly, coal.
In any case, the question of whether this administration displays some fascist traits is almost irrefutable. Some may argue that both sides display these traits, and to that I can agree--yet it is still a matter of degree. Republicans tend to be more fascist than Demos. Demos become more fascist to win elections, but you know what?
It hasn't been working. So now the Demo rhetoric is heading toward more socially responsible talk, cast in the light of economic transformation from carbon-based to something else-based (hydrogen would be good) and also recapturing the technical lead this country once had.
IMO, that rhetoric could very well work this time around. The problem with the more fascist-like rhetoric is that it is, by nature, exclusive of the majority of citizens. For example, tax cuts for the rich will result in job growth for everyone else. Spending a lot on the military results in more security, as another example. Along this thought, giving up civil liberties results in more security too. Ignoring the environment in favor of industrial expansion is another compromise that could easily backfire (so you get a job that kills you and future generations--whoopee do).
The counter balance to these demonstrated policies of the Bush administration is to appeal to the natural progressiveness of the American people. I heard this happening from the Demos, and with Miller's snide little quip, I also hear some concern from our empowered semi-fascists. Unlike a baseball team, who sits in the administrative role of our country makes a difference in our everyday lives.
Fascism really can't get a toe hold in this country due to what is usually a healthy economy. If the economy doesn't rebound, then I can see a gradual descent coming up, and as usual, this will come from the right wing military/industrial complex side of things due to the attempt to preserve what wealth is left.
However, and this is a big counter balance, an election is also coming up. The opposition knows that feelings run deep regarding how the present administration has 1) preferred unilateral military action over consensus action or diplomacy 2) taken no sincere action to bolster the economy 3) ignored the plight of the unemployed 4) stomped all over environmental programs 5) encouraged denial and possibly the ongoing attacks on journalists who disagree 6) embraced a radical and dangerous world politics philosophy that could have very well married the US with Iraq in an unholy union.
Two things happened yesterday. The first was six Demos got together to debate environmental issues; the second was a Bush fundraiser in California where Dennis Miller quipped how the Demo lineup reminded him of the Mets' lineup just before a losing season. These two events came across my radar screen quite by chance.
I think the display of arrogance from the more fascist side of our politics tends to crystallize the opposition's forces. One of the thing the Demos were talking about was bringing Ralph Nadar and the Green party onto its side. This will take some backbone since the attempt will likely mean loss of support from major industries. Oil for sure, but maybe more significantly, coal.
In any case, the question of whether this administration displays some fascist traits is almost irrefutable. Some may argue that both sides display these traits, and to that I can agree--yet it is still a matter of degree. Republicans tend to be more fascist than Demos. Demos become more fascist to win elections, but you know what?
It hasn't been working. So now the Demo rhetoric is heading toward more socially responsible talk, cast in the light of economic transformation from carbon-based to something else-based (hydrogen would be good) and also recapturing the technical lead this country once had.
IMO, that rhetoric could very well work this time around. The problem with the more fascist-like rhetoric is that it is, by nature, exclusive of the majority of citizens. For example, tax cuts for the rich will result in job growth for everyone else. Spending a lot on the military results in more security, as another example. Along this thought, giving up civil liberties results in more security too. Ignoring the environment in favor of industrial expansion is another compromise that could easily backfire (so you get a job that kills you and future generations--whoopee do).
The counter balance to these demonstrated policies of the Bush administration is to appeal to the natural progressiveness of the American people. I heard this happening from the Demos, and with Miller's snide little quip, I also hear some concern from our empowered semi-fascists. Unlike a baseball team, who sits in the administrative role of our country makes a difference in our everyday lives.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jun 29 2003, 04:39 AM)
Two things happened yesterday. The first was six Demos got together to debate environmental issues; the second was a Bush fundraiser in California where Dennis Miller quipped how the Demo lineup reminded him of the Mets' lineup just before a losing season. These two events came across my radar screen quite by chance.
I think the display of arrogance from the more fascist side of our politics tends to crystallize the opposition's forces.
I think the display of arrogance from the more fascist side of our politics tends to crystallize the opposition's forces.
Funny you should say this because yesterday two things crossed my radar as well leaving me with the same kind of thoughts.
First there was a ceremony on CSPAN called the "DisHonors Awards: Roasting the Most Outrageously Biased Liberal Reporters of 2002". It seems their only purpose is to bash the left or anyone resembling the left. Not just news media but also celebrities that had the audacity to venture out of their allowed realm into such hollowed and privileged subjects like politics,government,foreign policy, or war which there is no way they could know anything about. I mean, whose government do they think this belongs to anyway?
What I saw featured Cal Thomas as MC, nominating his pick for the "Wackiest Comment of the Year Award" which was Helen Thomas for this, apparently, 'wacky' exchange:
Helen Thomas: “Does the President consider this [election outcome] a mandate to fulfill his agenda? Going to war with Iraq, privatizing Social Security, weakening the Civil Service Commission and so forth?”
Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: “Helen, you sound like a commercial that didn't’ work.”
During Helen's nomination Cal was sure to mix in a few snide comments and personal insults as well.
I'm sure it went way over their pointy little heads that this small-time award didn't compare to her vast experience and longevity which spanned more Presidential careers than than anyone else in her profession.
But, being critical of this President will get you singled out, humiliated, and hopefully ruin a reputation or career. This seems to be a pretty fascist way to handle the First Amendment section that gives the press their freedom to help the people keep our (usually) elected officials in line or at least as honest as possible. I had to switch the channel after that but here's more on the ceremony and it's winners for those of you who enjoy this kind of thing as I know some of you do.
The second item was a piece on Fox News featuring a whole segment asking the really important question on everyone's mind right now: Which news network will be most negatively affected by the way the 2004 elections are covered?
I assume, to them, this is somehow newsworthy. To me it was simply a form of self promotion. As the Bush mouthpiece and pulpit, Fox could reap all of the rewards when (not if ) he wins the election which they will do their best to influence with their right wing talking heads. They all agreed MSNBC would be the big loser.
I wondered what would become of Fox once they had to cover a President outside of their party. Would they be kissing up to the new boss? Stick to their convictions and risk being depicted as the losing side? (Here's an old fashioned idea...why not take no sides and report the facts like a real live news provider?) But no. I think instead they will just hammer away incessantly with rumors and accusations, ala the Clinton era, until they create so much apathy that people will do anything to make them stop...like elect someone that might shut them up. It struck me that this kind of arrogance just begs for someone to come along and put them in their place. However, I'm less confident than you that this will happen any time soon.
On his commentary site, Bryan Zepp Jamieson identified an number of key points for defining fascism as well:
But, hey - what about Benito Mussolini, who coined the term fascism? He could be seen as something of an authority here. He opened his essay, What Is Fascism? (1932), with the following:
Mussolini biographer Adrian Lyttelton, describing the rise of Italian fascism in The Seizure of Power, wrote:
Lyttelton also claimed that "fascism can be viewed as a product of the transition from the market capitalism of the independent producer to the organized capitalism of the oligopoly." It was a point that George Orwell noted when he described fascism as being but "an extension of capitalism". Lyttelton also quoted political theorist Affredo Rocco: "The Fascist economy is... an organized economy. It is organized by the producers themselves, under the supreme direction and control of the State."
Mussolini himself stated that "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
You tell me.
- Is an economic system geared to the needs, not of the people, but of the wealthy elite.
- It is a republican form of government.
- It features extreme forms of nationalism.
- It creates "enemies of the fatherland" in order to gain public support. These "enemies" usually include liberals, socialists, trade unionists, and conspicuous minority groups.
- It is not conservative, although it often claims to be traditional.
- It will replace a free press with propaganda.
- Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.
- Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.
- Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others.
- Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.
- Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.
- Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.
- Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk to join voluntarily in a heroic mission - often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
- Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy - seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.
- The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.
- Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.
- Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.
But, hey - what about Benito Mussolini, who coined the term fascism? He could be seen as something of an authority here. He opened his essay, What Is Fascism? (1932), with the following:
QUOTE
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism - born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it.
Mussolini biographer Adrian Lyttelton, describing the rise of Italian fascism in The Seizure of Power, wrote:
QUOTE
The values of competition were to be replaced by those of organization: Italian industry would be reshaped and modernized by the cartel and trust... There was a new philosophy here of state intervention for the technical modernization of the economy serving the ultimate political objectives of military strength and self-sufficiency; it was a return to the authoritarian and interventionist war economy.
Lyttelton also claimed that "fascism can be viewed as a product of the transition from the market capitalism of the independent producer to the organized capitalism of the oligopoly." It was a point that George Orwell noted when he described fascism as being but "an extension of capitalism". Lyttelton also quoted political theorist Affredo Rocco: "The Fascist economy is... an organized economy. It is organized by the producers themselves, under the supreme direction and control of the State."
Mussolini himself stated that "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
You tell me.
Danya,
Thanks for the info--I'm actually getting entertained by the sophomoric shows, and maybe that's the point of them. Geez, these people can't be serious, can they? Eh, maybe so.
Arrogance may have been what lost the election for GHWB and could lose it for GWB, but then Perot threw his little ego in there, so can't make a good connection. This coming election might become the test of arrogance.
Wertz,
Yeah, man! Good observations. We do seem to have an automated response to the term "fascism," and this response tends to be surrounded with 1930s imagery. We think of labor as industrial workers, war as conquest, and a whole bunch of other anachronisms. The term makes me think of Evita and Peron.
But mussolini could be the most accurate comparison. He got the trains running, by God! Results over methods, eh? Gee, that makes me think of Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, and all the others.
Then the results of this abuse of power comes home to roost, so the population strings the bahstahds up!
Well, times have changed. Labor isn't nearly as industrial as it once was. Conquest isn't the point of war as much as influence. We also have a much stronger sense of interconnections in a chaos theory sort of way (thank you Michael Crichton), where what happens in one part of the world affects other parts. We also don't string folks up in the public square. We just invite them to early retirements.
The merger of state and corporate power hits home. This, blended with self-centered wealth seeking, seems to be the, what, problem? Condition? Illness? Maybe--I'm sick of it.
Thanks for the info--I'm actually getting entertained by the sophomoric shows, and maybe that's the point of them. Geez, these people can't be serious, can they? Eh, maybe so.
Arrogance may have been what lost the election for GHWB and could lose it for GWB, but then Perot threw his little ego in there, so can't make a good connection. This coming election might become the test of arrogance.
Wertz,
Yeah, man! Good observations. We do seem to have an automated response to the term "fascism," and this response tends to be surrounded with 1930s imagery. We think of labor as industrial workers, war as conquest, and a whole bunch of other anachronisms. The term makes me think of Evita and Peron.
But mussolini could be the most accurate comparison. He got the trains running, by God! Results over methods, eh? Gee, that makes me think of Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, and all the others.
Then the results of this abuse of power comes home to roost, so the population strings the bahstahds up!
Well, times have changed. Labor isn't nearly as industrial as it once was. Conquest isn't the point of war as much as influence. We also have a much stronger sense of interconnections in a chaos theory sort of way (thank you Michael Crichton), where what happens in one part of the world affects other parts. We also don't string folks up in the public square. We just invite them to early retirements.
The merger of state and corporate power hits home. This, blended with self-centered wealth seeking, seems to be the, what, problem? Condition? Illness? Maybe--I'm sick of it.
QUOTE
Mussolini himself stated that "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
Thank you, Danya and Wertz. There are many parallels that must not be ignored. At first, I thought that accusing Bush II of fascism was an exaggeration from some of my brethren further to the left. But it does fit.
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."--George W. Bush, CNN, December 18, 2000
Doesn't it send a shiver through you?
QUOTE(Danya @ Jun 29 2003, 05:46 AM)
QUOTE
Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, recently studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile) and found the regimes all had 14 things in common. He calls these the "identifying characteristics of fascism".
[b]The 14 characteristics are:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
After 9/11, patriotism like songs, flags, symbols and others came out because people wanted to show their love for America after a huge catastrophe that happened on our soil and killed thousands. In Nazi Germany, their were daily parades with flying swastikas, pictures of Hitler, etc because Hitler "encouraged" it.
QUOTE
Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
What do we do? Let Al-Queda prisioners go and let them try to kill our guys again? Do we give them a pretty cell with access to the internet and wine lists with their meals? Besides, assassinations have not been issued. Also, torture is needed to get info to stop Al-Queda and more plots
QUOTE
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
What's wrong with eliminating Terrorists?
QUOTE
Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
When the army has been softened because of discord because a certain predecesor neglected to help fund the military to deal with the threats that we face, it needs a good funding. But Bush has not neglected the Domestic Agenda
QUOTE
Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
During wartime, the media needs to be censored to prevent info that is confidential from getting out. For Example: Geraldo got in trouble for telling the word, via sattilite feed, where the unit he was embedded with was at in Iraq. Not really smart!!
Let's wait and see how much of these "security measures" get repealed after the glorious victory that Bush is promising us comes to pass.
Hitler rose to power because the Germans were demoralized after the Treaty of Versailles. He was able to tap into the anger and translated it into nationalism. He found a scapegoat and made it patriotic to blame and persecute the scapegoat.
He closed the Reichstag after it was set on fire, invoked martial law and under martial law seized the power over Germany, all while waving banners and singing Deutschland Uber Alles.
I do not see the depth of evil Hitler had in George W. Bush. But I do see some of the same measures that Hitler took in Germany being taken here in the United States, ostensibly for our "security."
Hitler rose to power because the Germans were demoralized after the Treaty of Versailles. He was able to tap into the anger and translated it into nationalism. He found a scapegoat and made it patriotic to blame and persecute the scapegoat.
He closed the Reichstag after it was set on fire, invoked martial law and under martial law seized the power over Germany, all while waving banners and singing Deutschland Uber Alles.
I do not see the depth of evil Hitler had in George W. Bush. But I do see some of the same measures that Hitler took in Germany being taken here in the United States, ostensibly for our "security."
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.