I was doing some reading on fascism, and what Benito Mussilini called "corporatism" and could not help but see the paralells in today's politics in the US. Moveon.org was roundly critisized for comparing Hitler to GW- but aside from the obvious evil of the Nazi regime- the holocaust- many of the political paralells in the political arena seem real

Hitler's Playbook: Bush and the Abuse of Power
by W. David Jenkins and Sara DeHart July 4, 2002


"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." (Benito Mussolini, Encyclopedia Italiana)

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushfuhrer.htm

I realize it is a highly partison article, but the main paralells in history between the two are laid out there.

I started the search after what a gay male at work said "hey, remember, the Nazi's rounded up the gays first"

After the obvious targeting of Gays by the right in the US- this got me thinking about the similarities of Nazi germany and the neo-con movement of today.

The conservatives of libertarian leaning types are so much different than the neo-cons of today, and this is what started me searching for the link- because both movements are founded on a certain brand of "moralism" as well, with a hard core corporate core neccesary for the movement.

Are we facing a new type of fascism in America today?

Aside from the obvious evil deeds of the Nazi's, are there legitimate paralells between corporatism of the 20s-30s and today's America?

No I wouldn't agree with that.
What is being seen today in the struggles over such topics as defining marriage and the rights of homosexuals and many of the other key points of contentions is simply the after effects of a very profound change in the moral character of America.
The loosening, as some would call it of the morality of this country has resulted in many unseen and in some cases unavoidable results. The very sudden shift to one end of the spectrum, opposite from were it previously lay has created a sort of chaos as the boundaries are again established to reflect to newer ways of looking at the world and reconciling them with the older established ways. Finding the agreeable middle ground between the two will take some time, and much like hurricane such changes resemble, it will leave some wreckage and eventually a new landscape.
We live in interesting times.

As for the facism/corporatism angle, money has always had an undue and often unfair influence in the world. go back as far historically as you want and there are many examples. Greed is eternal and so is griping about rich people.

Great post! In my effort to be totally independent and in looking at politics from a completely different perspective than most, I believe this topic is both relevant and important.

I have said this many times before but 99.9% of all politicians are liars, cheats or crooks.

It is my job, and in fact, the job of of every voter to find out what "drives" laws.

There can be absolutely no doubt that MONEY is the NUMBER ONE driving force at play in the legislative bloodstream known as the body politic.

Why should we have 18 lobbyists for each elected senator and congressman? The answer is, of course, we shouldn't.

To asume that the moral fiber of America is being eroded by gay rights is foolhardy. The battle being waged by religious groups in opposition to same sex marriage is orchestrted. Religious leaders and followers are continually reminded of that supposed "erosion of family values". They are told that behavior that allows same sex marriage is an abomination before God.

The emotions that become charged over that issue should be looked into further. The real MONEY to fund that fight is coming from the Insurance and Financial Industries. THEY are the ones who think they stand to lose if same sex marriage is legalized.

In politics, FOLLOW THE MONEY. MBNA just passed Enron as Bush's all-time leading contributor by a scant $4000. Trial lawyers are backing Edwards but at this point the Insurance Industry has spent MILLIONS on condemning "frivolous" law suits as a reason for high malpractice insurance premiums. In a recent AARP study, it was found that malpractice award dollars had not even kept up with inflation.

There is ANOTHER reason malpractice premiums are up. Insurance companies raised premiums WITHOUT having to go through investigative rate hearings. Tort Reform in Texas limited punitive damages to $250,000 yet insurance malpractice carriers INCREASED rates and never had to show insurance regulators their real and justified losses. Insurance companies were among the largest campaign contributors to the Governor of Texas because he appoints the insurance commissioner.

Huge corporations, not small businesses or individual citizens, rule this country.

If you'll look at the source of the money, you'll see the SOUL of the politician!

It is NOT a pretty site.

Excellent theory. Do you have a link to back up the Insurance and Financial industries contributions along these lines? Would love some backing data.

No, we are not facing a new type of fascism in America. No more than we are facing a new type of Communism or any other form of government.

First we must seperate the difference between Nazism and Fascism (more along the lines of Italy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definition


So it isnt so much Nazism as it is Mussolini's form of Fascism...as you pointed out was the Corporativist model. There is also a difference between authoritarian fascism and totalitarian fascism...but since this is getting complicated, back on topic.

Fascism is can be considered a form of corporatism. One example could actually be certain parts of the New Deal proposed by FDR during the Depression. But i believe that the United States of today is nowhere near the extremes of the political spectrum. The Constitution is unlike any other document in history. The rights afforded in that document protect everyone in a way that can never be taken away.

I do not think that the issue you brought up is really fair in comparison to discrimination in the past by governments. First, there has yet to be solid biological evidence to support the claim that homosexuality is genetic or biological, just as there is no evidence to support the claim that it is entirely not biological. Homosexuality could very well be a choice, even if it is on a subconscious level. Furthermore, a majority of people in this country are against homosexuals being allowed to marry. And that encompasses people from both sides of the political spectrum. This is not a government's personal vendetta against gays.

That is the difference between the situation with the Jews and Germany and gays and the US. The Nazis used nationalism to fuel anti-semitism in the country and the people bought it and encouraged it. It is different in the USA because it was not the government that was "targeting" a group. It was the people of the country showing disapproval and then trying to get the government to go along.

Many historians would disagree with you, many of them feel that Hitler capitalized on existing anti-semitism, just further fueling it, and then using it to his advantage. Germany had quite a history of anti-semitism prior to Hitler. Read some of the things Marting Luther wrote about Jews. It was in no way an invention of the Nazi party.

I think we need to be careful about painting with too broad a brush here. Do most Republicans - or most American conservatives - have a fascistic bent? Good God, no. Do some of the neocons, like those behind the Bush administration, lean toward fascism? By Benito Mussolini's definition, absolutely.

I don't think gay issues are as evidential of this (those are wedge issues being exploited solely in order to maintain power), as is the sort of crony capitalism with which the Bush administration is riddled. I suspect that this is something of which most ordinary decent conservatives are unaware - otherwise, I doubt most of them would even contemplate re-electing Bush (and all those who go with him).

Are we facing a new type of fascism in America today?

We're not facing it, we're being governed by it.

Aside from the obvious evil deeds of the Nazi's, are there legitimate paralells between corporatism of the 20s-30s and today's America?

Of course there are - but they are certainly not supported by grassroots Republicans. Unfortunately, they are rampant in our current administration. The minor corporatism which has been around since the end of World War II - and which flourished a bit under Reagan - is coming to full fruition under Bush. The attempted marginalization of gays, though, is just a smokescreen.

Fascism is the extreme mix of nationalism and socialism. Mussolini was not into free markets nor social freedom (as some have suggested here). Mussolini was a ranking member of the Socialist party and plenty of quotes can be found on his socialist views. Eventually he was kicked out of the Socialist Party for his nationalist views. At the time he said to his colleagues,

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/benito_mussolini.htm

As a Fascist he called for the nationalization of many industries, he also called for minimum wages, 8 hour work days, greater involvement of trade unions, public transportation, "a strong progressive tax on capital", and "the seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations". The list goes on. Notice any parallels of your own?

Are we facing a new type of fascism in America today?
No. Socialism is alive and well in America and so is nationalism, but neither have been taken to the extremes that fascism was.

Are we facing a new type of fascism in America today?

The only thing keeping us from it is the Supreme Court.

Aside from the obvious evil deeds of the Nazi's, are there legitimate paralells between corporatism of the 20s-30s and today's America?

One of the problems with comparing neo-cons to fascists is this – during the Second World War the fascists took it upon themselves to depopulate Eastern Europe. This process involved the murder of millions of civilians, Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Ukranians, Lithuanians, Poles, etc., for racial reasons. This is what most people associate with the fascists, even though this was not the central purpose of their existence or the foundation of their ideology. While there are many parallels and outright similarities between the neo-con and fascist ideologies, when such comparisons are made the neo-cons stand up and shout that they are being unfairly portrayed as mass murderers.

Many Republican and conservative Americans latched onto Nazism, and an American Nazi party was founded. On the other hand, the Nazis were very environmentally conscious (their movement sprang from a late 1800s environmental youth movement in Germany,) giving them that much in common with American liberals. Before the war there were much harsher laws regulating the conduct of blacks in the United States than there were in regulating Jews in Germany. But both in Germany and Italy the fascists pandered to and identified with the corporate power structure. The book "Arms of the Krupps" even suggests that WWI and WWII were started by the German arms lobby- much like Halliburton and Iraq or Dow and Vietnam.

It must be remembered that what the Nazis pictured themselves as doing in Eastern Europe was repeating the colonization efforts of the other western powers, efforts that had been largely denied to land-locked Germany. Truth be told, what the Nazis did in the east has a great deal in common with what the Spanish did in (now ‘Latin’) America and what the United States did to the Indians of the Eastern U.S. and Great Plains.

I think Wertz's post on the RNC having it's own internment facility at it's convention is one of the best examples of the new fascism in America- where political dissenters are locked up for disagreeing with the current regime. There are so many similarities between the way the regimes came to power and stay in power, with the exception that this regime is far more sophisticated and slightly less ham-handed in application- because it must be- America is far more diverse than Germany ever was, and doesn't have the automatic responses to authortarian goverments.

It may be the only thing that saves us in the end.

I think we have a case of over-reaction.

For example, what is going on in Russia is a real example of the government consolidating its power: Russian president's plan to combat terrorism includes appointing governors, legislators.


Putin has strangled (or is proposing to strangle) what little democracy was emerging in Russia. He did this in the wake of several troubling incidents that resulted in the deaths of hundreds. He has taken very radical steps in the name of security.

I ask: where are the similar steps in the US?

And I think you are presenting an equal case of sleight of hand and misdirection Amlord. I don't think the situation in Russia can really be compared to anything going on here in the US, at least not within the scope of the original debate questions anyway.


We have this piece of legislation out there called the USA Patriot Act, I think that qualifies as a pretty radical step.

America is an established democracy, so any examples of consolidating power are going to be extremely subtle because anything large wouldn't be tolerated. But when you have all of these subtle things going on, one day you wake up and the structure of the government is very different.

As one such subtlety I would submit recent developments in Florida

My understanding of Russian Democracy is that they have elections, but there is no where near the level of checks and balances as exists in our government as defined by the constitution and the bill of rights. If Putin decides he is going to reorganize the government, as long as he doesn't do away with elections, who is going to stop him if there isn't a process in place?

Well, aside from why you would consider being "totally independent" a good thing, I have to admit, you are looking at this from a completely different perspective than most. There are, however, a few folks listening to Pahrump National Radio on similar frequencies....

And this is different from the rest of us how? Politicos may simply lie and cheat with more at stake, but extremely rare is the person who has never even told a little white lie, has never done a California stop, etc.

I think its a heckuva lot more important to figure out what the practical impact of laws will be rather than what drives them. Motivation is handy to know, but if my daughter were hurt in an accident, I'm a lot more interested in whether or not a certain medical procedure will help her than knowing if the doctor is doing it for free or to pay for his daughter's college.

Care to back your absurd claim up with something, anything that may be construed as proof?

Now, to the original questions:

No, we are not "in the grip of a new fascism." Sadly, I don't doubt that the Wolf of Fascism will have a much easier time of it if it comes because the body politic will be utterly numbed to the cry of "fascism, fascism" by then.

Fascism - philosophy or sys of govt that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically via the merging of state & business leadership, w/an ideology of belligerent nationalism" Am Heritage Dictionary '78

Considering how pervasive the influence of corporate America is in American politics- as with the energy commision and cheney- able to even set policy in America- doesn't the definition fit? We have certainly become extreme right wing- so extreme, that true old fashion liberalism really doesn't exist anymore- we have some slightly left of center types- but true socialist are rarer than a spotted owl- so, Bikerdad and others- by the definition, how are we NOT in a type of fascism/corporatism already- or as Wertz said "living it already"-

for instance- the basic right of search and siezure protections from the goverment are null and void when it comes to corporations- they have more access to your privacy than the goverment ever had at this point- to the point of requiring drug tests- and even the corporate "rights" as an individual trump REAL individual rights now- as expressed in the corporation personhood:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...t=0&#entry98433

So, aren't we already there?

Are we facing a new type of fascism in America today?

No, people bat about the term Fascism and Communism as adjectives for the other sides. The Right wing in this country would have to take an extreme left turn to fall in line with Fascism.





Aside from the obvious evil deeds of the Nazi's, are there legitimate paralells between corporatism of the 20s-30s and today's America?

No. People attempt to draw parallels between Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao ect. I remember when they were comparing Ross Perot to Hitler



The only thing keeping us from it is the Supreme Court.

I disagree relying on the court that way opens the door on an oligarchy. It is the frontier mentality still present in a lot of Americans and the fact the populous is armed that trumps any coup de ta that either side might try

deerjerkydave



Actually... no.

The OED definition of Facism is the totalitarian principles and organization of the extreme right-wing nationalist movement in Italy (1922-43),

and/ or

Any similar nationalist and authoritarian movement. (Loosely) Any system of extreme right wing or authoritarian views.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are we facing a new type of fascism in America today?

Is the US government authoritarian? Turning once more to the OED I find the following definition; Favouring, encouraging or enforcing strict obedience to authority, as opposed to individual freedom. So I guess its a question of whether or not the Bush administration encourages individual freedom, or strict obedience to authority.

Going by the actions of Mr Aschroft, the Pariot act, and the general mood of the Bush administration when dealing with opponents, critics and the general population, then I am inclined to agree with Wertz. You are already being governed by facists.


Aside from the obvious evil deeds of the Nazi's, are there legitimate paralells between corporatism of the 20s-30s and today's America?

Yes. But this is true of all nations to one degree or another. Take away their evil deeds and the nazi's were just like any other government.

By that definition, almost all Republicans are fascists to one degree or another.

I recall Wertz telling us once that the extreme left becomes indistinguishable from the extreme right when you examine their goals. They merge in an odd convergence of diverging interests.

Is totalitarianism extreme right or extreme left? I'd say it could be either.

Is extreme nationalism extreme right or extreme left? I'd say either.

Taking the OED definition: "Favouring, encouraging or enforcing strict obedience to authority, as opposed to individual freedom" would that not describe the former USSR? Was the USSR fascist? Was it extreme right?

All types of totalitarianism are the same. The ends to achieving it are different.

Since you mentioned John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act as two of your three examples, I must ask: aren't these two items one and the same? Isn't it Ashcroft's defense and use of the Patriot Act that some object to?

But the Patriot Act was a bi-partisan measure, adopted overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress. I find it disingenuous to blame its passage on Bush or even on the Republicans when such worthies as Kerry and Edwards voted for it (only Democrat Russ Feingold voted against it in the Senate). It passed 98-1.

EDIT to update:

I have found definitive proof that the US is in the throes of fascism. The President of the United States said this:


Of course, that was Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s...

Amlord



Actually I think it depends on how far they will go to limit personal freedoms, but otherwise... yup.




Well totalitarianism is not the same as facism, but otherise... yup.




Weeell... there's the question of whether or not the Soviet Union was ever truly a socialist state. There have been plenty of people who liked to call themselves socialists (Saddam Hussein for example) but in truth they were nothing of the kind.

Apart from that, I'd say that the extreme left wing would probably be defined by some other word than Facist. Facism really only belongs to the Italian model of government from 1922 to 43, or any one that follows its principles. So really, the Soviet Union, which did not emulate the Italian facists can't be described as facist.
It can however be described as totalitarian.




Well, I get the distinct impression that Mr Aschroft is considered more dangerous than just the Patriot act, but I could be mistaken...




'Disingenuous' seems to the favourite word in America these days. I seem to meet it evey where I go of late.

But, no, I'm not being disingenuous. I'm not suggesting that Kerry is less to blame, only pointing to the Bush administration as responsible because it currently holds power.




Well there you go then. Proof!

At the present time, same sex couples do NOT, as a general rule, enjoy the same benefits accruing from having an "insurable interest" in their partner. They lack some beneficiary and survivor benefits and a usual inability to cover their "partner" under their own group health insurance policy or HMO/PPO at a workplace. In other words, one would remain uninsured as a stay at home partner unlike the current rules for the opposite sex house-husband or housewife of an insured worker who wanted coverage.

Try the Center for Public Integrity - a non-partisan organization that follows money in politics. There are several books written by the researchers there that delve more deeply into the lobbying of our government.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx

One would wonder why the insurance industry has been allowed to use a single credit blemish to rate PRE-PAID auto insurance premiums. The lobby cites studies that show people with credit blemishes turn in more fraudulent claims. Several studies were commissioned by both the insurance industry and private foundations.

The bottom line: Insurers asking to raise AUTO rates based on credit history is like a mortgage lender asking for your driving record. There are currently laws in EVERY state against Insurance Fraud. Consumer economists see the credit score rate increase as what they call an "automatic adder" (one that needs no regulatory rate hike approval). This is the direction insurers are lobbying legislators to go. Soon, the need for rate hearingss will disappear into a labyrith of automatic premium rate "adders" without the public's ability to address them or to have input.

It is NOT party specific. Whichever party is in power in a given state is the party that is bought by the insurance lobby. Insurance law (with the sometimes exclusion of helath insurance) is regulated by each individual state.

Credit scoring has passed as an automatic rate-setting mechanism in most of the 50 states to some degree or another. Below is a link to two studies. Also visit this site's home page. Insurers don't even have the same criteria for categorizing credit ratings and when asked to provide that information, often quote it as being "proprietary".

http://www.insurancescored.com/IncomevsIns...reditScores.htm

In almost EVERY state, lobbyist outnumber the combined total number of legislators, regulators, state elected officials and employees of the regulatory agency in charge of monitoring the insurance industry by a VERY wide margin.

Unless you can show me where the US government is rounding up and murdering homosexuals, I don't think that this is a fair comparison.



Personally, I don't feel as if my individual freedom has been infringed upon at all. So I'm gonna have to go with no.