In general, I think the best we can do is identify certain traits that were prominent in both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. These include, among others: integration of party and state apparatuses; totalitarian rather than authoritarian regimes; suppression or co-option of all independent social and political movements; extreme nationalism; emphasis on military adventurism; some form of corporatism (at least on the surface); and the cult of the "leader." Any regime that displayed all of these traits could, with some justice, be called "fascist."
While there's lots of hay to be made in the descriptions joe provided that I highlighted in red above, I'll be focusing for now on the 'corporatism' portion. To wit:
The proposed changes to Social Security are about corporatizing a federal program; specifically, giving the largest brokerage houses power over vast sums of taxpayer money.
That's not the kind of "corporatism" I was talking about. As practiced in Fascist Italy, it was a form of socio-economic governance that crossed class lines. It was, in effect, the capitalist version of syndicalism: instead of the workers running everything as in syndicalism, corporatism (theoretically) had the bosses and the workers sharing power. For more information, check the Wikipedia entry on "corporatism."
Today, corporatism or neo-corporatism is used in reference to tendencies in politics for legislators and administrations to be influenced or dominated by the interests of business enterprises (limited liability corporations). The influence by other types of corporations, such as those representing organized labor, is relatively minor. In this view, government decisions are seen as being influenced strongly by which sorts of policies will lead to greater profits for favored companies. In this sense of the word, corporatism is also termed corporatocracy. If there is substantial military-corporate collaboration it is often called militarism or the military-industrial complex.
Corporatism is also used to describe a condition of corporate-dominated globalization. Points enumerated by users of the term in this sense include the prevalence of very large, multinational corporations that freely move operations around the world in response to corporate, rather than public, needs; the push by the corporate world to introduce legislation and treaties which would restrict the abilities of individual nations to restrict corporate activity; and similar measures to allow corporations to sue nations over "restrictive" policies, such as a nation's environmental regulations that would restrict corporate activities.
I accept your definition of fascism in its historical context (as well as your contention that it is used too often as an ad hominem by many who are completely unfamiliar with any the definitions you have posted and linked). I also observe that the meaning has evolved over time (as Wikipedia describes in great detail) and that many new terms have arisen to attempt to more accurately describe the condition, and that contemporary meaning (and all of its related terms; corporatism, neo-corporatism, corporatocracy, militarism, and others) is useful in describing the application of governance by the Bush administration.
Now that we've agreed on the definition of the word, let's continue the discussion about whether or not the Bush administration can be accurately and appropriately described as fascistic (or just corporistic, or something else perhaps, as you would seem to prefer).
I've got plenty more examples that to me demonstrate that they are (the issue of tort reform being one I'd be tickled to dig into), but maybe someone who doesn't feel the Bush administration is practicing fascism would like to weigh in...
I am quite certain that the Bush administration cannot accurately or appropriately be described as "fascistic." It's not even close.
I have weighed in.
joefromchicago wrote:I am quite certain that the Bush administration cannot accurately or appropriately be described as "fascistic." It's not even close.
Ohhh, we disagree.
joe wrote:I have weighed in.
All righty then. It's just "not", according to your definition of the word.
We'll continue to disagree, and I'll continue supplying examples of their fascism, and you can move on to another thread.
Joe Republican wrote:If you have another definition, I'd like to hear it, and I don't buy "there is no such thing as fascism". It seems like a quick and easy out. It is also like saying there is no such thing as communism, but we all know there is, it's just on the other side of the spectrum.
On the whole, I don't buy the "there's no such thing as fascism" line either, although I can understand the frustration of those who feel that way. On the other hand, I tend to fall more into the "I can't define fascism, but I know it when I see it" camp.
Any satisfactory definition of "fascism" must cover both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Any definition that excluded either of those regimes, then, would be under-inclusive and, thus, unsatisfactory (and any definition that excluded both of them would be useless). On the other hand, any definition that included regimes that clearly were not "fascist" should likewise be rejected. So, for instance, any definition that would cover Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would be unacceptably over-inclusive. It becomes a much tougher call when we start looking at quasi-fascist regimes. Was Salazar's Portugal fascist? What about Franco's Spain? Or Vichy France?
In general, I think the best we can do is identify certain traits that were prominent in both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. These include, among others: integration of party and state apparatuses; totalitarian rather than authoritarian regimes; suppression or co-option of all independent social and political movements; extreme nationalism; emphasis on military adventurism; some form of corporatism (at least on the surface); and the cult of the "leader." Any regime that displayed all of these traits could, with some justice, be called "fascist."
Joe Republican wrote:If you want, the one underlying definition of fascism is corporations running the government. It's as simple as that, all of the others (propaganda, sexual persecution et. all) simply solidify the position.
Actually, it was quite the reverse: the governments of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy pretty much ran the corporations, or at least did not tolerate any opposition from them. One would be foolish to think that the owners of FIAT or IG Farben couild have told either Mussolini or Hitler what to do.
Joe Republican wrote:Here is a link to a good article on fascism, corporatism and America written by a Loyola Economics professor.
I got as far as this passage: "The essence of fascism, therefore, is that government should be the master, not the servant, of the people. Think about this. Does anyone in America really believe that this is not what we have now?" At that point, I figured I had better things to do with my time.
I disagree with your assessment about inclusion. Totalitarian regimes can be either fascist or communist, but is doesn't exclude one from being so. Look at it this way, if you were going to define communism, because it had a totalitarian regime, and fascism had a totalitarian regime, you wouldn't necessarily exclude communism from being so because fascism had similarities.
Now, by using your definition, I do think we have a fascist regime. Each and every one of your indicators point towards our from of government, some more so then others, but they are all there none the less. I don't understand why you are saying our form of government is not trending towards fascism, especially looking at your definition.
I completely disagree with you here. In fact, I believe the corporations and the governments worked hand in hand. Much of Germany's pre-war buildup, and post depression growth was due to the government contracts handed out by Hitler to the corporations.
Hence, why I think we are becoming a fascist country. In a black and white fascist world, the government is the master, but in a black and white communist world (theoretically) the servant is the master. Of course, we know this is bull due to corruption inherent in humankind, it is just illustrating the difference in political spectra.
I'm still trying to figure out why you think we are not on the same page as fascism. Your definition close to what we currently have for a government, and you are in agreement.
I accused Bush in another thread for creating a form of government Hitler would love. I indeed compared modern day neo-conservatism to fascism and the rise of Nazi Germany. Well, I was laughed at, and some vile filled posts eschewed forth on my behalf.
Now, personally I think there are a LOT of similarities in fascism and our form of government. Here is a 14 point description of fascism I found. . .
Quote:In an essay coyly titled "Fascism Anyone?," Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, identifies social and political agendas common to fascist regimes. His comparisons of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet yielded this list of 14 "identifying characteristics of fascism." (The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2. Read it at http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm ) See how familiar they sound.
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.
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 is 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 the media are directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are 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.
source
I think this warrents discussions, because almost all of the points can be directly related to the current administration. Does anyone care to discuss?
By God Joe, it's all so clear now! We are living under a fascist regime!
Actually, there probably isn't a government that has existed in all of the years of human history that would not find itself pegged as fascist by this list.
In short, you find the similarities because you want to.
6. Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes the media are directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
Armstrong Williams, a prominent conservative commentator who was a protégé of Senator Strom Thurmond and Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, acknowledged yesterday that he was paid $240,000 by the Department of Education to promote its initiatives on his syndicated television program and to other African-Americans in the news media.
... According to a copy of the contract provided by the department yesterday, Mr. Williams, who also runs a small public relations firm and until yesterday wrote a syndicated newspaper column, was required to broadcast two one-minute advertisements in which Education Secretary Rod Paige extolled the merits of its national standards program, No Child Left Behind.
But the arrangement, which started in late 2003 and was first reported yesterday by USA Today, also stipulated that a public relations firm hired by the department would "arrange for Mr. Williams to regularly comment on N.C.L.B. during the course of his broadcasts," that "Secretary Paige and other department officials shall have the option of appearing from time to time as studio guests," and that "Mr. Williams shall utilize his long-term working relationships with 'America's Black Forum' " - an African-American news program - "to encourage the producers to periodically address the No Child Left Behind Act."
.... Really people, do you honestly think that if we were living in facist nation, that the cyber police wouldn't have already rounded all of us up for all the things we freely post here????
And PDiddie, Armstrong Williams is no more controlled by the government than you are
Ticomaya wrote:And PDiddie, Armstrong Williams is no more controlled by the government than you are
Good. Tell that sorry bastard I want my money back, then.
As long as CBS is on the airwaves, your theory is disproven.
They are still controlled by the DNC, even though they HAVE been royally busted recently.
President Bush plans to reactivate his reelection campaign's network of donors and activists to build pressure on lawmakers to allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market . . . The campaign will use Bush's campaign-honed techniques of mass repetition, never deviating from the script and using the politics of fear to build support
The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas . . . only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd.
I apologize for the following digression. It has no more to do with fascism and Bush than does Dan Rather and whatever it is gungasnake is babbling about.
(Bold emphasis is mine; thanks to Billmon, whose Whiskey Barappears to be open again):
The Washington Post wrote:President Bush plans to reactivate his reelection campaign's network of donors and activists to build pressure on lawmakers to allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market . . . The campaign will use Bush's campaign-honed techniques of mass repetition, never deviating from the script and using the politics of fear to build support
"Social Security Push to Tap GOP Faithful", January 12, 2005
Adolph Hitler wrote:The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas . . . only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd.
Mein Kampf, 1925
