The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism

Yes, quite fascinating, snood. This will make for some fun times around our Thanksgiving table tomorrow - thanks!

snood
Damn if that don't sound familiar..........................

It should.

Fascism and Bush

It was a dumb list then, it's a dumb list now.

Thanks, Joe. I don't think its dumb. Although the term facism may be vague, the idea that extremist governments share certain qualities is relavant, IMO to the times we live in, and the Patriot Acts we live under.

But thanks. some gratuitous negativity is always a stimulating mixer.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Fascism got a bad rap from Hitler.

Keep in mind, under Fascism:

1) Everyone has a job.

2) Crime is low.

3) And the damn trains run on time.


Just my 2 cents

And I thought that was the "national socialism" part of it....

Check at what Mussolini did for the Italian people (Other that imprison or murder them... and draw then into a treaty with a madman)

They wanted work, he put them to work.

He didn't promise them much, but he delivered on what he promised.

Remember, Hitler stole the tennants of Fascism from Mussolini, not the other way around.




Il Duce

Joe's link was instructive though--Snood got the list from Jeff Rense, a well-known UFO crackpot, who makes a mint from the credulous with his books and radio program. Joe Republican, posting the list in the thread linked by Our Joe from the Windy City, got the list from Secularhumanism-dot-com. Just shows ta go ya, what a weird selection of animals you find at the watering hole after dark . . .

Certainly. Mussolini was a former member of the Italian socialist party. He just borrowed some of his ideas from socialism.

Actually I got it indirectly from CounterPunch - a political webmagazine. I will be more careful at choosing my sources.

Just for sh*ts and grins - any thoughts about the idea that totalitarian governments share the kinds of similarities the 'crackpot' alluded to?

Actually, the "crackpot" is not the author, as i rather suspect you know, simply the one providing the web site at which it is posted--the author is identified as one Dr. Lawrence Britt. I was simply noting with interest the divergence of sources for this list. But since you have seen fit to press the issue in your typical acid manner, i've done a little more research. There does not appear to be any "Dr. Lawrence Britt," not any, at least, who is responsible for that list. There is a Mr. Laurence Britt, for whom a bio appears in a Rochester newspaper, which identifies him as a local boy, and alludes to his book on fascism. That news article states that he pursued a course in business at Northwestern University. There is no mention of any advanced degree, and there is specific mention that Mr. Britt states that after a long career in the corporate business world, he had turned to writing because of a life-long interest in history. That doesn't mean he is in any way unqualified to comment--however, the cachet of expert opinion given by listing him as "Dr. Britt" (several sites i visited state outright that he has a doctorate in political science, or refer to him as a "political scientist") is, i have no doubt, deliberate deception on the part of someone in the chain that leads from his book to the extremely widespread dissemination of this list online.

The Rochester paper, City News, identifies itself as "the alternative newsweekly." It has an interview with Mr. Britt, which can be read here. As the point of the use of this list nearly everywhere i saw it was to suggest creeping fascism in America, or, at conservative sites, to suggest the dangerous mental instability of those who would suggest that such were the case--i highly recommend that anyone in this thread who wishes to discuss the topic read that article first.

I read the article, and it provided a little context for the list.

But people can certainly make comment on whether or not they think totalitarian governments share these kinds of similarities without further debating the origin of the list, or their qualifications to participate in the debate.

Snood- The list is bogus. It does not have one critical definition.

Racism. How could the author have missed that? That is the primal sin from which all others flow.

Ital-Massa-Mortgato's contention is, of course, utter nonsense. Italian facists had absolutely no need of a racist compenent in their ideology, and strenuously resisted all efforts on the part of the Germans to deport Italian Jews. Admiral Hrothy, the Hungarian hero of the Austro-Hungarian navy who made himself the dictator of Hungary after the Great War saw the advantages of incorporating Italian facism into his political rhetoric and for use as a cosmetic program, and he, too, resisted all German efforts to deport Jews. Francisco Franco and the Falange needed no racist component for their quasi-facist program.

******************************************

Reading the interview with Mr. Britt should point out what is not immediately obvious in reading the list--which is that the use of the term facist is meaningless. Fascist has become a term in our contemporary political world which does not rise beyond the dignity of a pejorative epithet--hence the ludicrous and ultimately meaningless use of the term "islamo-facist" by ranting Israelis and American reactionaries. With the sole exception of an alliance with capitalist industrialists, Stalin's Soviet Union fits the bill quite nicely, and, in fact, Lenin's use of the expertise of capitalists, such as the Americans Henry Ford and Armand Hammer, beggar any contention about the ideological purity of the proletarian paradise being established on the ruins of the former Russian empire. It is worthy of note, however, that the one defining characteristic of fascism which distinguishes it from any other elitist tyrrany is that alliance of capitalists with politicians. To that extent, however, it simply becomes plutocracy with comic opera uniforms. The negative characteristics in this list can as well be applied to oligarchy, monarchy, plutocracy, communism--to any form of dictatorial tyrrany. Mussolini was a former newspaper editor, and he knew the value of public display. At the end of the day, fascism is a system of political manipulation through display and the deployment of "the big lie." It is not, in the end, an ideology. Contentions which seek to accuse the United States, for example, of drifting toward fascism simply confuse and imflame the debate to no useful purpose. It is far more constructive to dispassionately look at the plutocratic tendencies which have arisen in American politics in the television age, when the costs of political campaigning have become ruinous, than to fling insults such as fascist about. Doing so does not accurately describe the problem, and tends to hinder the examination of the problems of our polity, and obscure the question of solutions.

In short, the list, and its application to contemporary polities, is meaningless.

bm

I posted: "Racism--How could the author have missed that."

Setanta, unaware that some people actually read history, said: "Italian Fascists had absolutely no need of a racist compenent( sic) in the ideology"

Really?

Since Mussolini was the leader of Italian Fascism and since the motto scrawled all over the walls of Rome was "Mussolini ha sempre ragione" ( Mussolini is always right and since, Mussolini issued this directive to the Italian Press on Dec. 26, 1936( Source- "Mussolini" by Laura Fermi-P. 367) quote

"Do not show interest in anything concerning Einstein"

and since, On November 6, 1937, Mussolini told Hitler's special envoy, Joachim von Ribbentrop-"We are conducting a very determined and increasingly intensive anti-Semitic campaign" and since Mussolini told Ciano that Jewish writers and newspapermen would be banned from further activity and since in SEPTEMBER AND NOVEMBER 1938 TWO SETS OF LAWS WERE PASSED--ITALIAN RACIAL LAWS WHICH WERE CAUSED THE EXPULSION FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES OF BOTH TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AS WELL AS MANY OTHER RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS UPON CERTAIN ACTIVITIES( source- Fermi- above) , it is ridiculous to say that Italian Fascism was free of Anti-Semitism.

I didn't say that Italian fascism was free of anti-semitism, what i pointed out was that a racist component was unnecessary to their ideology. I realize of course, your reading comprehension difficulties. I note that you haven't addressed the refusal of the Italians to deport Italian Jews to German camps. It was only after the Allied invasion, and the fall of the Fascists, that any Italian Jews were deported by the Germans.

It is YOU, Setanta, who has comprehension difficulties.

What part of 'TWO SETS OF LAWS AGAINST THE JEWS WERE PASSED....THE EXPULSION FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES OF BOTH TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS UPON CERTAIN ACTIVITIES" don't you understand?

If expulsion from school or teaching faculties based on Religion is not a racist act, what is?

Are you saying that the Fascists in Italy were much more lenient with the Jews and ONLY expelled them from School while the Nazis burned them in the ovens and were therefore the only true racists?

You seem to be making the argument, viewed with horror by the always erudite but sometimes mistaken Blatham,that our "crimes" in the AbuGhirab should be overlooked since the crimes of the insurgents who cut off heads are much more egregious.

It may be, as you say, that Anti-Semitism was unnecessary to their ideology, if one remains in the theoretical realm. One cannot look into the heads of all the Fascists. But, if one views the ACTIONS( which, of course, are the expression of Ideology) of the Facsists as reflected in the NOTORIOUS ITALIAN RACIAL LAWS( Nov.-Dec. 1938) one finds that the Fascists were indeed ANTI-SEMITIC.

If fascist regimes actually shared those qualities, it might be relevant. But they didn't so it isn't. I'll just repeat what I said in my previous post regarding this list:

The "14 point description of fascism" is so vague and general as to be largely useless. Many of the points equally describe generic, run-of-the-mill dictatorships (e.g. 2, 3, 4, 6, 13), while others could be fairly applied to western-style democracies (e.g. 1, 8, 9). But then that has always been a problem with the concept of "fascism." It's a category that defies categorization. Historically, we know that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany qualified as "fascist," but there were some significant differences even between these two regimes: Fascism in Italy, for instance, lacked the racialist elements of Nazism, while Germany did not have the same kind of corporatist structure as Italy. The difficulty in nailing down an adequate definition of "fascism" has led some scholars to reject it as a meaningless term; others use it very grudgingly, noting, along the lines of Potter Stewart's definition of "pornography," that while they may not be able to define it, they know it when they see it. The meaning of the term "fascist" in modern political discourse, however, is clear: it is used as a general term of disapproval for any type of policy or position that one holds in contempt. In this respect, the term "fascist" really is meaningless. It carries about as much rhetorical weight as calling someone a "poopy head." It is a term, therefore, that should be avoided if one is attempting to conduct a rational discussion.

It certainly got a response out of you.