February 21, 2005
Left wing fascism
Is fascism purely a ‘right-wing’ enterprise? Popular usage would indicate yes, but if we look at what the policies and practices of fascism actually are one can make the case that it has far more in common with the left-wing.
In fact, it might surprise you to know that the policies of the New Deal are in fact ‘fascist’ in nature.
The hallmark of fascism, as defined by the left today, is of corporations ruling the state or of a corporate/state partnership, or corporatism.
The decision by the FCC this morning to remove the last restrictions on Big Media to the control of the Public Airwaves is but one more sign that we are entering the Age of Corporatism, a world where the interests of the Fortune 500 and the Bush Administration have merged perfectly. One can observe Assistant Secretary of the Interior Stephen Griles working tirelessly to make sure his former clients in the Coal Industry have unfettered access to Federal Lands for mining (as outlined on "Now with Bill Moyers" last Friday) or you watch Michael Powell make sure that the Broadcasters who paid for his luxurious travel arrangements for the past three years, get unfettered access to the public airwaves . All of these moves take "The Commons" which is owned by all of us and move it into the hands of a few wealthy companies who pay little or nothing for resources from which they make millions. Dissident Voice
The reality is that fascism refers not to the privatization of 'common property', but the opposite: to it's collectivization. In short, the antidote to fascism is not more government control of business, but less.
The left's argument that modern conservatives are corporatists and fascists is a total corruption of the terms and of historical fact. If we look back at Mussolini and his fascist state we do not see corporations taking over the state, but rather the opposite, the state taking over corporations. I do not mean to say that 'big corporations' do not go along with and possibly even see this as sometimes in their interests, after all some of the greatest proponents of state control of business are in fact billionaire businessmen. I am merely pointing out that the fascist movement was not inspired and led by businessmen nor business interests, but by politicians and ideologues. It was Mussolini himself who coined the word fascist and created its political philosophy.
There is little historical evidence for the kind of fascism the left routinely accuses the GOP and corporations of engaging in. Corporatism was not corporate control of the state, but the state's control of corporations. Even the Wikipedia entry for this topic admits that it was not Mussolini's intent for the state to share power with any other interest.
"The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad.... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals nor groups are outside the State.... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative...." Mussolini
"Italian Life under Fascism" explains even further that the creation of this corporatist syndicate of industry was a compromise.
Fascism was unique among the radical forces produced by the early twentieth century, developing out of World War I without any clear predecessor in the nineteenth century. It first emerged in Italy in 1919, catapulting its leader, Benito Mussolini, into the premiership three years later and then to the creation of a new political dictatorship beginning in 1925. The term fascism, however, would later be applied to an entire cluster or genus of new revolutionary nationalist movements in Europe between the world wars, of which the most important was German National Socialism, or Nazism, for short, so that the Italian origins of the first fascism would often be overlooked, attention focusing primarily on Germany. The initial, or "paradigmatic" fascism nonetheless had specifically Italian roots and characteristics.The term comes from the Italian fascio, derived from the ancient Latin fasces, which referred to the bundle of lictors, or axe-headed rods, that symbolized the sovereignty and authority of the Roman Republic. From approximately the 1870s, the term fascio was used in Italy in the names of radical new social and political organizations, normally of the left. Thus the revolutionary nationalists who sought to create a new left nationalist league in 1919, in the aftermath of World War I, formed a Fascio di Combattimento, transformed two years later into the new Fascist Party, and so a radical new "ism" was born.
Italian Fascism began on the left, seeking to combine strong nationalism with modern developmentalism and an aggressive new style of activism that prized violence, idealism, and anti-materialism. While reenforcing Italian colonialism, Fascism originally embraced national liberation and rejected extreme imperialism and racism. Mussolini did not create the movement but skillfully guided himself to power as its Duce (Dux, or leader), at the same time moving the party to the right and engaging in practical compromise with Italy's established institutions. Though Fascists invented the term "totalitarian" for their new system, Mussolini was unable to complete a Fascist revolution and instead presided over a somewhat limited, semi-pluralist political dictatorship. library.wisc.edu
The key element of fascism is the primacy of the state, not the business interest.
Contrast this with the antidote proscribed by those who fight against (the straw man) of corporate control of America. Their antidote is more control of corporations by the state. In fact, in varying degrees their political solutions resemble more Mussolini's fascism than anything else. In fact, the progressive ideal, New Deal itself, is patterned entirely on the Italian model of fascism.
In 1926 Mussolini created the 'National Council of Corporations', essentially organizing all industry under the state.
Mussolini, for example, capitalized on fear of an imminent Socialist revolution [3] (http://www.thecorner.org/hists/total/f-italy.htm), finding ways to unite Labor and Capital, to Labor's ultimate detriment. In 1926 he created the National Council of Corporations, divided into guilds of employers and employees, tasked with managing 22 sectors of the economy. The guilds subsumed both labor unions and management, but were heavily weighted in favor of the corporations and their owners. The moneyed classes in return helped him change the country's laws to raise his stature from a coalition leader to a supreme commander. The movement was supported by small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats, and the middle classes, who had all felt threatened by the rise in power of the Socialists. Fascism also met with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, the lumpenproletariat. wikipedia
Compare this with the National Industrial Recovery Act signed into law in 1933 by Roosevelt:
The passage of NIRA ushered in a unique experiment in U.S. economic history-the NIRA sanctioned, supported, and in some cases, enforced an alliance of industries. Antitrust laws were suspended, and companies were required to write industry-wide "codes of fair competition" that effectively fixed prices and wages, established production quotas, and imposed restrictions on entry of other companies into the alliances. The act further called for industrial self-regulation and declared that codes of fair competition-for the protection of consumers, competitors, and employers-were to be drafted for the various industries of the country and were to be subject to public hearings. Employees were given the right to organize and bargain collectively and could not be required, as a condition of employment, to join or refrain from joining a labor organization. Ourdocuments.gov
Despite protestations after the fact, Mussolini's fascist state was held in high regard for a time in many circles, including within the United States. Europe still practices this model of corporatism where the state 'partners' with labor unions, and big business to manage the economy. In the thirties this was the height of economic thought, the idea of 'planned capitalism', or the 'managed economy'. The fact that this idea is still in vogue today despite its close association to the fascist states of both Italy and Germany is due entirely to the fact that many have worked hard to disassociate the two. To the point where today the term fascism is implied to refer to the inevitable natural result of Laissez-Faire capitalism, rather than what it was... state capitalism.
Keep some partisan protestors out of a Presidential appearance and talk begins on the left of an attempt to 'silence all opposition' and of the rise of a 'dictatorial regime'. Yet if we look at the policies enshrined by the left as sacred we see far more dictatorial actions in the name of progressivism.
After Roosevelt created the NIRA in response to the 'national crisis of economic depression' the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. In response Roosevelt attempted to take over the judicial branch by packing the Supreme Court. Funny that the left does not seem to see this in the same light as excluding protestors within a Presidential appearance.
Fascism was built on the foundation socialism and the commonly held belief at the time that planned economies were scientific, rational, and efficient rather than the heretofore 'liberal' idea of Laissez Faire capitalism. Fascism and communism are both collectivist in nature, meaning that they disregard the value of the individual in favor of the collective society. Both are totalitarian in nature.
The idea that fascism and communism are opposite ends of the political spectrum is pure wishful thinking on the part of some who wish to divorce the close association of the two in structure, ideology, principle, and practice. Both determined that complete government control of industry was not only necessary but imperative. In practice, as opposed to theory, both slaughtered millions.
Huey Long, American Dictator
The closest thing we have ever had to a dictatorial regime in the United States was in Louisiana in the 1930's. Democrat Huey Long held all the reigns of power in his state. Patronage, the kind of which we usually associate with third world dictators, was the order of the day. He traveled with armed guards protecting his person at all times. Political enemies were destroyed outright, sometimes violently. Long had no regard for the state constitution, and even made the claim that he was the constitution!
The hallmark of Huey Longs rise to power was his 'Share the Wealth' program, a massive plan to redistribute the wealth of the country so that, 'poverty would be wiped out'. Huey's chosen political enemy was the rich and the corporate interests. The reason there were poor among us, he said was that the rich had all the wealth.
He supported Roosevelt and his platform for the New Deal until it became obvious to him that Roosevelt wasn't going to go far enough in his mind to actually restructure America the way he thought it should be.
Does any of this sound familiar? There is no doubt in my mind that had Huey Long ever achieved his ambitions that America would have been doomed.
A few more references:
The Phony of the Century
The American Experience, Roosevelt
"Through the NIRA, the federal government took a prominent role in cooperating with and managing business."
Franklin Roosevelt's Statement
on the National Industrial Recovery Act
Goose-Stepping Ghosts
Corporatism has sometimes been labeled as a Third Way or a mixed economy...
"Possibly Italy's Benito Mussolini will be 1934 Man of the Year when his new Corporative State begins to show results." -Hugh Johnson, NIRA Administrator
FDR and Mussolini, A Tale of Two Fascists
"The New Deal: The Conservative Achievements of Liberal Reform"
Crisis and Quasi-Corporatist Policy-Making: The U.S. Case in Historical Perspective
The Great Society: A Libertarian Critique
The End of Reform, New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War
Great Depression, Econlib.org
Economic Fascism
Fascism, Econlib.org
Eric, your entire article follows from very false notions, both about the left as well as what constitutes fascism. Note the real definition, not the ‘make up ones’ you imply in your article”
fascism n.
1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]fas·cistic (f-shstk) adj.
Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, “bundle, (political) group,” but also refers to the movement’s emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini’s group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.
Note that the socialism or social programs have no bearing on the definition. The reference to National Socialism above is a reference to a nationalistic movement that swept some countries in the past but were defined as fascist by attempting to acquire power through violence and ruthlessness. The fact that they were socialist has no bearing on whether or not they were also fascist movements.
Therefore, your attempt to tie social programs to fascism constitutes a typical right wing “make up the definitions” so we can define our opponents as the bad guys.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2005 08:44 PMThere is evidence enough to convict both political parties of supporting fascism. The leaders of this country, both Democratic and Republican, supported fascist regimes instead of chancing Marxist election wins. It is to our detriment that we did so. In the future we must be less willing to support such governments for expedience sake.
Truth is, aside from the fringes on either side, Most Americans support Democracy. You know it, I know it, end of story. You want to win over your enemies here because its so difficult to win over them elsewhere. Americans, though, will win the war on Terrorism together, not at each other’s throats
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 21, 2005 09:39 PMWell said David. As a historic and political buff I can say you “hit the nail on the head”. Although I will give Eric cudos for a good effort.
I think the right mis-interperets the left or moderately left (like myself). The left is not against capitalism. However, capitalism left unchecked can lead to many folks getting duped (usually those without power or money). Just look at recent past… Enron, Tyco, Health South, Firestone, Worldcom(MCI), etc. Yeah, a lot of individual investors (and large investors for that matter) beleived corporate America; what did it get them? A large hit in the pocket book!
No, we don’t want government to CONTROL corporate America…only to police it. Thomas Jefferson, regarding seperation of church and state said this (may not be an exact quote, but it’s close): “what harm does it do for my neighbor to say there is no God or twenty Gods; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”. Although Jefferson was discussing church and state he was also, in the last part of his statement, eluding to what the Federal Government is to protect us from: that being physical harm and financial harm.
Someone needs to oversee these corporate giants so we little people don’t get squashed. In addition, and in spite of campaign finance laws, corporations have more say in how our government is run than the average citizen. This occurs as a result of their money (campaign contributions and lobbyists). So we’re being transformed from a government by the people and for the people into a government by corporate America and for corporate america. The sad thing is this seems to be just fine when corporate America is “buttering your bread”.
Lawyers just took one in the mouth from the Bush administration. Now, I’m not complaining because I have always hated how they seem to be the only folks getting rewarded in the class action cases; however, that’s only one piece of the pie. It’s time to reel in those corporations that “walk” on our rights simply because they have the lobbyist and a lot of cash. The attitude of corporate America doesn’t seem to be “don’t break the law”. Rather, what is the risk/reward factors involved.
Sorry to rattle on so long…and get off topic..
Posted by: Tom at February 21, 2005 09:43 PMIn my view, we have gone completely off from our Moderate-focus and direction as a country. Am very serious regarding.
Previous posting here discuss the 19th c. “isms” Robber barons included in U.S. I see a trend similar to what occurred pre-1930s in U.S. What has been happening since Limbaugh,Laffer days has been unbridled greed of yuppies, double income yuppies, and their spoiled soft offspring. On the other side are all the paper professionals and funny money professionals the hot air univs. pumped into our society having propagandized them.
What really bothers me is the lack of production and exports by this country. What I am seeing is that this has been a return to the period of the 1930s. Unbridled capatalism with corporations now seeking short-term profits cannabalizing good companies, selling good companies to foreigners, overlygreedy corp execs. with little care for this wonderful country as American citizens, outsourcing, etc. etc. On the other side are the way too numerous overpaid, overbenefited unions and too numerous professor overeducated idiots, paper professionals, attorneys, and funny money boys—far afield from productive work and exports needed to maintain this wonderful country and our legacy handed down by the down to earth brains and hard work of our grandparents, great grandparents, and so on.
Eric,
When are you going to move on to the G’s, in the dictionary?
Eric,
I have copied this from a post I posted in the thread you started called “Preserving Democracy.
“Eric,
Why do you feel the need to pigeonhole?
Do you feel that the extremists on the right are any better than the extremists on the left?
What good do you see in trying to evaluate the extreme mentality of either extreme?
I don’t see any point in trying to prove to you that the extreme left is any wackier than those at the other end of the spectrum. That should be evident on the face of it, and frankly, I don’t see any difference between the two.
Sorry, I don’t agree that extremism in the cause of liberty isn’t a vice. It’s still just extremism.
Life isn’t lived at the extremes, it is somewhere in the middle.”
Hopefully Eric, this is extreme enough for you.
Posted by: Rocky at February 21, 2005 11:00 PMYou’re a fascist!
No, you’re a fascist!
Eric, I propose we get back to planet Earth and stop pretending that the politics of 1930’s Germany and Italy have the foggiest relevance to our contemporary political debates. Do you want to discuss the serious questions of the day, or do we want to f%^k around?
Posted by: Woody Mena at February 21, 2005 11:18 PMHow can there be Fascism without Military Support? The Army right now is facing a shortage of recruits. For all the talk about spreading “Freedom”, Republicans seem unwilling to die for their Dear Leader. How can you have Fascism with such hypocrites?
Posted by: Aldous at February 21, 2005 11:20 PMA correction is in order. We do not live in a democracy. Our form of government is a republic. In a democracy the people are the legislature. All legislation is passed by majority vote of the electorate instead of representatives.
Posted by: Tom at February 22, 2005 02:06 AMDavid,
I actually agree with your dictionary definition.
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
That doesn’t differ much from what I said. For instance, stringent socioeconomic controls. I’d say that NIRA fits the bill nicely. The statist central government kind of New Deal Era liberalism is fascist.
The key similarities that I am trying to illuminate here are that New Deal Liberalism and actual historical facts of fascism in Italy are related in ways that the left is unwilling or unable to see.
Stephen, Rocky,
This recent post in the third party column basically says Bush is a fascist. Another post says that Bush is silencing all dissent, is violating the 1st amendment, putting freedom “under the heels of a dictatorial regime”, is ‘silencing all opposition’ etc etc.
I keep hearing the left say Bush is a fascist and the GOP is fascist. etc. Well, it’s a misuse of the term.
Stephen, you’re right that there are those on both sides who are willing to follow the fascist course. Let’s just be clear what we’re talking about. For instance Nixon used price controls. And Bush seems willing to enlarge the welfare state in order to ‘triangulate’ some sort of political strategy.
The fact remains that fascism as it is referred to in popular discourse, (Godwin’s law isn’t it?), is a travesty. I also think there’s some historical liberal denial going on as well. So let’s talk about what facism actually was rather than what some yahoos on the left want it to be.
Posted by: ericsimonson at February 22, 2005 02:44 AMEric,
Our government is acting like a facist government in many ways and deserves the lable when it applies. Its a matter of degree… and the Bush administration is moving towards many aspects of the definition of facism at a pretty rapid clip.
The american people are used to being able to excersize almost unlimited freedom when it comes to expressing political views. That is why it comes as a tremendous shock to us when we see our government and the party that is in power abusing its position in Facistic ways.
However, Neoconism is something altogether new and I think it kind of muddies the water to use a super charged lable like facism that is not well suited to the current situation. The current bunch are more sophisticated about using their power and are much more careful about how they hide what they are doing. Their manipulation of the media, the opportunistic use of a nation tragedy to further hegemony and their careful use of orwellian retoric and techniques make them unique and quite different from old style facists of the 1930’s.
Eric,
Tremendous post. You have really outdone yourself. Very logical, historically accurate, and most important, you pissed off the right people. Definitely struck a nerve.
Posted by: Peter at February 22, 2005 06:17 AMI think we need to separate the content of Bush’s policies from the way he develops and enforces them. From this point of view, a better reference point may be the Soviet Union. Unlimited detentions, fake journalists, domestic surveillance… I readily admit that this is a stretch, but if we are going to force American politicians into foreign molds then that may be as close as any.
Posted by: Woody Mena at February 22, 2005 08:38 AMFascism is a term much overused. In the U.S., it has become a farce. Anyone openly criticizing the government fascist either doesn’t believe what he is saying or doesn’t understand the meaning of fascism. If they truly believed that the U.S. Government was behaving in the fascist tradition, they would lay low and keep their mouths shut. Not many people spoke openly against Hitler or Mussolini and those that did didn’t speak very long.
Since I see some of the same people criticizing the administration over and over, I have to assume that none of them have experienced fascist intimidation. So let’s just get over this. George Bush may be many things, but he is not a fascist.
Eric is right about the fascist style organization of the New Deal, but I would disagree in calling the system fascist. The New Deal used some of the same methods, but was not in other ways similar. Astronomers and astrologers use many of the same methods, but that does not make them similar. Roosevelt did a masterful job of balancing the various tension and trends during a dangerous time. He made many mistakes, but he also did a lot of things right. Historians still debate this. I think he was a great president.
As we get farther from the actual time of the fascist, we can increasingly see that it was not unique but rather part of a family of collectivist ideologies, some of which have essentially died out (except on American university campuses). I also agree with Eric that Communism and fascism are close cousins and essentially 20th Century animals.
Since they are both heresies of the same collectivist belief system, they (like all true believers/heretics) hate each other with a special passion, but that does not mean that you can’t recognize the family resemblance in both branches of revolutionary socialism. One of the great propaganda coups of 20th Century Communism was to entrench the idea that the two were on opposite ends of an ideological spectrum. With our better perspective, we can now understand that there is no spectrum at all. Ideology is better understood as a multiple regression, where various traits of ideologies are correlated. When we judge by what they do, we find communism and fascism are very close to each other and the free market democracies are much farther away.
Hey Jack! Welcome back. I think your conflating of fascism and socialism is silly.
A correction is in order. We do not live in a democracy.
We’re getting there. Many states (like my home state of California) have referendum systems that give legislating power to the people. Which is wrong and bad. The founding fathers knew what they were doing by keeping government out of the hands of the unwashed masses.
It kills me to know that my idiot neighbors are making budget decisions for the state.
Eric (and all Republicans)-
Let us speak of fascism, not of all Republicans, but of a few in particular.
Let us speak of oaths made to men.
We are a nation that pledges allegiance to no one. When children pledge their allegiance, they do so to a flag, and to the republic for which it stands. They do not pledge allegiance to their leaders. Their leaders, in turn, pledge allegiance to the highest law in the land, and the nation and its people.
Our leaders are supposed to swear their loyalty to us. But what did Bush and his vice president do? They asked oaths of their party members.
Did we fight a revolution war so that once again men would have to bow their heads to those God made equal to them?
Our founding fathers did not give us the right to speak against our leaders and ask them to correct their mistakes and injustices, just so one president, years later, could confine those people out of his view.
They did not give the power to wage war to the congress so a president could decieve and mislead our country into combat.
The denial here is of the principles that we put in place to prevent such abuses of power.
Jack-
I must make one correction. I think it would be safer to say that we view the actions of the Bush administration as steps towards fascism- the secrecy, the abuse of power, the isolation from public feedback and criticism, coupled with a reversal of the usual relationship of ruled and ruler in this democracy.
When I saw the buildings burning, and knew I was looking at a terrorist attack, One crystal clear thought came to me: this is how republics become empires, democracies fascist. A people in crisis will shift the balance of power away from themselves. This has been done often in history.
The danger comes when those given this extraordinary power and trust don’t let go of their emergency powers, and/or use the crisis as a means to destroy their political opposition. The Danger comes when politicans abuse that trust and power and use the character of the crisis to avoid answering the charges of incompetence and corruption when they arise.
The Bush administration, at the very least, has been tone deaf to the way in which their actions have both appeared to stray, and actually strayed into that territory.
The Bush administration, I think, earns the anxiety of its political opposition. We do not want the end of our Republic to have its start in the defense of our country, and the idolizing of a president.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 22, 2005 11:19 AM Unwashed masses?
I thought Hitler was dead?
Apparently he is alive and well in California, living next to his idiot neighbors.
Woody,
Why would we make america into any European mold? This country is an experiment in independence , we are learning as we go. I figure that since we are less than 250 years old as a democracy and are now the only super power in the world I say we are doing pretty damn good.
Winterbear,
I think your looking for the conspiracy blogs two web sites over.
Aldus,
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Cause that damn Bush lied about the war and he’s going to screw up Soc. Sec. And Rush Limbah is Satan and god bless Moore for exposing all those republican lies an we should let the U.N. be in charge of the chicken crossing anyway because France is the only ones worth listening to because the vast right wing conspirators are running the media and our only hope is that the judges do the right thing and………..
Freedom
Posted by: old wolf at February 22, 2005 11:34 AMEric,
Thanks for a well-presented post. And thanks for pointing out that being a conservative is a far cry from being a fascist.
However, I would not ever say that American lefties are fascists.
The political spectrum is not a line; it’s a circle. On our side of the circle, left and right diverge. However, were we to go completely around the circle, they would meet again. Compare the far-right and far-left governments of the world. Is there really any difference, outside the rhetoric? In each case, the will of the citizens is subsumed by an ideology which is in turn subsumed by the desire for power of the ideologues. Whether a dictator rules in the name of the proletariat or in the name of the Volk, he is equally opposite to our desired form of government.
The lesson? We should stop calling each other fascists, and reserve the label for those who deserve it. Kim Jung Il may call himself a communist, but I’d call him a fascist just as quickly. The same goes for Fidel Castro, though he’s not as crazy, and the leaders of revolutionary Burma.
Posted by: Chops at February 22, 2005 11:50 AMYou politicos love to talk about labels rather than issues. It’s like you all learned to paint with the big brush, and never quite got coordinated enough to move to a finer tool.
Blue column, red column, green column; it doesn’t matter. No movement toward solutions. Ever wonder why these guys run negative campaigns? It’s because you guys & gals eat it all up … and then feed the beast a yummy dessert.
Posted by: mike at February 22, 2005 12:00 PMDavid
The definition you gave for fascism desribes the left to the tee.
Eric,
The word Facism seems to invite a lame indictment, rather than discussion.
American Presidents of both parties have supported facsism. So I guess that would mean that we all have supported it at one time or another.
It seems that every couple of weeks someone on this blog trots out the word, and all that happens is that the bozos come out of the woodwork, and the lame attempts at humor start.
The folks here that are serious, give basicly the same definitions, and the folks here that aren’t serious, make fools of themselves with childish posts, trying to be insulting.
And yet, this topic continues to come up.
Eric, are you trying to change the definition of the word? If so I would think that you would be better served writing Merriam-Webster.
David and Winterbear, well done.
You too, Stephen - but you left out a couple of things.
The founders would definitely have viewed the unconstitutional provisions within Ashcroft’s “Patriot Act” as nothing but blatant tyranny.
Also, the neocon’s authoritarian/totalitarian-style disregard for traditional standards of human decency (torture) in their break with international law should be telling us all that we are headed down the wrong road. And it is even more alarming when we consider that those who had so much to do with that ignoble achievement are now holding positions of high authority in the president’s administration (and we know that Ashcroft facilitated this as well - by preventing the Senate from seeing documents that may well have crushed the appointments of Gonzales and Chertoff).
Fascism doesn’t lend itself to easy definition. The corporatist, collectivist, militaristic and revolutionary form of ideological fascism was limited to a particular period of history. Since that time the word “fascist” has become more of a reflexive pejorative than a description. It simply doesn’t mean much of anything the way it is used today. It is figuratively and literally the political version of calling someone the f-word.
Fascism was a system with many aspects and permutations. Other systems include particular aspects, but that doesn’t make them fascist. For example, fascism depends on mass street demonstrations, but so do most forms of democratic organization. Fascism sought collectivist solutions, but so do many of our best social programs. Fascists built a good highway system and designed an inexpensive “people’s car” (the Volkswagen beetle).
Authoritarianism itself does not qualify as fascism; neither does plain nastiness. North Korea is horrible and collectivist, but not fascist. Zimbabwe is a ghastly racist place, but not fascist. The closest thing we have to fascism these days is probably Syria. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, drawing on examples of both Stalin and Hitler was an even better example. It can be a very resilient system. The U.S. and other western democracies are far from fascism and we all know it. That is why we don’t fear putting our objections to our leaders in writing.
mike-
A standing ovation for your comment, sir.
Posted by: AParker at February 22, 2005 03:26 PMPer David:
fascism n.
1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
I’m one of those folks who can be considered, as American Pundit put it (poorly), an unwashed portion of the masses. I read mostly mainstream news (though I avoid televised versions of CNN - infotainment - and Fox News - the conservatively slanted news) and don’t claim any answers. But here’s my take on why some people claim the Bush Administration feels a bit fascist - not saying these claims withstand scrutiny, but I’m unwashed so I can’t make my own arguments.
“centralization of authority under a dictator” - This applies more to the Administration as a whole rather than any one person, and even then, dictatorship is way outside what we have today. What we do have is a situation where the Administration is leading the country to places it doesn’t want to go. Most Americans don’t want to be seen as arrogant, pushy, hawkish, bullies. America’s greatest time of unity in the past decade were in those months after 9/11. And Bush flushed that down the toilet by dividing the country over Iraq. The majority of Americans were for the Afghanistan war for a variety of reasons (valid or not). Job done, let’s secure our own country a little better from inside. We did not stop, and now we are divided.
“stringent socioeconomic controls”: not really, unless you count the budget hacking education to pieces. We’re not rationed out food, or branded with IDs (though the National ID card keeps coming up…).
“suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship”: That would be a resounding yes. Osama still at large, video tapes arising from nowhere at opportune moments, terror alerts where there is no terror, the constant reminders that America is at war. While it seems likely that some attacks are difficult to stop, I don’t think an American airliner will ever be hijacked again, and not because of extra security measures, but because of the passengers’ refusal to submit and willingness to take action.
“a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism”: Belligerent foreign policy perhaps (not really perhaps actually) and not so much racism as homophobism and religious ostracism. I think people are done (for the most part) saying criticising the president’s policies is unAmerican, so I think he’s actually educated some people on what it means to be American by making himself a target for criticism.
Anyway, it’s an unwashed, ignorant point of view, but from one of the masses, this is one way things are seen, currently.
I’ve been reading the above postings with an attitude of humor. Most of you can’t tell the left from the right. And labels; they don’t tell you anything because the label was hung there for convience sake by somebody. Any thing that makes government larger in size and control is bad. We are to govern at the least level of authority from Washington down to the family. The only reason we have not gone down the tubes of history is the form of government we have and certainly not the operators of that machinery of government.
Tom
We agree, so where is the middle? The least form of government is that which accomplishes the aims of the constitutions efficiently, and no more. But what are those aims? You (not you personally, perhaps) might say it doesn’t include health care and education for everyone, I say it does. You might say it includes adventurism in the Middle East and an expensive, ineffective missile defense system, I say it doesn’t. You say it intrudes into a woman’s womb and the bedroom, I say it doesn’t.
It seems that platitudes like labels, are ineffective, since they imply that those an the other side disagree with those platitudes. Some problems take time to manifest themselves, others do so immediately. Because of this, we will eternally be engaged in course correction. But if one side gains enough power to distort and disrupt the free flow of political ideas, to the extent that seeing problems is difficult or impossible for the body politic, we are sunk as a nation. As politically aware individuals, we must see to it that this never happens. That no news outlet shies away from publicizing events, opinions, or outcomes out of fear of reprisals from the government or the party of those that control it. That, I think is the essence of combatting fascism from the right or the left. I hope it’s something on which we can both agree.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at February 22, 2005 07:06 PMTom,
The left is not against capitalism.
Most are not. But Tom, there is a sizable contingent of the left that is. Generally, being against capitalism defines the left. Worldwide there are a lot of people who consider themselves ‘green’, anarchists, anti-globalization, etc. that are against capitalism. There are degrees, of course, but those who are vocal are the ones we hear.
Alex,
What really bothers me… lack of production and exports by this country… a return to the period of the 1930’s. Unbridled capitalism…
So what is your proposal to force companies to export more? Also what is your proposal to force international customers to buy them?
Rocky,
When are you going to move on to the G’s…
When the left does.
Winterbear,
Our government is acting like a fascist government in many ways… Its a matter of degree…
You mean that Bush really isn’t a full blown fascist, but if anything he does can be faintly characterized as such it’s ok to throw the F word around because it’s a matter of degree?
The current bunch are more sophisticated about using their power and are much more careful about how they hide what they are doing. Their manipulation of the media, the opportunistic use of a nation tragedy to further hegemony and their careful use of orwellian retoric and techniques make them unique and quite different from old style facists of the 1930’s.
Completely unlike FDR’s use of patriotism and ‘economic emergency’? Not at all like taking every American of Japanese ancestry and putting them in ‘detention centers’ huh? Let’s see, does that qualify as rascism? Rascist, nationalist, stringent economic control… David are you reading this?
Jack,
Eric is right about the fascist style organization of the New Deal, but I would disagree in calling the system fascist. The New Deal used some of the same methods, but was not in other ways similar.
I wouldn’t say they were identical to Mussolini, and certainly not Hitler, but I thought it would be helpful to point out the similiar pedigree and philosophy between the two. Especially since, as you say, the term is overused.
Another term that fits both is ‘Statist’.
Stephen,
But what did Bush and his vice president do? They asked oaths of their party members.
Sure. Just like the SS I suppose?
I must make one correction. I think it would be safer to say that we view the actions of the Bush administration as steps towards fascism- the secrecy, the abuse of power, the isolation from public feedback and criticism, coupled with a reversal of the usual relationship of ruled and ruler in this democracy. When I saw the buildings burning, and knew I was looking at a terrorist attack, One crystal clear thought came to me: this is how republics become empires, democracies fascist. A people in crisis will shift the balance of power away from themselves. This has been done often in history.
Steps toward fascism? And what are these steps toward fascism exactly? Secrecy? We know as much about the Bush Ad. as we do Clinton. Abuse of Power? Like stealing FBI files? Or more recently, removing top secret documents from the national archives in your pants. (*cough*sandyberger*cough*) Isolation from feedback? Very chilling indeed.
The Bush administration, at the very least, has been tone deaf to the way in which their actions have both appeared to stray, and actually strayed into that territory.
Yes! Tone Deaf = Fascism! Obviously ignoring the left is possibly the worst crime a Republican President can commit. It’s right up there with executing your political enemies. Ignoring them or their criticism.
Let’s see… how can Bush avoid being labeled a fascist? hmm. *ah, When the left criticises you, listen. And then do what THEY tell you to do so that you can avoid being called a fascist dictator. I have a better idea, why not just resign? But hand over the Presidency to the DNC, or maybe even Kerry. After all that would be the unfascist thing to do.
Posted by: ericsimonson at February 22, 2005 07:42 PM“Most are not. But Tom, there is a sizable contingent of the left that is. Generally, being against capitalism defines the left.”
Eric,
That is from your own mouth, er, keyboard. That’s a pretty broad sweep don’t you think?
So what is your definition of the left?
Would that be anybody that doesn’t belive, or speak, or think, as you do?
Thanks Rocky!
I think both the left and the right tend to paint with very broad brushes. I consider myself moderately left. I am left on many issues but right on several as well. Those on the extreme left and those on the extreme right call those of us more toward the center….confused.
I beg to differ. I do not buy everything the left or the right has to sell. None of us should. The only way we have to control government is via elections. After Perot and Nader I think most right or left people are afraid to vote for an indenpendent or third party candidate. Afraid because the “other” side might win and “ruin” the country.
I’ve got news for both sides. Neither the Dems or Repubs are out to ruin our country.
Ericmonson: my biggest problem with the current administration is the unrestrained spending. It’s illegal for most of us to write bad checks…yet, its okay for the government to do so? Okay, I know, they are actually borrowing the cash. So, we are financing the present and passing the buck on to the next generation. Sounds fiscally conservative to me. What’s more, we are increasingly financing our “here and now” with foreign investments. Does that sound great? sure it does…right now. Later we will pay. The Euro is coming on strong and many countries will be expecting a better return on their investment when it comes to T-bills. What does that mean to us? Higher interest rates….but, what the hell, that’s another administration’s problem (or another generation’s problems).
Posted by: Tom at February 22, 2005 09:22 PM“Those on the extreme left and those on the extreme right call those of us more toward the center….confused.”
No, Tom, they call us uncomitted. I don’t want to be told what to belive. Be it from the right or the left. I am a big boy, I belive I am entitled to make my own mistakes.
My problem with the current administration is the lock-step manner that policy is steamrolled through without any debate at all.
This “I know what I am doing and you don’t” attitude scares the poop out of me. This country was built on discent, and the attitude that any discent is treasonous is bullshit.
I am a citizen of this country, and I pay taxes that support the administration’s gambits. I we have the right to know just exactly what is going on within the government of this country.
EricSimonson said: Completely unlike FDR’s use of patriotism and ‘economic emergency’? Not at all like taking every American of Japanese ancestry and putting them in ‘detention centers’ huh? Let’s see, does that qualify as rascism? Rascist, nationalist, stringent economic control… David are you reading this?
The Japanese concentration camps in America were a result of prejudciced fear based on race, pure and simple. Confiscating their homes and personal belongings was pure theft no matter how you slice it. FDR essentially suspended the Constitution of the US in acting toward the Japanese as he did.
Not by way of defense, but just record, our society was rank with bigotry and prejudice at the time (1941) and education was not as advanced or prevalent in the society as today. Spic, Diego, Kike, Kraut, Nigger, etc. were terms of common parlance in that day and civil rights was not an issue for whites or the government at that time. Theories of superiority and inferiority among races were still be promulgated at that time.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 22, 2005 11:36 PMEric-
The trouble is, you take the views of a vocal minority, particularly in academia, and treat them like the form and substance of our main philosophy. Now, you will most like try and reverse that charge on me, but it won’t work, because your extreme is in charge where our moderates are in our case.
It seems like you’re always engaged in an exercise of moralistic deflection of one kind or another. You love to make claims about the Clinton administration when you want to avoid talking about Bush’s.
As I recall it, Clinton’s administration made declassification of documents a major policy position, where our current president classifies information like crazy, even with information that isn’t truly sensitive. I suppose you’re familiar with what Bush did with his Gubernatorial papers, right? You know about his executive order, preventing the traditional release of presidential papers?
As for the Sandy Berger episode, I recall no documents were found to be missing. But of course, he’s guilty by association with Clinton, which means the worst possible crime will be attributed to him regardless of whether the crime (I refer to your charge of document theft) actually can be proven to take place.
Regardless, the Bush administration’s offenses are their own, and it’s time you face that. What you and fellow Republicans fail to hold your leaders accountable for will not only cause political problems for them, but practical, situational problems for us all.
I think the President has an unfortunate combination of an authoritarian sense of power, and the honest belief that this is things as they should be. That honest belief, when confused with the candor of moral certainty, can become a distorting influence on people’s relationship with power. Bush’s abuses, especially as excused by you and those like you, become the norm of what people expect of power, and a certain kind of learned helplessness settles in.
Corruption and decadence seeps in, and becomes entrenched by those who defend their own power zealously. Even after 9/11, there are bastards in Washington who still care more about their bureaucratic turf battles than the practical task of homeland defense, and Bush has been allowing this 9/10 sort of attitude to prevail, because he’s never wanted to disturb us from the status quo of how things were before, as long as it doesn’t touch military affairs.
There’s too much secrecy, too much compromise on the moral issues of our policies, and too much heed paid to ideological abstractions in the face of real and visceral events.
Fascism, if I were to define it, is the impulse to directly manifest ideology on the ground, with purposeful oblivion towards the human costs. This, unfortunately, characterizes many of the actions this administration has taken. How much can we really afford to let this administration get away with?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 23, 2005 12:00 AMThomas,
“suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship”: That would be a resounding yes. Osama still at large, video tapes arising from nowhere at opportune moments, terror alerts where there is no terror, the constant reminders that America is at war. While it seems likely that some attacks are difficult to stop, I don’t think an American airliner will ever be hijacked again, and not because of extra security measures, but because of the passengers’ refusal to submit and willingness to take action.
Don’t be ridiculous. To call what the Bush administration does “terror and censorship” cheapens the words. None of you are worried about being hauled off to prison for your remarks. CNN reporters who say things unfavorable about the president are in no danger of being tortured until they echo the right line. I recognize that you’re only saying that it’s a matter of degree, that we’re moving in that direction and you just want to complain before we actually get there. Fine, but I doubt you’ll remember your slipperly slope arguments when the slope is tilted the other direction and I want information that might be damaging to a left-leaning politician. Then I’m engaged in a witch-hunt against fine, upstanding types …
Side note: I’m going to wait and see how much of their own rhetoric the left remembers whenever they get back into power.
I make a prophecy - I will read them their own words in protest.
Corollary to this - they will use my own words as a reply.
Posted by: Daniel at February 23, 2005 08:15 AMEric,
I wish I had a buck for every time a Bush supporter defended his unsavory behavior by claiming that he is no worse than Clinton, a president that Republicans completely despised, and in fact had impeached. I wish I had another buck for every time one of you guys defended a US atrocity by saying that we are morally superior to the terrorists. Shouldn’t we aim a little higher than having ethically-challenged presidents who bring us policies that invite the comparison to terrorists?
Posted by: Woody Mena at February 23, 2005 08:44 AMEric:
“Both (fascism and communism) determined that complete government control of industry was not only necessary but imperative. In practice, as opposed to theory, both slaughtered millions.”
Are you really trying to suggest that the single fascist characteristic that is to be blamed for the slaughter of millions is the complete government control of industry? I would argue that maybe, just maybe, other aspects of fascism had something to do with it. Such as: the powerful and continuing expression of nationalism with the promise of restoring Italy to the prominence it enjoyed during the Roman Empire, disdain for human rights, the identification of enemies and scapegoats as a unifying cause, reactionary politics, supremacy of the military, the cult of personality, and a terror-based dictatorship.
“Corporatism was not corporate control of the state, but the state’s control of corporations.”
I would still argue that it was a merger of state and business interest. Marxists and trade unionists were the first targets when Mussolini came into power. There was much violence between fascists and socialists.
“In both Italy and Germany the government exercised compulsory arbitration in regulation of work and wages. Any worker who contested that would be contesting the laws of the state and declared an enemy of the state, not just in conflict with management. Labor unions were dissolved. Strikes were outlawed. Union contracts were nullified. Prominent union leaders and other labor activists were imprisoned or murdered. Union property was confiscated. Worker publications were banned. Opposition political parties were outlawed, their leaders jailed. Civil liberties were suspended. The rich investor didn’t have to worry about any losses, and if his business didn’t do well, he’d get the money from the state treasury anyway.” Michael Parenti.
The Italian corporative state, “only amounts to the establishment of a new and costly bureaucracy from which those industrialists who can spend the necessary amount, can obtain almost anything they want, and put into practice the worst kind of monopolistic practices at the expense of the little fellow who is squeezed out in the process.” The Economist (1935).
“Contrast this with the antidote proscribed by those who fight against (the straw man) of corporate control of America. Their antidote is more control of corporations by the state.”
Monitoring corporations and having a system of regulations is entirely different from complete corporate control. Corporations have a “fiduciary duty” towards their shareholders. They are legally obliged to put their interests first, even if these clash with the interests of society. Government, at least in theory, is supposed to protect the public interest. Without some government control and regulation, how is the public interest supposed to be represented? The recent passage of tort reform is yet another example of the growing power of corporations.
“Fascism began on the left…”
Yes. Mussolini started out as a socialist, but turned his back on it and completely rejected the idea of class struggle: “Such a conception of life makes Fascism the complete opposite of that doctrine, the base of so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history.”
But he did seem to have learned some lessons from it: “After his turn to the right, Mussolini continued to employ much of the rhetoric of socialism, substituting the nation for social class as the basis of political loyalty. These rhetorical devices seem to have been the last remnants of Mussolini’s non-fascist past. Elements of the practice of socialist movements he retained were: the need for a mass party and the importance of building support among the working class. The original Fascist Manifesto contained within it a number of proposals for reforms that were also common among socialist and democratic movements and were designed to appeal to the working class. These promises were generally disregarded once the fascists took power.” Wikepedia
Posted by: Ingrid at February 23, 2005 11:09 AMRocky,
So what is your definition of the left? Would that be anybody that doesn’t belive, or speak, or think, as you do?
Absolutely not. I am speaking of a very specific ideology. The left has a definable and historical philosophy, as well as specific policies connected to it. When someone talks about ‘democratic control’ or ‘community control’ of businesses such as Walmart, what exactly are they espousing? In essense it’s a form of fascism. There are many terms and definitions, as well as many variations on the theme.
The left protests globalism as the tyranny of capitalism. The left views state monopolies as good and labels private industries as bad ‘monopolies’, no matter whether the definition is a little slipshod.
Tom,
Spending my biggest contention with the Bush administration as well. We must get the government out of the business of providing services it cannot afford. Yet, when Bush proposes actual budget cuts who howls?
David,
Not by way of defense, but just record, our society was rank with bigotry and prejudice at the time (1941) and education was not as advanced or prevalent in the society as today. Spic, Diego, Kike, Kraut, Nigger, etc. were terms of common parlance in that day and civil rights was not an issue for whites or the government at that time. Theories of superiority and inferiority among races were still be promulgated at that time.
True. As were the views of corporatist/fascist policies that favored government control of all economic activity. This is the similarity that so many seem unable to admit existed. Hugh Johnson, Roosevelts hand picked man to head the NIRA was known to have praised Mussolini and his economic ideas. Many at that time felt that a state controlled economy was much more efficient and scientific. Stalin for instance was getting praise for his ‘rapid industrialization’ and their communist 5 year plans etc.
We still see these memes filtered down into the progressive community, who view capitalism as oppressive and state run businesses as prefereable to the greed of rapacious corporations. Look at Europe, France for instance… ELF. Scandals that dwarf Enron. Progressive introspection about the total corruption and loss of billions of dollars in a state run enterprise? Nah.
Posted by: ericsimonson at February 23, 2005 05:09 PMStephen,
The trouble is, you take the views of a vocal minority, particularly in academia, and treat them like the form and substance of our main philosophy. Now, you will most like try and reverse that charge on me, but it won’t work, because your extreme is in charge where our moderates are in our case.
I am merely stating historical facts and comparing the policies favored by the left. Not only that, but I am responding, or rather, I am excercising my free speech rights to dissent from the accusations of the left that Republicans are fascists!
You can disagree, no one is stopping you. Not even the President. Dissent is alive and well. No one has been silenced by this administration.
As for the Sandy Berger episode, I recall no documents were found to be missing.
Hmm. That’s interesting, given that he admitted to taking the documents. And that National Archivists testified he took them. But then I realize that the standards are lower for your guys. Proof must be absolute, caught on video, unless we never see the video (…Eason Jordon…), while proof for Republican crimes are third person anonymous interviews and innuendo.
…the former Clinton adviser voluntarily returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives (search) and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents.However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration’s handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, foxnews
Berger claims that as he went through a large number of documents last fall, he inadvertently put a few in his briefcase and took them home. “In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the September 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives,” Berger said in a written statement. “When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded.”But it appears that some of the evidence in the case casts doubt on Berger’s explanation. First, Berger has reportedly conceded that he knowingly hid his handwritten notes in his jacket and pants in order to sneak them out of the Archives. Any notes made from classified material have to be cleared before they can be removed from the Archives — a common method of safeguarding classified information — and Berger’s admission that he hid the notes in his clothing is a clear sign of intent to conceal his actions.nationalreview
Sandy Berger lifted a whole bunch of top secret documents, reportedly stuffed them in his pants and socks, misplaced some of the purloined items and says it was all an honest mistake. cagle.com/salonLaw enforcement sources said archive staff members told FBI agents they saw Berger placing items in his jacket and pants, and one archive staffer told agents that Berger also placed something in his socks. cnn.com (Get caught though, and everyone else is lying.)
Maybe Bush framed him? Typical fascist modus operandi.
I think the President has an unfortunate combination of an authoritarian sense of power, and the honest belief that this is things as they should be. That honest belief, when confused with the candor of moral certainty, can become a distorting influence on people’s relationship with power. Bush’s abuses, especially as excused by you and those like you, become the norm of what people expect of power, and a certain kind of learned helplessness settles in.
Where do you get this stuff? What oppressive power has Bush used against you, or any American beyond ignoring them and their ‘dissent’?
When did free speech change from freedom to speak to requirement to be heard? We just had an election in which this stubborn, secretive, authoritarian, unrepentive President won.
Has Bush done anything illegal? Has he actually suppressed anyone’s rights? Are you unable to speak because of Bush’s arrogance? Or do you just not like the President or his politics? If so, that’s ok. Bush even says, that’s what’s great about America. But don’t try to say that if he doesn’t change his mind as a result of your ‘dissent’ that he is guilty of abusing his power. A charge that would require an actual positive action taken on his part to silence you, or some such other ‘anti-dissent’ thing.
Posted by: ericsimonson at February 23, 2005 05:50 PMingrid,
I would still argue that it was a merger of state and business interest. Marxists and trade unionists were the first targets when Mussolini came into power. There was much violence between fascists and socialists.
Proof that they were violent, and rivals, but not proof that their policies were completely different in practice.
Corporations have a “fiduciary duty” towards their shareholders. They are legally obliged to put their interests first, even if these clash with the interests of society.
Exactly which interests of society clash with the interests of its citizens, that are not already a basic part of law. That is: fear, force, fraud, stealing etc.? You say that society has interests over and above those of it’s citizens. I agree. But limited to the primary functions of governent which is to provide for the common good of individuals as opposed to ‘society’.
Who is it that guards and implements the interests of society? The state. It is a semantic and short leap from the interests of society, to the interests of the state. The fundamental difference is that when we put the interests of society over the individual, there is no limit to what can be regulated. Microsoft. Walmart. The rhetoric puts them in the category of traitors to the country. Exports, imports, what ‘good goal’ is exempt from someone proposing that the government control it even more? What principle protects how far ‘regulation’ can go?
The original Fascist Manifesto contained within it a number of proposals for reforms that were also common among socialist and democratic movements and were designed to appeal to the working class. These promises were generally disregarded once the fascists took power.
As they were also disregarded by Stalin in Russia. Another astounding and brutal similiarity!!!
The sad fact is that the left views socialist and ‘democratic movements’ (in quotes to differentiate from representative democracy) as great in theory, but never accept the fact that in practice there is little difference from fascism. Because they both rely on the state to implement their social theory. If they are committed to the theories, then in practice, they both inevitably devolve into totalitarian governments.
This is because you cannot disregard economic rights and maintain freedom. Both socialism and fascism are a kind of fuedalism. It’s more about control than anything else.
Give me an example of a corporation usurping your rights.
You are out of your mind if you believe this drivel!!!! The basis of facism is corporatism, which is the bush administration’s mantra!!!
Everything for the corporations and screw the people at every opportunity!!!
Your logic is flawed and your research appears to be cherry-picked, just as shrubs info to base the Iraq War was, so I understand now how you got to your skewed conclusions.
Unbelievable!!!
Posted by: NorCalDave at February 23, 2005 08:08 PMEric,
“who howls when the Bush administration starts trying to cut programs?”
Don’t you DARE point the finger to one side of the isle. Bush WILL NOT get the budget cuts he wants!!!!!
Know why?
Because both sides of the isle will oppose the majority of them. Too much pork!!!
Republicans love to spend money just as much…if not more, than democrats. The difference? The dems usually try to “come close” to paying for most of the programs out of the tax revenue….the Republicans….Hell, they just fincance it through T-bills (much of which are financed via foreign means).
good night!
When we use the term bush are we speaking of
the military industry?
Or our current President?
Tom,
Democrats could have balanced the budget in the thirty years they had control of congress. But it wasn’t until Republicans took control of the congress that the budget got balanced. I tip my hat to Clinton for his aquiescence to the Republican congress and in Welfare Reform.
Which, as I recall, was the end of the world for many on the left. Starvation, homelessness, abject poverty and all kinds of horror were predicted by the welfare state advocates. “You can’t ask them to get jobs!”
You’re right that some Republicans will resist cutting their constituencies sacred cows. I trust you will join with me in calling for cuts in entitlements across the board and pressuring Republicans and Democrats alike to balance the budget.
Posted by: ericsimonson at February 23, 2005 11:59 PM“Absolutely not. I am speaking of a very specific ideology.”
Eric,
The folks that espouse that specific ideology you speak of are actually, what, 1 in 10, 1 in 1000, 1 in a million?
Squeaky wheels?
Come on Eric you can do better than to paint the entire left with the ideology of a vocal few.
There are a few loony toons on the other side of this mess as well.
Who is going to speculate on them?
Eric:
“Who is it that guards and implements the interests of society? The state. It is a semantic and short leap from the interests of society, to the interests of the state. The fundamental difference is that when we put the interests of society over the individual, there is no limit to what can be regulated.”
I said nothing about putting the interests of society over those of the individual. This society over the individual angle is bogus. What are we really talking about here? We have the interests of one group, a company’s shareholders, made up of individuals, sometimes in conflict with the interests of another group, non-shareholders, also made up of individuals. Shareholders really have only one interest that a corporation is legally mandated to meet: increase our profits. In reality, this ends up being “increase our profits regardless of the consequences to other individuals (non-shareholders) or the environment”.
My concern is the opposite of yours. What I see all around is that more and more, the state is playing a diminishing role in protecting citizens from corporations, while expanding its role in protecting corporations from citizens (tort reform being a current example). When we put the interests of corporations over citizens, there is no limit to the behavior and actions that can occur because they are unregulated.
According to Milton Friedman, we can’t expect corporate executives to be “ethical”. If by implementing policies that are for example, environmentally friendly, the corporation is put at a competitive disadvantage, then the executive is being immoral because he is put responsibility over profits. Making money and generating wealth is one thing. But putting profits over EVERYTHING is unsustainable in a world of finite resources, spilling a lot of blood around the world, and unethical.
“When someone talks about ‘democratic control’ or ‘community control’ of businesses such as Walmart, what exactly are they espousing? In essense it’s a form of fascism.”
In your very limited definition of fascism. You keep insisting, whenever someone argues that a system of checks and balances in the form of laws and regulations are required, that it’s fascism. When citizens are concerned that there is an imbalance between corporate interests and citizen’s interests, it’s fascism when they want to create some balance and have their interests count. At a very fundamental level, life is a battle of self-interests. Corporations, with all their money and top lawyers are very capable of defending their interests. The remaining tools that citizens have are being revoked one by one.
Eric-
We don’t want control of Wal-Mart. We want a brick wall for its business decisions to run into when they go too far.
Same thing for any business. Your people let Business interests walk all over you, ignoring fair labor practices, abusing their, and destroying competition within the market without any checks on their behavior.
The question is, which comes first: law and order, human rights and decency, or the interests of business? You seem to side forever on the side of the powerful, confident that if we simply side with them every time, all will be prosperous. I believe that the Government has a duty to intervene on behalf of the powerless against the powerful. How else can the powerless see justice?
The left protests globalism as the tyranny of capitalism. The left views state monopolies as good and labels private industries as bad ‘monopolies’, no matter whether the definition is a little slipshod.
The public can elect the people who run public school districts, or at least elect those who appoint or contract out the utilities The public has the ability to punish incompetence and corruption more directly.
But can the public fire CEOs? No, they can’t. Only investors and oligarchical boards that control that, and the system does not distribute power equally. A person in a democracy has one vote they have power over. People in corporations have any number of shares, shares that could be put together in a coalition, or even gathered by one person in majority control. The Republicans may have a majority in this country, but its only because millions of individuals agree. No one Republican has a majority of those votes, nor can one buy them in any literal, legally binding way (much less legal.)
It’s a rhetorical trick to refer to public utilities and school districts as state monopolies, because you make the comparison for the sake of moral relativism- you allow monopolies, so why can’t I allow them in business?
Microsoft’s monopoly should give you pause. Do you even wonder why so much of your hard drive is occupied with security hotfixes? As the de facto Operating system for the home market, Windows presents one big target for hackers to work against.
Addtionally, there is little encouragement for Windows to work efficiently, or evolve quickly to match the technology. Chips were 32 bit for a decade or more before Microsoft created a true 32 bit operating system. Now computers are being introduced with 64 bit chips. How long will it take for Microsoft to create a true 64 bit operating system, (if hasn’t already been done). Even, then, how good does Microsoft have to make it?
The answer is, mediocre. They don’t have to keep customers from flocking over to a competitor in the Home OS. They can feature bloat the OS and load it with all kinds of gimmees without suffering in the market. With competition, Microsoft might have less ability to dictate terms on price. The OS might be 50 dollars instead of 250. Your buck will buy more computer, because Microsoft’s OEM price won’t be as high, so money that went to Bill might go to better parts in the computer.
PCs are a great example of competition. Essentially, other than the BIOS, every computer is a congregation of parts manufactured by different companies. People can buy configurations that are high powered, or those that are low-end. Competition invites improvements. I have a four or five year old computer. If I get a PC today, it will come with a chip that may run at twice the bits and four times the clock speed. The graphics card will be four or five generations better, the installed Sound card will have built in surround sound capability. The monitor I get will probably cost just as much as the one I originally got, but with much better resolution and refresh rate.
In any business, “private” monopolies will yield more careless, more lackadaisical- well, lazier companies. What’s more, these will be companies that will charge what the market will bear, and there will be no alternative to ensure that people get people treated properly.
Dissent is alive and well? True. But for how long? And how valuable can dissent be, if we don’t know we need to dissent in the first place. The most patently fascist element of the administration has been its attitude towards informing and educating the public. They want agreement without transparency. They want you to buy into the war before you know all the facts. They want you to buy into the Social Security reform before they let you know its need is based on worst case scenarios and almost worthlessly long-range forecasts, and that the reform in question won’t even keep things solvent. They want you to buy into the success of their policies even while the undesired outcomes keep on coming.
Let’s look at the Sandy Berger incident. Media Matters has already debunked most of what you claim occured.
First, he only had access to copies. Even if he destroyed documents at home, the originals continued to exist. It’s only logical, if he knew they were copies that he couldn’t have done so with the notion of covering anything up. Second, the socks report is uncorroborated, and when they refer to him removing things in his pants and jackets, they’re leaving out a key word: pockets. Another word too: Notes Notes in his pockets. Good lord, it’s Watergate all over again.
Berger’s actions were questionable, and technical violations of Archive rules, but they weren’t your massive cover-up. Do you think an Ashcroft Justice department would let him walk free after that? Even the Wall Street Journal recognizes he kept nothing from the commission.
Logic. Crucial facts. Crucial turns of phrase. Your people let your imaginations run away with themselves. You accept as facts what Rush and his folks say, without question. That’s why it matters that Fox wall to walls its programming with conservative commentary. It’s a damn echo chamber with you guys. One person says it, then everybody else repeats it, until it becomes your conventional wisdom. Where our speculations are grounded in evidence, yours is grounded in ideology. Clinton officials must be corrupt and must be covering for their boss. Does it matter that the evidence says nothing of the sort? You want to take power from our hands, and this is the way you do it.
Where do you get this stuff? What oppressive power has Bush used against you, or any American beyond ignoring them and their ‘dissent’?
Oppressive? Not all evils oppress. Deception can be the quieter evil. If Democrats had been told the truth, in this time of war against terrorism, we wouldn’t have okayed the invasion of Iraq, not under its original premises. Bush misrepresents things regularly, trying to pre-empt our right to informed consent by carefully crafted stories and spin. That itself is a tyranny, preventing the public from exercising it’s rightful judgment. If such deception becomes common practice, oppressive laws, corrupt practices, and incompetent behavior from our government will continue without public outcry. Deception enables tyranny.
Especially self-deception.
What we Democrats want is information about the world around us, and the ability to act on it in our interests. In both the marketplace of ideas and the market itself, those are essential elements of anybody’s ability to positively see to their self-interests. Most Liberals and Democrats merely want an optimized market, and and media optimized for clarity and transparency, not biases towards our interests. We tend to separate opinion from news in our publications, rather than blurring the lines and inviting conflicts of interests, and incestuous multiplication of rumor and deceptions.
You mistake us for fascists, mistake us for people who don’t care about the quality of our own lives, which enables you to come in and tell us what’s good for us. Well, maybe we want to determine that for ourselves, and resent how this president has tried to manipulate us, instead of dealing with us as an honest broker.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 25, 2005 11:51 AM
