# American Fascism, The Irony of Democracy, and why the Left Should Be Worried **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2005, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723 "2005-02-12T08:09:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/241 "2005-02-23T05:33:50Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Regarding #1, do you mean something like “My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country.”-- John F. Kennedy. That sure is an exaltation of the state above the individual. It’s a few years old, but I don’t think many politicians today would denounce it. > > I think I also see the political bigotry and a divided nation you’re talking about. “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.” –[Howard Dean](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47526-2005Jan29.html), Chairman of the Democratic Party. > > Are those the kinds of things you were talking about? I’m talking about where one states jingoistic or political rhetoric that goes beyond just making an exhortation or stating a personal opinion to where character assasination is used to dehumanize the opposition. ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/242 "2005-02-23T05:43:15Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > I think you’re engaging in some equivocation there. The kind of corporatism you saw in Italian fascism was, as the Wikipedia article says, one in which groups of the same industry or economic groups are put together, and they collaborate in government. It’s a way to get around class differences, and is descended from syndicalism. > > Modern corporatism is just big corporations having influence in government. It’s that second, modern definition that you might be seeing nowadays in this country. You don’t really see traditional corporatism in modern America. Yes, I am talking about modern corporatism where the gov’t sells itself out to the highest bidder. To where gov’t does the bidding of and becomes a tool of the corporation, and no longer answers to the people to whom it is meant to serve. Whereby the people then become the de facto chattel of industry. A return to the days of robber barons and the company town, of the plantation owner and the sharecropper, 21st century style. This could be regarded as a form of fascism, should it come to that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/243 "2005-02-23T09:44:33Z")
[QUOTE=Snag] I’m talking about where one states jingoistic or political rhetoric that goes beyond just making an exhortation or stating a personal opinion to where character assasination is used to dehumanize the opposition.[/QUOTE OK, so give me an example of something from a politician (not some dimwit talking head) that goes beyond “I hate the oppostion”. ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/244 "2005-02-23T13:49:22Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] [QUOTE=Snag] I’m talking about where one states jingoistic or political rhetoric that goes beyond just making an exhortation or stating a personal opinion to where character assasination is used to dehumanize the opposition. [/QUOTE OK, so give me an example of something from a politician (not some dimwit talking head) that goes beyond “I hate the oppostion”.[/QUOTE] Here’s a quick one by Rick Santorum: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything… The definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.” While not blatantly jingoistic, I’d call that character assassination aimed at a group of people by a politician. Obviously **John,** national American politicians tend to be a bit careful about their sound bites. However, I see no reason to believe that talking heads should be excused for readily fanning exclusionary nationalistic bigotry. A government needs to be pretty far out of the control of it’s constituency before you see the free use of hate speech in public by the politicians themselves. Propagandists are not as readily answerable to the public. Nationalistic bigotry can also dehumanize others by example rather than by speech alone. Abu Ghraib is one; not only were prisoners were tortured against the conventions of the Geneva convention for the ‘good’ of our national security, many right-wingers have celebrated this treatment loudly. More character assassination, even if it does not involve organ failure in its target victims. Here’s an example of domestic jingoistic behavior that embraces exclusion which doesn’t past my smell test; the use of loyalty oaths required by the president and vice-president when on the campaign trail. While obviously not illegal, it was an attempt to quell free speech by men who are supposed to be my president and vice-president. They were willing to exclude half the nation they represent from the presence of their supporters. There were attempts to call this a security measure, yet security has worked just fine for generations of presidents without such strictures. It’s us versus them. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/245 "2005-02-23T14:43:34Z")
> [@Snag](#): > > Yes, I am talking about modern corporatism where the gov’t sells itself out to the highest bidder. To where gov’t does the bidding of and becomes a tool of the corporation, and no longer answers to the people to whom it is meant to serve. Whereby the people then become the de facto chattel of industry. A return to the days of robber barons and the company town, of the plantation owner and the sharecropper, 21st century style. > > This could be regarded as a form of fascism, should it come to that. That would certainly be a bad thing, but you couldn’t call it “a form of fascism” without radically redefining the term “fascism”. In fact, it’s pretty contradictory to fascist thought, which sees industry as a tool of the state, and not the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/246 "2005-02-23T18:33:20Z")
There’s a difference between feudalism and fascism, no? Feudalism is where the landowners are also the government. Look, I’m trying to argue that labeling all authoritarian government schemes “fascist” means that we lose a valuable word describing a particular type of totalitarian ideology. Fascism has pretensions to completely alter society, it is a popular or populist movement, it is contemptous of democracy, capitalism and the rule of law, it worships tradition at the same time as it radically transforms society, it worships action at the expense of thought, it exhalts the individual will at the same time as it subordinates the individual to the group. George Bush stuffing ballot boxes and calling his opponent nasty names and ignoring human rights and toadying to big money interests and lying to the American people isn’t fascism, even if we stipulated for the sake of argument that he was in fact doing those things. I’m going to repeat my question that I asked earlier. Are there any other political movements besides 1930s Spain, Italy and Germany that can be appropriately labeled fascist? If America is sliding towards fascism, are we the only nation besides Spain, Italy and Germany to experience the dangers of fascism? Have there been times other than 2005 when America–or any other country at any other time–was in danger of sliding into fascism? I’ll grant you that given the correct conditions any country anywhere could conceiveably become fascist. Is America closer to those conditions than we were in the 1950s? The 1960s? What about McCarthy? How about Nixon? Is Russia headed for Fascism? What countries…besides Spain, Italy, and Germany, have turned fascist? If there are no other fascist countries recorded in history, it seems odd to me that America is on the verge of turning fascist. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/247 "2005-02-23T22:16:47Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Fascism is extinct as a viable political philosophy. Some of the white supremicist/racist groups are probably fascist, especially the American Nazi party and splinter groups. The rest are are just racist and anti-semetic. It’s possible to be a racist and not a fascist. OBL isn’t a fascist either. He’s a radical Islamist. This is a non-answer. In the first instance, what do you mean by “viable”? How can an idea ever be considered “extinct”, especially when it is still entertained and promoted by organised groups? In the latter, why does “radical Islam” exclude fascism? Would you consider the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to have been fascist? What about North Korea? If not, why not? Michael Ledeen (I’ll assume you know who he is) has said the he considers China to be a rare example of a “matured” fascist state. What’s your take on that? > [@Captain Amazing](#): > > As for the authoritanianism/totalitarianism difference… > > …An authoritarian government is perfectly happy to have you the way you are. A totalitarian government wants to reshape you to the way they are. Thanks for the reply, but I’m still not seeing whether or not it is a matter of degree, or if there are other underlying circumstances necessary to make the distinction. No fault to you - it appears this is an ongoing debate amongst historians/pol. scientists… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/248 "2005-02-23T22:39:42Z")
From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism:) > [@](#): > > The concept of Totalitarianism is a typology or ideal-type used by some political scientists to encapsulate the characteristics of a number of twentieth century regimes that mobilized entire populations in support of the state or an ideology. According to these historical approximations, totalitarian regimes are more repressive of pluralism and political rights than authoritarian ones. Under a totalitarian regime, the state controls nearly every aspect of the individual’s life. Totalitarian governments do not tolerate activities by individuals or groups such as labor unions that are not directed by the state’s goals. Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in power through secret police, propaganda disseminated through the media, the elimination of open criticism of the regime, and use of terror tactics. Internal and external threats are created to foster unity through fear. > > Benito Mussolini originally applied the term to his own regime (1922-1943) in Italy. Leon Trotsky applied the term to both fascism and Stalinism as “symmetrical phenomena” in his 1936 book Revolution Betrayed. Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) popularized the use of the term totalitarianism (notably in her 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism) in order to illustrate the commonalities between Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. > > During the Cold War, the term became popularized by many anticommunist commentators, and fell into common usage in the United States. Thus, some have used the term to describe just about any nationalist, imperialist, fascist and Communist regime as “totalitarian.” However, some fascist regimes, such as Franco’s Spain and Mussolini’s Italy before World War II; some Communist regimes, such as Yugoslavia under Tito, the People’s Republic of China under Deng Xiaoping, and Cuba under Fidel Castro; and single-party regimes, such as Taiwan under Chiang Kai-shek and Indonesia under Suharto have authoritarian rather than totalitarian characteristics. > > Some scholars, such as Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, have moved beyond the tripartite typology of totalitarian, authoritarian, and democratic regimes without rejecting it entirely. Instead, they expand that typology by explicating “post-totalitarianism” as a distinctive regime-type characterizing regimes such as the post-Stalinist Soviet Union. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism:) > [@](#): > > The term authoritarian is used to describe an organization or a state which enforces strong and sometimes oppressive measures against the population. Authoritarianism is distinguished from totalitarianism both in degree and scope, authoritarian administration or governance being less intrusive and, in the case of groups, not necessarily backed by the use of force. For example, the Roman Catholic Church can be accurately described as authoritarian; however, in modern times it lacks the means to use force to enforce its edicts and is not a totalitarian establishment. > > The distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism was a crucial part of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which asserted that the United States could work with authoritarian nations with bad human rights records because they were more capable of fundamental reform and less dangerous than totalitarian nations. > > In an authoritarian state, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many that other political philosophies would see as matters of personal choice. Authoritarianism generally presumes to know Truth, with a capital “T”, and has almost no tolerance of disagreement. It is characterised by moral and philosophical certainty coupled with a taste for the use of force by the State. These systems suppress “heretical” ideas. Totalitarian governments feel that the interests of the State are more important than anything else — it is the totality of all that is worthwhile. > > Typically, the leadership (government) of an authoritarian regime is ruled by an elite group that uses repressive means to stay in power. However, unlike totalitarian regimes, there is no desire or ideological justification for the state to control all aspects of a person’s life, and the state will generally ignore the actions of an individual unless it is perceived to be a directly challenge the state. Totalitarian governments tend to be revolutionary, intent on changing the basic structure of society, while authoritarian ones tend to be conservative. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/249 "2005-02-23T23:12:22Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > This is a non-answer. In the first instance, what do you mean by “viable”? How can an idea ever be considered “extinct”, especially when it is still entertained and promoted by organised groups? First, I want to apologize, because I’m heading out the door. So this response won’t be as detailed as it might. By “viable”, I mean “has a chance of being adopted”. I mean, there’s a Flat Earth Society, but I wouldn’t say that flat-earth is a viable scientific theory. > [@](#): > > In the latter, why does “radical Islam” exclude fascism? Would you consider the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to have been fascist? What about North Korea? If not, why not? Radical Islam isn’t fascist, for one thing, because it puts ultimate authority in God, and not the state. It says that the state has to be subordinate to the divine will, and that God defines moral values. Fascism says that the state defines morality and that religion has to be subordinate to it. As for N. Korea, I don’t know much about its ideological underpinnings. It’s definately totalitarian and nasty, but I’m not sure whether or not it’s fascist. > [@](#): > > Michael Ledeen (I’ll assume you know who he is) has said the he considers China to be a rare example of a “matured” fascist state. What’s your take on that? I’d have to see exactly what his argument is before forming an opinion. > [@](#): > > Thanks for the reply, but I’m still not seeing whether or not it is a matter of degree, or if there are other underlying circumstances necessary to make the distinction. No fault to you - it appears this is an ongoing debate amongst historians/pol. scientists… It is an ongoing debate. I’d say that one of the big differences is that totalitarianism is a populist/mass form of government, while classical authoritarianism is an elitist form of government. Also, an authoritarian state doesn’t neccesarily have to be strong, while a totalitarian government is. Both medieval England and modern Egypt were/are authoritarian states, but they both were “weak” states…they didn’t exercise much control over their people. Also, partly related to the first difference, authoritarian governments date back millenia, while totalitarian governments date back to the beginning of the 20th century. There’s sort of a pre-modern/modern distinction there. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/250 "2005-02-23T23:22:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism:) > > From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism:) Thanks, **BG** , but I read that already. So what are these wonky academics debating? What’s the difference between “almost no tolerance” in authoritarianism, and totalitarianism intolerance? \ I see **Captain** has checked in with more. I will digest and report on my progress/continued confusion… ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/251 "2005-02-24T05:49:26Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > There’s a difference between feudalism and fascism, no? Feudalism is where the landowners are also the government. I’ll go along with your suggestion that plantation owners and sharecroppers tended towards feudalism. However, had the south been more organized and not destroyed by the civil war, it’s not unthinkable that over time individual plantations may have been bought up by a larger agribusiness that could have become monopolistic by the time of the turn of the century. > [@Lemur866](#): > > Look, I’m trying to argue that labeling all authoritarian government schemes “fascist” means that we lose a valuable word describing a particular type of totalitarian ideology. Fascism has pretensions to completely alter society, it is a popular or populist movement, it is contemptous of democracy, capitalism and the rule of law, it worships tradition at the same time as it radically transforms society, it worships action at the expense of thought, it exhalts the individual will at the same time as it subordinates the individual to the group. I believe the neo-conservative proposed changes on Social Security privatization is meant to dismantle that system in the long run and is aimed at the middle-class and the poor which will weaken democratic party middle class funding. (I’m not trying to hijack the thread, please allow for the sake of arguement that from where I sit, it will be an economic disaster) That neo-conservative attempts at what they call tort reform is actually meant to make it difficult for those victimized by corporate malfeasance or negligence to win against those corporations and to not only cap awards but to reduce the income of lawyers who are a strong donor base for the democratic party. They attempt to reduce the power of unions, again IMHO, the third major source of democratic party funding. This suggests that some on the right are trying to push the democratic party into third-party status and essentially have the American pie to themselves. And conservatives are certainly traditionalists. All of which could well fit into your above definition. Of course, the populist movement is not there yet, but one thing the early populist movements that led to facsism had in common is that they were popular because most of the people were economically hobbled and desperate to find a way out. Big government can provide quick economic boosts (such as our recent tax cuts) that spurred the populace on to follow those that turned out to be fascists. But poor, desperate populations become subservient to such governments in the long run. And yes, I know this is not a picture of America at this time. The thread is not titled ‘Are we fascist yet?’ In another thread you stated: > [@](#): > > If the US is more right-wing we could be more authoritarian or less authoritarian. I don’t know first-hand what the right-wing movements are like in Brazil or Europe, but in the US the conservative/right-wing movement has a strong anti-authoritarian streak, a strong distrust of governmental authority especially from the Federal government, a strong anti-tax predjudice. Again we disagree. For all the talk about smaller government, the right has a tendancy to increase the size of government when in power. Its size certainly exploded during the Reagan administration and even more under this one Bush administration. (BTW, I don’t believe that George Bush is really the man behind all his policies, I don’t believe there is any one person that is. I don’t accuse him of being a proto-fascist, just misguided). For having such a strong distrust of governmental authority, neo-conservatives like loyalty oaths and distain the questioning of such authority. The anti-tax stance remains, but the former party of fiscal responsibility is OK with record and ever increasing deficits, especially if they take away the safety nets for those that fall on hard times. They aren’t walking the walk, in fact they are enabling what _could_ become a more authoritarian environment should they remain on this track unchecked. ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/252 "2005-02-24T05:54:00Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > That would certainly be a bad thing, but you couldn’t call it “a form of fascism” without radically redefining the term “fascism”. In fact, it’s pretty contradictory to fascist thought, which sees industry as a tool of the state, and not the other way around. Technically, it may be something different. However when the two are in bed together sharing control over a country, I think it’s likely a type of facsism regardless of whether industry becomes subservient to government or government becomes subservient to industry. ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/253 "2005-02-24T06:57:46Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > George Bush stuffing ballot boxes and calling his opponent nasty names and ignoring human rights and toadying to big money interests and lying to the American people isn’t fascism, even if we stipulated for the sake of argument that he was in fact doing those things. In fact it is possible, should these things be true. Or leading towards it. My point here is you seem to be making a circular argument, in some of your posts, that assumes fascism springs fully formed from the head of Zeus. That any steps that lead up to it cannot be proto-fascistic. Actually you claim in another thread: > [@](#): > > As for the definition issue, the trouble is exactly the word fascism, since fascism is essentially an extinct political philosophy, killed by WWII. This interests me. Please explain why you state this? For instance, Franco’s fascist regime lasted until the seventies; it certainly kept going a long time after WWII. What where the defining characteristics of fascism in the 1930’s Italy and Germany that have disappeared from the world, never to be found again? If you claim fascism is extinct, you should explain why. Until you can give me some reasoning of why this is so, fascism seems a good label to apply according to definitions I and others have given in this thread. If you have alternate definitions of what fascism is / was as used in this thread, please state them. > [@Lemur866](#): > > I’m going to repeat my question that I asked earlier. Are there any other political movements besides 1930s Spain, Italy and Germany that can be appropriately labeled fascist? If America is sliding towards fascism, are we the only nation besides Spain, Italy and Germany to experience the dangers of fascism? At least three others to be considered are Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia, according to Laurence W. Britt. He continues: To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.” I’ll leave it up to you to dispute those examples if you chose to. > [@Lemur866](#): > > Have there been times other than 2005 when America–or any other country at any other time–was in danger of sliding into fascism? I believe that America in the immediate pre Teddy Roosevelt in the era of the robber barons and monopolies was edging towards fascism although of course we never reached a critical mass to get us there; there was not a mass movement to drive it. However had things gotten desperate enough, and had things continued on that particular fascism could have been considered an option in the US by the twentieth century. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/254 "2005-02-24T14:35:17Z")
> [@Snag](#): > > Technically, it may be something different. However when the two are in bed together sharing control over a country, I think it’s likely a type of facsism regardless of whether industry becomes subservient to government or government becomes subservient to industry. Except, in fascism, government and industry don’t “share control over a country”. In what way do you see your model as a type of fascism? ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/255 "2005-02-24T16:39:34Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > By “viable”, I mean “has a chance of being adopted”. I mean, there’s a Flat Earth Society, but I wouldn’t say that flat-earth is a viable scientific theory. I wouldn’t say creationism or intelligent design are viable scientific theories either, but somehow enough people have adopted them to make it an issue. Don’t you think there are enough racists and race supremacist groups to consider their ideas a viable concern? Consider also that they can and do make common cause with other (less radical) groups, and thereby bring their ideas into the mainstream. > [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Radical Islam isn’t fascist, for one thing, because it puts ultimate authority in God, and not the state. It says that the state has to be subordinate to the divine will, and that God defines moral values. Fascism says that the state defines morality and that religion has to be subordinate to it. What about [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_fascism): > [@](#): > > **Clerical fascism** is an ideological construct that combines the political and economic doctrines of fascism with theology or religious tradition. The term has been used to describe organisations and movements that combine religious elements with fascism, support by religious organisations for fascism, or fascist regimes in which clergy play a leading role. > > Some scholars consider certain contemporary movements to be forms of clerical fascism, including Christian Identity and possibly Christian Reconstructionism in the United States; some militant forms of politicized Islamic fundamentalism; and militant Hindu nationalism in India (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/Bharatiya Janata Party). Here is [Ledeen’s China argument](http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-28/25285.html): > [@](#): > > The other odd thing, peculiar thing about the People’s Republic of China is that it’s a regime that calls itself communist but obviously isn’t. And while the instruments of Chinese suppression against the Chinese people is called the Communist Party it should be clear to all of us it is not a communist party at all; because the very essence of communism, state ownership of the means of production has been gainsaid and undone. There’s lots of private property in China today. There are lots of private enterprises. No such thing could possibly exist in a serious communist society. It is an anathema to the very idea of communism. > > So what is this? Is it a unique form of dictatorship? Or is it one of a historical pattern? Well some time ago I braved the idea that what we’re dealing with in China is something we haven’t seen before although it’s of a type that we know. **China is actually the world’s first mature fascist state.** It was fascism not national socialism but the kind of fascism that people like Mussolini installed in Italy in the 1920’s that we’re talking about. The economy is a mixed economy; mixed public and private economy. And there is a certain degree of private initiative that’s left in the hands of entrepreneurs and business leaders and even trade unions. > > But political control is entirely in the hands of the party. The party makes all of the important decisions. So if you want to get anything done you must necessarily go through the party. That’s pretty much what China looks like today. And I said that the mature fascist state would be a fascist state in which the ideology had pretty much dried up. And I don’t think that anybody could seriously argue that there is great zeal for Maoism or communism in China today. Quite the opposite. Kids are not doing that. Kids are going online. And p-scholars are not studying Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Mao any longer. They’re looking at business books and theories of modern management and things of that nature trying to learn about the world. > > So the ideology has dried up, your left with a cynical, corrupt ruling elite that calls itself communist even though it isn’t and that **in it’s desire to remain in power** , is prepared or has been prepared up until now to take whatever steps are necessary in order to put down the people who challenge them. I thought it was interesting. Much as I disagree with Ledeen’s politics, he has studied fascism extensively. It seems to me that fascism is less a strict ideology than a strategic idea meant to gain and keep power. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/256 "2005-02-24T17:13:28Z")
> [@](#): > > _Posted by Lemur866:_ > I’m going to repeat my question that I asked earlier. Are there any other political movements besides 1930s Spain, Italy and Germany that can be appropriately labeled fascist? If America is sliding towards fascism, are we the only nation besides Spain, Italy and Germany to experience the dangers of fascism? > [@](#): > > _Snag said:_ > At least three others to be considered are Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia, according to Laurence W. Britt. He continues: To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.” I also asked about a hundered posts back what you thought, **Lemur866** , about all the neo-fascist parties in Europe. I’m curious if you think it’s a slanderous label for most or all of them. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/257 "2005-02-24T17:26:34Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I’m going to repeat my question that I asked earlier. Are there any other political movements besides 1930s Spain, Italy and Germany that can be appropriately labeled fascist? [**Fascism as an international phenomenon**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon) > [@](#): > > It is often a matter of dispute whether a certain government is to be characterized as fascist, authoritarian, totalitarian, or just a plain police state. **Regimes that are alleged to have been either fascist or sympathetic to fascism include:** > > **Austria (1933-1938)** - Austro-fascism: Dollfuß dissolved parliament and established a clerical-fascist dictatorship which lasted until Austria was incorporated into Germany through the Anschluss. Dollfuß’s idea of a “Ständestaat” was borrowed from Mussolini. > > **Italy (1922-1943)** - The first fascist country, it was ruled by Benito Mussolini (Il Duce) until Mussolini was captured during the Allied invasion. Mussolini was rescued from house arrest by German troops, and set up a short lived puppet state in northern Italy under the protection of the German army. > > **Germany (1933-1945)** - Ruled by the Nazi movement of Adolf Hitler (der Führer). In the terminology of the Allies, Nazi Germany was as their chief enemy the mightiest and best-known fascist state. See above for a discussion on the differences and similarities between Nazism and fascism. > > **Spain (1936-1975)** - After the 1936 arrest and execution of its founder José Antonio Primo de Rivera during the Spanish Civil War, the fascist Falange Española Party was led by Generalissimo Francisco Franco, who became known as El Caudillo, the undisputed leader of the Nationalist side in the war, and, after victory, head of state until his death over 35 years later. > > **Portugal (1932-1968)** - Although less restrictive than the Italian, German and Spanish regimes, the Estado Novo regime of António de Oliveira Salazar was quasi-fascist. > > **Greece** - Joannis Metaxas’ 1936 to 1941 dictatorship was not particularly ideological in nature, and might hence be characterized as authoritarian rather than fascist. The same can be argued regarding Colonel George Papadopoulos’ 1967 to 1974 military dictatorship, which was supported by the United States. > > **Brazil (1937-1945)** - Many historians have argued that Brazil’s Estado Novo under Getulio Vargas was a Brazilian variant of the continental fascist regimes. For a period of time, Vargas’ regime was aligned with Plínio Salgado’s Integralist Party, Brazil’s fascist movement. > > **Belgium (1939-1945)** - The violent Rexist movement and the Vlaamsch-Nationaal Verbond party achieved some electoral success in the 1930s. Many of its members assisted the Nazi occupation during World War II. The Verdinaso movement, too, can be considered fascist. Its leader, Joris Van Severen, was killed before the Nazi occupation. Some of its adepts collaborated, but others joined the resistance. > > **Slovakia (1939-1944)** - The Slovak People’s Party was a quasi-fascist nationalist movement associated with the Catholic Church. Founded by Father Andrej Hlinka, his successor Monsignor Jozef Tiso became the Nazis’ quisling in a nominally independent Slovakia. > > **France (1940-1944)** - The Vichy regime of Philippe Pétain, established following France’s defeat by Germany, collaborated with the Nazis, including in the death of 65,000 French Jews. > > **Romania (1940-1944)** - The violent Iron Guard took power when Ion Antonescu forced King Carol II to abdicate. The fascist regime ended after Soviet troops entered the country. > > **Croatia (1941-1945)** - Poglavnik Ante Pavelić, leader of the infamous Ustaše movement, came to power in 1941 as the Croatian puppet leader under the control of Nazi Germany. > > **Norway (1943-1945)** - Vidkun Quisling had staged a coup d’état during the German invasion on April 9th, 1940. This first government was replaced by a Nazi puppet government under his leadership from February 1st, 1943. His party had never had any substantial support in Norway. > > **Hungary (1944-1945)** - Ferenc Szálasi headed the extremist Arrow Cross party. In 1944, with German support, he replaced Admiral Miklós Horthy as Head of State; following Horthy’s attempt to have Hungary change sides. > > **Argentina (1946-1955 and 1973-1974)** - Juan Perón admired Mussolini and established his own pseudo-fascist regime. After he died, his third wife and vice-president Isabel Perón was deposed by a military junta. > > **South Africa (1948-1994)** - Many scholars have labelled the apartheid system built by Malan and Verwoerd as a type of fascism. > > **Rhodesia (1965-1978)** - The racial segregation system by Ian Smith is similarly considered by some to be a form of fascism. > > **Lebanon (1982-1988)** - The right wing Christian Phalangist Party, backed by its own private army and inspired by the Spanish Falangists, was nominally in power in the country during the 1980s but had limited authority over the highly factionalised state, two-thirds of which was occupied by Israeli and Syrian troops. Phalangists, trained and supported by Israel are alleged to have carried out the Sabra and Shatila Massacre in 1982. ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/258 "2005-02-25T01:24:04Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Except, in fascism, government and industry don’t “share control over a country”. In what way do you see your model as a type of fascism? According to Wikipedia _‘in corporatism certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process’._ We have a sort of corporatism in the modern sense now in the US. Think of lobbying, whereby great influence can be given to industries or companies through legislative favoritism. If that influence were doubled, or tripled, you would have a state that might technically leave legislators in charge, but obtaining or holding those positions would be granted by industry, which would generally be given free reign. Robert Locke says that an aspect of corporatism is that government guarantees the flow of material goods, a sort of socialism for those at the top. I would think the greater the degree of corporatism, the more extreme that guaranteed flow of goods, and thus a way of eliminating the need for competition, or reducing it greatly. And the greater the degree of corporatism, the more likely that of quasi-monopolism. This would most likely lead to a statist economic system. Sooner or later, as I believe you are pointing out, someone would become dominant, either with a figurehead in government doing the will of unelected bodies, or with a head of state emerging from government who begins to nationalize its industry. However, neo-corporate states do not necessarily become fascist as an end result. If there are also very strong organized labor unions, as in some small European nations, wages can be balanced against productivity. There the state, the corporation, and unions essentially govern together. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/259 "2005-02-25T04:01:51Z")
> [@Snag](#): > > There the state, the corporation, and unions essentially govern together. Yeah, but that idea…the state, the business owner and the unions governing together is what old style corporatism is. The “corporation” is both the owners and the workers together. That’s the kind of corporatism fascism praises, not the kind where monopolistic companies control everything. ---
**Author:** ![jmonroe64](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90ced4/32.png) [@jmonroe64](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmonroe64)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723/260 "2005-02-27T19:36:15Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Communism > > 1. Powerful and Continuing Internationalism > 2. Crippling of Criminal Justice & National Security of Western Capitalist > Societies under the Guise of Defending Human Rights > 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause > 4. Denigration of the Military in Western Capitalist Societies (WCS) > 5. Rampant Unisexism > 6. Controlled Mass Media > 7. Obsession with Undermining National Security of WCS > 8. Religion is Isolated & Marginalized by Government > 9. State-Allied Corporate Power is Protected > 10. Labor Power is Championed in Theory until it leans to Supporting WCS > 11. Trumpeting Intellectuals and the Arts above Religion and Morality > 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment in Pursuit of Characteristic 2. > 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption > 14. Fraudulent Elections > > :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Hey! This is pretty funny. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen such Swiftian satire. I like the way you use this direct counterpoint approach [to the original list of Fascist state identifiers] to show how we Americans are ever more unable to confront an issue, but immediately rush to frame it in terms of some imaginary and irrelevant conflict between our “ideals” and somebody else’s, which are just such a big threat (like communism, which was a great example because everyone knows it is dead, but it’s still possible to imagine some shameless neo-con joker in the Bush Admin dredging it up to justify… well, just about anything. This is the stuff of classic social satire). Its kind of nifty how your approach underscores everything that is reactionary in the American psyche. If someone says the Admin is fascist… well, that must be because they’re communist. Or… he-he… even worse: Aetheist! Your reply is almost Swiftian in its daring to represent the repugnant aspects of our society almost to the point where you risk associating yourself with them. But the crowning glory… especially given the lunatic-fringeness of our American so-called Christians is the bit that sets intellectuals and arts-farts up against religion and morality: as if we all don’t know that anywhere you look in the USA and see a high concentration of religious people (self-defined as such, of course) you also find the highest concentrations of moral depravity. It was definitely a bit of inspiration to include that part in your satire. I can just picture some yokel loudly bellowing out his agreement to [points 9 and 11], probably from some temporary holding cell where he’s being kept under observation during the investigation of the disturbance, and not even realizing you’re making fun of him as being the kind of nitwit who voted for Bush because “I’m against gay marriage” while Bush sells the poor slob even further down the river. Someday… chuckle chuckle… that poor dumb bastard will have wages as low as the godless Chinese! And he doesn’t even know it (yet)! It almost brings tears (of laughter) to the eyes to think of the people who might read this, think it’s supposed to be taken literally, and not even realize that part of what makes the US fascist today is the conviction of gun-toting zealots that being (or saying you are) religious is the same as saying you are moral. “Christian bombs kill with charity” - you could make a poster of that and put it up on a wall and some people wouldn’t even realize it was a joke. But that’s just an idea. You’re doing fine without any help. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-fascism-the-irony-of-democracy-and-why-the-left-should-be-worried/289723.md?page=12)