How do we know developed corporations and nations will evade fascism in the future?

Great Debates
1

http://www.siu.edu/~perspect/02_sp/germany.html

As cold as it may sound, the embracing of fascism by the German, Italian and Japanese corporations did work: they survived the communism onslaught, but at a price. This precedent shows to me, that in a time of crisis, capitalists could still embrace fascism as a solution, even going so far as supporting militaristic solutions against progressives, reformers and even populist’s efforts to make other nations’ societies a little bit fair. Forgetting that many of those “idealists” are working too to prevent communism from being considered a viable solution.

Another reason for this discussion: I do know that some economists showed that Communism is a failure on economics, the question here is: are there any economists that have showed fascism to be the same? My fear here is that while efforts have been put to discredit communism, I think very little has been said to discredit the extreme right position of economics. This could mean that the future may still have economic systems that are anything but progressive.

Finally, I still think the major difference of communism and fascism remains the corporate capitalist factor. I am still surprised to see many dopers, especially from the conservative side, maintaining the position that both extremes were the same. (Problem is: that allows them to call even liberals fascists). Reading a previous discussion in the SDMB I agree that we in the US are not in a fascist estate, but I do worry that there is very little theory or evidence, to prevent the “powers that be” to follow that path, (some in the extreme left believe we are already in a fascist estate, this discussion is not about that, but feel free to make a case, just don’t be surprised that I could go against you.) I guess I am here not only to learn, but to also to see if even the conservatives in the SDMB can give me hope for the future.

2

It’s impossible to show fascism to be a failure on economics when it’s not an economic system. Fascism is a state of government that can, in theory, support anything from an extreme laissez-faire economy (like Chile did) to a relatively government-controlled economy, as, say, fascist Italy was. Hell, you could argue that some “Communist” countries were as fascist as anyone.

Of course, communism was a real, worldwide force as recently as ten years ago. Fascism as a world power was wiped out in 1945, surviving only in pockets since then. It’s not hard to understand why communism has gotten more attention. There’s been more of it.

You’re arguing against a position I don’t think exists, at least not on this board. Who’s calling liberals “fascists”??

The argument that fascism and communism end up being the same thing is one that’s logical in many respects. `Corporations’ may still exist in a non-communist, fascist state, but at the end of the day you still have no guaranteed civil liberties and the secret police will still shoot you if you step out of line. To someone with a strong interest in civil liberties, there’s no substantive difference, to the average Joe, between a murderous dictatorshop that runs the economy through crony corporations and a murderous dictatorship that runs the economy through crony bureaucrats.

Well, let me ask you this:

  1. What exists to prevent the USA from becoming a Communist state?
  2. What exists to prevent the USA from becoming a theocracy?
  3. What exists to prevent the USA from become a monarchy?
  4. What exists to prevent the USA from becoming an anarchical wasteland?

The answer to those four questions is the same as the answer to yours; the USA is kept a democracy (yeah, I know it’s a republic, too) by virtue of the perceived legitimacy and public support of the democratic system, e.g. the Constitution and the rule of law. I mean, what prevents CANADA from becoming a fascist state? What prevents the United Kingdom from reverting to absolute monarchy, as it once was? Nothing more than a general sense of legitimacy and support for the rule of law and the constitutions of those states.

3

Some would say that theer was no true communism government existed on Earth. After all, the problem with the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ was that the the dictators made themselves rich, which goes against the tenets of Communism.

4

As you have explained, GIGObuster, corporations usually profit of fascism. In fact, it seems rather that fascism is a political consequence of economics in the humans quest for self-destruct (not completely my opinion, rather intended to make some fun of Freud).

But Fascism is not prevented by saying “we are a democracy”. Germany was a democracy at that time, too. But the people were upset about democracy because of several reasons:

  • The people believed the socialists, who made Germany a democracy because they thought they would get a not-so-hard peace, have betrayed the country. This is the “back-stab legend” (translation?) which claims that Germany would have been able to win the war because no enemy was on German territory. In fact, the allied forces stood at the border and the Germans were running out of troops. Because the socialists were disliked and they declared the republic, democracy were disliked.
  • The economy broke down (hyperinflation etc.). This was done on purpose to show the winners that Germany wasn’t able to pay reparations (translation?) but made the people upset because they hardly could earn enough money to live. Because such problems weren’t known to the generation of the time, they blamed it on the government. In addition, Germany lost territory by the peace treaty (called the peace dictate, because Germany was not allowed to participiate) of Versailles, making people wanting revenge (maybe some people would wanting see parallels to the terrorist attacks?).
    The greatest advantage of the USA is the fact that it has a much longer democratic tradition than Germany hat at that time. The Weimar Republic between the World Wars was Germany’s first lasting attempt on democracy at all (or second, if the failed revolution of 1848 is counting)!

Those problems led to unrest within the population. There was needed someone whom they can blame it on (that time: socialists and jews, today: socialists and arabs/muslims. See a pattern? Religious/Ideologic wars, I think) and someone who they think can save them. This does not need to lead to fascism. There is something more needed:

  • When Hitler appared the first time, in the mid-twenties, and tried the March on Berlin and failed (a fake of the March on Rome Mussolini, the Italian dictator, did before and succeeded) he was known a short time in Bavaria, but got jailed (in a big, big villa having a happy time writing his heap of shit being known as “Mein Kampf”) and was nothing to the public. But corporations supported him with money, enabling him to drive a big campaign with planes, radio speeches and so on making him popular. You see the same during every US-American election: Presidial campaigns financed by oil and military companies.
  • Maybe someone will feel insulted, but IMHO: Hitler was conservative (“national-socialistic”), Bush is conservative (“neo-conservative”). Hitler claimed being on a mission of god, Bush claims being on a mission of god. Hitler was dumb, Bush is dumb.
  • The election system in those days allowed a lot of parties being elected, making the legeslative unable to decide. In the USA, there are usually just two parties getting trough. Great advantage, in my opinion and the opinion of many others. But I prefer the CURRENT German election system. Five parties. More chances.
  • Although Hitler has written his book, you aren’t needed to look in, that means, people often don’t know what are really the aims of the party - they see it when that party got power.

Similar is valid for the other things you put, RickJay:

  1. The USA will not become a Communist state, because much propaganda went into showing that it is evil (see below). It has nothing to do with democracy, but with the common hatred on communism.
  2. Primary requirement for a theocracy is a centralized religious authority - like the pope in the vatican, to take the most known example. Nothing to care about democracy in that case.
  3. Well, I think America is a pretty special case, as the president is elected directly. That would make a monarchy pretty hard to establish, but the bigger problem is the constitution itself and not being a republic or democracy. A monarchy can be both of that, too. A 40 to 100 years long war would be the easiest way to establish a monarchy, I believe. Still, HERE democracy is a real fine argument.
  4. Anarchy is not that hard to establish as you might think. A full country-wide power failure for a week and you got it. Well, maybe a bit unrealistic scenario, but be prepared, just in case.

IMHO, the bigger talking on communism can also being lead back to the fact that the usual government is normally more right than left. Even liberal and socialistic parties seem to tend rather to a more right view.
To my eyes, as fascism is just a governmental system of totaliarian type, the totaliarian systems in the communist states had nothing to do with victory of capitalism or failure of communism - communism just never occoured, it was rather a kind of feudalism.

5

I agree with many of your points, the thing is that I am not only thinking of the US but also Latin America. Over there, the idea of going to a fascist mode is a sword of Damocles over all democracies, we are still missing an economist that has investigated, or as I should say: an economical report that told every big CEO out there that stopping cuddling military personnel is good for the future of the economy. This is because I do remember texts that discourage moves towards even socialism to exist. Therefore, I do have to disagree a little with the point that “It’s impossible to show fascism to be a failure on economics when it’s not an economic system.” If communism can be analyzed to be a failure for economics so should fascism, in other words: I am looking for a cite on that.

I do think there is a difference, on the communist side (thinking soviet Russia here) there was virtually no development between a monarchy to a communist state, (come to think of it China did go almost the same) in the case of Germany the big corporations reacted to the growth of the communist party and the Nazi ones by siding with the Nazis, it should be noticed that democracy was part of Germany until Hitler took over.

And this gets me to the questions:

1.What exists to prevent the USA from becoming a Communist state?
I do think Roosevelt (both of them) and men of industry that saw the writing on the wall (e.g. Rockefeller jr.) made the American people to not even give the time of day to the Communists.

2.What exists to prevent the USA from becoming a theocracy?
The separation of church and state to begin with.

3.What exists to prevent the USA from become a monarchy?
We fought against one, of course a lot of the glory goes to Washington for going against his generals from planning to go the way of the banana republics.

  1. What exists to prevent the USA from becoming an anarchical wasteland?
    Separation of powers, but I am getting worried that many people in America are forgetting about that, and leaving one party with the reins to everything.

As in the case of Germany, I do think only when the threat is big and internal, that a move for fascism will be considered.

I am still looking for a researched paper or text that would point to, if not the economic flaws, the overall failure of a society under fascism. I do think it is important to stamp out the ignorance of people in power that could consider to do even something similar.

This is not a joking matter since some posters have appeared with the idea that Democrats are following communist ideologies. I would ignore posters like that, except that many times well to do people fund media that inflames and promotes those sick points of view, stomping out dissent with a tactic like that, only points to not minding if the other extreme position rears its ugly head IMO.

Eindal: I would not put the current president on that position, my own take on this is that Bush is nowhere near that, I want to focus on what IMO is a big blind spot: the lack of economic data to discredit even the slouching towards Naziland.

6

That’s a majestic first post, Eindal. Nice to have some fresh perspective in here.

7

Well, there go my manners: welcome to the boards Eindal, just like 'possum stalker said, it was a great post, minus the Bush jab of course.

It is great to have an European perspective here.

8

That was meant rather in a funny way, I’m sorry I didn’t make it clear. What I meant was that he seems rahter right-wing. Not Nazi-like, of course, but more than others running around here.

In my opinion economics were most important for the Nazis gaining power. Still, their rise followed a row of really big economic breakdown, linked and analogue to the one we had. But I really don’t think America would be on the way over there. The Germans of that time didn’t know democracy and disliked it because they blamed it for their bad time. America’s tradition of democracy is much longer and the country itself is much larger, making it therefore improbable to become “Naziland”. But it could be thought what could maybe happen.

9

More right, that is. Not more Nazi-like.

10

Let us just take “fascism” to mean an ideology where totalitarian control is seen as a means to the glorification and the development of the state or nation.

This suggests that corporations are ultimately subjected to the needs of the state. Resources - labour, capital. raw materials - can be diverted from private firms to the state just as easily as the state can give these resources to firm - eg slave labour for German firms in the 1930s until 1945. In the world today, this would have severe implications on corporations and their profits. Private corporations will have to factor in government aims in their planning and production, as well as deal with sudden changes in government policy.

In Nazi Germany I think there were economic problems. I don’t have the statistics or the cites right now, but for instance government could dictate what to produce, especially in terms of armaments, and shift its resources accordingly. Government intervention in industry also created inefficiency. Emphasis on agricultural self sufficiency also shifted resources from consumer and capital goods to agriculture. After Germany put its economy on a war footing, I should think there budget deficits were inevitable. Problems with the German economy were only mitigated by its territorial conquests eg of Czechoslovakia, where Germany gained factories as well as valuable stocks of gold, silver, ore and petroleum.

At the same time, apparent success in fascist states before WWII can be attributed to prevailing economic forces, as stated before. Clearly, when your neighbours start to prosper after a prolonged recession, it is not that difficult to restart your economy. Increased demand leads to increased trade, as well as employment. For Nazi Germany, the employment situation was further improved via a punitive policy towards German Jews which encouraged Jewish emigration, thus freeing up opportunities for Germans.

So while there was relative prosperity in some fascist regimes, there is no clear causal link between fascism and prosperity. Corporations have benefited from fascism, but it does not imply that corporations will always benefit from fascism, especially when they have to deal with even more uncertainty.

The same goes for societies. Fascist states tend to undermine trade unions and labour organisations. This of course weakens the ability of the labour force to demand for higher wages and/or better working conditions. Certain groups are also likely to be discriminated against in a fascist regime.

In today’s global economy I don’t think fascist states can actually survive for long. With so much government intervention in markets the economy will suffer. I think organisations like the UN and EU will also slap sanctions immediately, spelling economic doom for any country - like Myanmar/Burma.

Fascism is also embraced as a last resort, usually under severe economic conditions eg years of hyperinflation, weak government, extreme poverty. No developed country will actually allow this to happen (although a case can be made against that for some parts of Africa), and aid and loans will be made available.

So why will developed corporations and nations evade fascism? Because the conditions for the dominance of fascism are unlikely to happen again.

11

I think that depends upon how narrow or wide fascism is defined. Today, we all ‘know’ what fascism is, as we believe to know what communism is and so on. I’m not sure if anyone recognizes the threat some people are posing. Most people will just look at what they promise.

During the first year or so, Hitler tried to show a continuation of the politics of the chancellors before him. He was trying to look like someone who was trying to get the country out of the mess, only some people seeing he was taking it into a bigger one.

I’m told just the industries who were military relevant got governmental support, others were breaking down because of ressource shortages etc., leading to a worse situation for the citizens, but propaganda tried to make people think it were getting better.

It seems, until a system will be replaced, there needs to be alot of problems and unrest in the country, making the other system seeming a good solution. I think such changes usually occour if the system recently has been changed. The Germans at that time only had a decade of experience of democracy, not knowing for sure what it all was about, just knowing they didn’t like it. The longer the history of a system in a state, the less probable is a change.

Sure, xejkh, you’ve a point saying that globalization is a severe obstacle to corporation’s support to fascism, but to my eyes many corporations are not planning too far ahead therefore not all of them need to be aware of the dangers. They just see an oppurtunity to make money and they take it. And the military industry usually has an advantage of war and they usually have enough money to put up a canidate who is willing to order weapons and use them.

And the level we are developed to we rather will be the source of the invention of new atrocities than a simple repitition of fascism as we know it. ‘Classical’ fascism we’ll leave to countries on the border to both democracy and modern industry.

12

As Benjamin R. Barber pointed out in his book Jihad vs. McWorld, corporations are morally neutral. Their ultimate rationale is to survive and grow, and they’ll do whatever it takes to survive and grow. In Germany in the early 1930s, democratic and financial institutions were breaking down, and the corporate class was faced with either a totalitarian revolution that threatened to seize all private property, or a totalitarian coup that promised to protect the corporations as long as they served the interest of the state. Sheer self-interest if nothing else compelled them to throw in their lot with the Nazis.

Now the OP seems to imply that this willingness to “do business” with the fascist regime amounts to a tacit support of fascism. IMHO, you could level the same charge at the various Christian churches in Germany that either supported, or did not explicitly condemn, the Nazi movement.

Finally, the OP asks:

**The histories I have read suggest that by 1939 Germany’s economy was becoming “overheated” due to extreme military spending. That Hitler went to war when most of his generals insisted that Germany wasn’t ready because Germany had reached an “expand or die” point similar to Napoleonic France. And given that the war meant the total subversion of the economy to a total war basis, and ultimately resulted in the ruinous defeat of the nation, fascism can hardly be said to have “worked” in the long run. As for the military juntas of Latin America, most inevitably degrade into “crony capitalism”, where economic efficiency takes second place to bribing and knowing the right people. Hardly a model of prosperity.