So...is it fascism, or not?

Great Debates
1

I ran across this, and forgive me if it’s already popped up, I hadn’t seen it.

The 14 features of fascism, as enumerated by a political science professor by the name of Lawrence Britt, about whom I know exactly nothing.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

If that’s what makes a government fascist, and perhaps that is part of the debate, then I think I’ll have to go on record as saying I think our government under George qualifies. Maybe we’re just baby fascists compared to the giants that went before, but I’m sure given enough practice we’ll get better at it.

So here are the debates:

  1. Are his “14 points” fair and accurate?

  2. Are we beginning to smell alot like Fascists, everywhere you go? (Sorry, Holiday Brain)

I’ll be back to check your work.

2

While, many of the 14 points are arguable, the US seems to be nowhere above a 2 or 3 out of 10 in terms of severity. In other words, we have a long way to go before any of the points borders on fascism.

Two, however, do not seem to be defendable at all:

This is nowhere near accurate in our present situation, military spending constitutes a fraction of GDP, what is it, 3%, 4% ? Historically low.

I would say this is less true than it’s ever been, we have women as CEO’s, and in the military and of all places. Furthermore, our society is becoming less homophobic ever day - Thank you Fab 5 and Real World. Also refer to recent court decisions in Mass. and Texas.

3

Answering these questions:

  1. Point #1 is what fascism descended from, and was not a creation of fascism, Point #5 was applicable to virtually every nation at that time, Point #8 ranges based on area, and Points #9 and #13 was the case in most areas, regardless of fascism.

  2. No. Of these points, we haven’t reached Points #6, #10, #11, and #14 on any levels, Points #1, #9 and #13 (as stated above) are irrelavant, and none of the other points are being experienced on any level close to that felt under fascism.

4

1 - Always has been true, but this is a question of degree. More now than in the past, but really, it doesn’t prove anything by itself, one way or the other.
2 - The enemy combatant category is ripe for abuse. Fortunately, at least pieces of our court system recognize the danger. A red flag should go up here if the SC refuses to agree.
3 - Something to watch for certainly, but if anything Bush deserves credit for urging against scapegoating.
4 - The most worrisome point: only Afghanistan was a military problem. Terrorism is by its nature an intelligence and police problem, not a military one. Bush has chosen to make it a military problem. Not a good development.
5 - Bush would like to go down this route, but hasn’t been able to figure a way yet. Something to watch for, but not yet a problem.
6 - Fox News, and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, along with Clear Channel, in general, which has no ethics that anyone can discern. Big problem. After #4, the second most worrisome point.
7 - Allied with no. 2. Watch the Supremes and what they do about enemy combatants.
8 - Once again, Bush deserves credit here. The general population may feel differently, but not because of what Bush has said, anyway.
9 - Always true to some extent. Not a big problem yet.
10 - Organized labor’s power has been declining for forty years. Worrisome, and the root of a lot of our economic problems. Not unique to this current time period or to our country, though, not by a long shot.
11 - Dixie Chicks, anyone? Generic Republican BS, but not moreso in this Admin than in any previous Republican Admin.
12 - Ongoing problem, having more to do with race and the alleged “war on drugs” than anything else. A bipartisan blindspot.
13 - Once again, more of a problem with Republican than Democratic administrations, generically, but not a big problem yet.
14 - Hmm. We’ll see. Our election technology falls far behind that of most advanced nations, as we found out in 2000. Once again, a bipartisan blindspot.

Fascism is a loaded word, not to be used lightly. You can always find parallels and points in common in any Administration. But we are a long way from experiencing anything remotely resembling it today, and in many many ways we are farther away from it now than we were when I was growing up in the Sixties.
But Fox News and Clear Channel are big big problems, and they’re not going away soon. I worry about them the most.

5

Since neither Stoid nor Lawrence Britt has been dragged off in the middle of the night by the secret police, beaten on the streets by uniformed thugs, or simply “disappeared”, I would have to say I remain unconvinced.

I don’t like it when people on the political right identify everything left of center as “socialistic”, or claim liberal Democrats are “Communists”. I don’t particularly like the left-wing version of this either. And crying wolf about fascism is if anything especially dangerous when there are real dangers to civil liberties, as in the detention of U.S. citizens as “unlawful combatants”.

Finally, to quote from a left-winger who was a socialist (and who risked his life fighting real fascists):

6

No, it is not.

  1. Nationalism? Not even close.

  2. Disdain for human rights? Wait, you are claiming that America has disdain for human rights? For real? Huh?

  3. Scapegoats? Well, I hardly think Islamic terrorists are scapegoats. You might remember a little incident two years ago? Where a lot of people died? Who is being scapegoated for that? Nope.

  4. Military Supremacy? Is our military recieving a disproportionate share of national resources? They get much less nowadays that during the cold war. Is the military glorified? Not when you watch network news broadcasts. Nope.

  5. Rampant sexism? First of all, I don’t see this as a fascist trait. Second, how is American society rampantly sexist? I mean, compared to 10 years, 20 years, or 50 years ago? Are we more sexist today than we were when we fought the sexist fascists in WWII? Are we more homophobic? Nope. For us to be moving towards fascism, wouldn’t we have to be moving towards MORE sexism?

  6. Controlled mass media. This is really a joke, right? You are seriously proposing that the government controls the media? Please. How many news channels, how many newspapers, how many websites, how many radio broadcasts, how many magazines does the government control? None. You may not think the media criticize Bush often enough, but that isn’t because they are controlled by the government. It’s because they are generally mainstream institutions designed to appeal to the majority of americans. And if you want ranting and raving lefty news that’s available too, although you have to seek it out. If the government controlled the media, why haven’t they shut down The Nation?

  7. Obsession with National security? What do you mean, obsession? Is our national security apparatus under direct control of the ruling elite, operating in secret and beyond any constraints? No, it is not. And the activities of the security appartus didn’t get you labeled as unpatriotic in a fascist state, it got you a prison sentence of a bullet in the back of the head.

  8. Religion and ruling elite tied together? First off, I dispute that this is a fascist trait. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, none of them were religious. But do we have in this country “a perception that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion”? Huh? And what religion is the state religion of America? You do realize that there are many countries in the world that have an official state religion, right? Is America one of those countries? This is possibly the lamest point of all.

  9. Power of corporations? Again, I dispute this. Under fascism, corporations were allowed to exist, but only as tools of the state. Corporations did not operate in relative freedom. Wealth meant nothing. Hitler loathed capitalism as a jewish invention. Capitalism allows other centers of power other than the state, which is anathema under fascism. Sure, companies and corporations existed, but they cot their marching orders from the government, not the shareholders. This is not a characteristic of fascism, and therefore is irrelevant.

  10. Power of labor suppressed? How many labor leaders have been jailed or murdered lately? Is organized labor really the ONE power center that could challenge fascism, as the article claims? No, of course not…how about religion, how about business? Of course labor was put under fascist control, since under fascism EVERY power center must be put under fascist control. And did the poor form a hated underclass for the Nazis? No, of course not! The core of Nazis WERE poor. The same low-class uneducated people that become neo-Nazis today were the people who became Nazis in the 20s and 30s. Hitler promised to liberate the noble German worker from his oppression by ruthless and conniving Jewish capitalists. Now, that said, even if point 10 were true, how does it apply to America? Are the poor hated, viewed with suspicion or contempt? More than they were 50 years ago?

  11. Supression of intellectuals? This is not happening in America. Name one intellectual who has lost his job because they were “politically unreliable”. Does the government rigidly control universities? Whose unorthodox views are being attacked, silenced, or crushed? No ones.

  12. Obsession with crime? Compared to what? I know you are in your thirties, remember the obsession with crime this country had in the 70s and early 80s? Do the police have unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse? Are criminal charges used as weapons against enemies of the regime? And I kind of chuckle at the “sometimes used” the writer inserts. Sometimes? Look, under fascism the police were an explict agent of government control. Beating up and jailing traitors wasn’t an “abuse” of the system, it was the whole point of the system. Name one person who has been charged criminally because they were politically opposed to the Bush administration. Can’t? Nope.

Cronyism and corruption? Look, Stoid, have you ever been to Mexico? Or India? Let alone a real dictatorship? The Enron scandal is hardly comparable to Fascism. Is the American economy more or less corrupt than it was 10, 20, or 50 years ago? Do you have any metrics that might support such either contention? No, of course not.

Fraudulent elections? First of all, the methods for controlling elections cited: “Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.” This is just laughable. That isn’t how fascists controlled elections. They controlled elections by deciding what the result was, and telling the people what their decision was. And anyone who didn’t like it got a bullet in the back of the head. They didn’t have to rely on supreme court justices appointed by their party favoring their interpretation of province election laws.

Stoid, do you understand what fascism WAS? Do you understand that there are countries right NOW that are fully functioning dictatorships? Where people get shot for questioning the government? Do you understand the difference between living in a dictatorship and living in a flawed but open society? I say flawed only because all political systems are flawed. You think they have everything run perfectly in France, or Switerland, or Denmark? No, people there have to muddle through just like Americans.

We do not live under fascism, we are not moving towards fascism. This thread is simply silly.

7

And another thought: Continuing in an Orwellian vein, language ought to convey meaning. Labelling a government or party “fascist” should provide some analysis of the situation, and suggest some course of action. Proper responses to a fascist government in power might include going into exile, or more courageously, going underground and joining an armed resistance movement. Certainly I would say simply campaigning to win the next election would be a foolish response to a fascist government. Do we liberals need to be stockpiling ammunition and brushing up on our bomb-making skills, or is the analysis presented in the OP wildly overwrought?

8

I think the last paragraph says it all:

Anyone who incorporates a “maybe, maybe not” into an attempt at political analysis should seek other employment. Either have the courage of your convictions and say you think America is going fascist, or find a better way to express your misgivings.

Interestingly, Britt decides to “consider”:

Any of these are hugely worse than the modern U.S. Britt could have just as easily taken an approach like:

Basic Characteristics of Fascist Nations[list=1][li]They have people in them[/li][li]They take up space on a map[/li][li]They usually have some kind of spoken language[/li][li]They like chocolate[/li][li]They’re usually hot in summer and cold in winter[/li][/list=1]

Then concluded “Does any of this ring alarm bells?”

9

Well couldn’t open the link… will comment on Lemur’s response:

>>1. Nationalism? Not even close.

The US is not nationalist ? hhmmm... Patriotic I suppose is nicer. I guess your used to people waving flags all the time.

>>2. Disdain for human rights? Wait, you are claiming that America has disdain for human rights? For real? Huh?

Well they certainly have been talking about torture with some gusto lately... seems when the going gets tough ideals just are hassles ? Using allied nations to get info out of prisoners isn't my idea of human rights... or guantanamo.

>>3. Scapegoats?

 Kind of agree... they were guilty of 9/11. Still its the new "ENEMY".

>>4. Military Supremacy? Is our military recieving a disproportionate share of national resources?

Well the rest of the world is spending way less than before… only the US is spending that much. When you spend more than the next 12 countries and its 5-6% GDP… you certainly are into military supremacy.

>>5. Rampant sexism? First of all, I don’t see this as a fascist trait.

 Agree on this one... wierd. The US doesn't seem more sexist than others... except when too much religion comes into play.

>>6. Controlled mass media. This is really a joke, right?

I think the media is too soft... no hard questions were asked. Controlled might be too far... but they certainly haven't been doing their role.

>>7. Obsession with National security? What do you mean, obsession?

  hehe... this is smack on. The US is very much obsessed with National Security. Partly due to inflated dangers of course... Soveits and then Terrorist.

>>8. Religion and ruling elite tied together?

I agree its not very fascist… not the regular way we know of it. Though the US conservatives in power are heavily into religious BS. The connection has more to do with exploiting public opinion though.

>>9. Power of corporations?

 May I say Haliburtion and Oil people in the White House ? Certainly Bush isn't filling up his electoral war chest that fast for patriotic reasons.

>>10. Power of labor suppressed?

This has always been common in America... not sure it points to fascism... its more an american aversion to labor organization.

>>11. Supression of intellectuals? This is not happening in America.

 Post 9/11 this started to get some impulse. (Certainly Bush represents the common man's distrust of intelectuals. His homey style appeals to the common man.) Its not widespread... but it did happen. I agree it was light though.

>>12. Obsession with crime? Compared to what?

 Nah... off the mark. Agree this is wrong.

>>We do not live under fascism, we are not moving towards fascism. This thread is simply silly.

Well I suppose people during the Weimar Republic said something similar ? I don't think the US is fascist... but certainly its gotten some fascist overtones since 9/11. I don't think it will go far since the US is way more solid than the Weimar Republic. Still that doesn't change the fact that some of the similarities are scary and that not much was done to oppose these changes.
10

Remember people: World War I was started when a Serbian flag-waver waved the Serbian flag at Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was also waving a flag.

Who exactly has been talking about torture? And precisely what human rights abuses have been going on at Guantanamo (besides perhaps the disputed legality of the detention itself)?

No. The Jews were the “enemy”. Islamic terrorists are actually the enemy.

Maybe the other countries are into military inadequacy. But just for kicks, would you explain to me why the US had to take care of Serbia when it was in the European countries’ backyard and they were the ones who wanted to stop Milosevic? I mean, they could, right, with their normal-size armies and all?

What questions would you have liked to see asked that “the media” (whatever that means) have not asked?

Obsession? “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” First of all, Americans have always recognized that protection of the people is the government’s chief duty. Second, what actually defines obsession? Obviously there are reasonable measures to be taken against the heightened dangers of terrorism, so what would make us “obssessive”?

Ah yes, Paul Wolfowitz, head of the conservative Christians. Can you please explain what you mean by “exploiting public opinion”?

First of all, this isn’t fascist, as already stated. Second of all, maybe he’s filling up his electoral war chest so he can, I dunno, win the election?

When did it happen? Has the government punished an actual intellectual for his views? The only case I can think of is Sami al-Arian, who was brought in for alleged material support for Islamic Jihad.

I don’t think the people in the Weimar Republic knew what fascism was. “Fascist overtones” doesn’t mean anything. Governments don’t have overtones, they have policies. Fascist governments have armies, but that doesn’t mean any country with an army has “fascist policies”. You still haven’t shown any actual similarities.

11

I’m not a fan of a lot that’s gone on under the Bush administration (okay, of almost everything), but that list is a poor attempt at analytically identifying them with fascists. It’s a subtly loaded laundry list that, like astrology, is just vague enough to be as true as you want it to be while affecting a superficial appearance of intellectual rigor.

Friends like this, we don’t need.

12

People during the Weimar Republic would only have said that if the weren’t paying any attention to the SA Storm Troopers agitating in the streets and denouncing the Republic.:wink: The overtones in the US are the overtones of a nation that was attacked, not the overtones of fascism. Comparing the Bush administration to fascism is part of the long history of cheapening the word fascism to have no real meaning, as Orwell said.

One of the common factors that Lawrence Britt missed in his 14 features of fascism as present in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia is that all of them were military dictatorships that came to power with the aid of violence, whether or not they were also aided to some extent by democratic elections as in the case of Nazi Germany. Another big point that Britt missed is that in every case there was a cult of personality around the respective dictators, who had no intention of every leaving office once they had attained it. Bush, on the other hand, is going to be gone in 2009 at the latest, if not (hopefully) in 2005. Of the 14 points that have some remote measure of validity behind them, the degree of difference between the US and a fascist state are so enormous that a comparison is downright silly. The day that the Republican party does something like have black shirts or brown shirts parading through the streets in military garb, declares an opposition political party to be a banned organization or declares that Mother Jones is shut down as a subversive publication is that day that the US is marching towards actual fascism.

13

Make that “no intention of ever leaving office”, not “no intention of every leaving office.”

14

Reading Lawrence Britt it appears more as a list of things that may go wrong in a society than that of features of fascism. Apparently he has forgotten that the core values of fascism is that a strong state is more important than individual freedom, that men are not equal to the law if that interferes with the state, and that order must be preserved to prevent chaos.

Brad DeLong (who has his own weblog now) put together a better list, IMO. Four of his five points (his fifth point has more to do with nazism) were:

  • A strong rejection of the classical “liberal” belief that
    individuals have rights that any legitimate state is bound
    to respect.

  • In its place, an assertion that individuals have duties to the
    state, seen as the decision-making organ of the collectivity.

  • A strong belief that parliamentary democracy is not the way to
    choose the leaders of the state: a combination of charismatic
    expression and bureaucratic oligarchism is.

  • A strong fear of Marxist communism, and an eagerness to use any
    and all weapons–suspension of parliamentary democracy, mass
    propaganda, rallies, street violence, and so forth–to combat it.
    Chip Berlet has another definition of fascism:

“racial or cultural nationalism combined with economic corporatism and authoritarian autocracy; masked during its rise to state power by pseudo-radical populist appeals to overthrow a conspiratorial elitist regime; spurred by a strong charismatic leader whose reactionary ideas are said to organically express the will of the masses who are urged to engage in a heroic collective effort to attain a metaphysical goal against the machinations of a scapegoated demonized adversary.”

(puh)
According to Berlet some of the features of fascism (and nazism) are:

*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.

*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.

*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).

*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.

*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.

*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.

*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.

*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.

*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.

*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.

*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.
Berlet’s excellent writing about the features and history of fascism can be found at the top of the following page:

As a final note, I’m surprised noone has mentiond Norman Mailer’s piece “Gaining an Empire, Losing Democracy?” in the IHT: It makes an interesting read:
http://www.iht.com/articles/87763.html

15

I do agree the US isn’t fascist or immenintly becoming one… but I wanted more to respond to those posters who saw NO SIMILARITY in the laundry list. I thought the list was pretty scary and not that far off in many cases. Lemur just kept saying. “Doesnt apply… doesnt apply” when many did… even if not that strongly.

Fang won’t respond to your post due to time constraints… travelling on vacations today. Still many of the points you know are true if a bit exagerated. (Religion is being used to attract votes for example.)

Finally I just want to comment that history rarely repeats itself. I doubt any western nation would transform itself into a replica of the Nazis… but we might be seeing a new development. The chances of the US going into some sort of nasty neo-fascist state are very small. Still to just brush it aside as mere speculation ? I guess many thought the Brown Shirts were temporary… that Hitler would leave office too. If americans don’t defend their liberties who will ? The US is changing and some changes are for the worse… if they leave with Bush or become a new aspect of US politics is still to be seen…

I just wish that people don't utter the silly "Why didn't we see it coming"...
16

Uh oh…even if Bush loses, Britt might not be able to avoid the dread Number Eight (religion and power intertwined), according to this article in the Boston Globe entitled “Seeking a new emphasis, Dean touts his Christianity; Southern campaign plans to increase religious references”.

Run for the hills!!

17

Well, if you ask posters who have a strong trust in the system and the politicians who operate it, it’s given that you will be dismissed as crying wolf.

Anyway, reaching the state of fascism is a process, in which doing away with elections and the constitution - if it ever gets that far - represents a final step. During that process there will be, as you said, some signs, but no clear projection of the future. By the time citizens see the writing on the wall it’s usually too late.

Today, Italy is much closer to fascism than America, though I think few can argue that America hasn’t moved a step or two closer in that direction lately. However, we will probably never see a fascist state in the western world similar to those who rose during the period between WWI and WWII. We might witness a neo-fascist state, where the system is run by a small circle of elitists with close ties to corporations and influential organizations, where civil rights are selective, not universal.

During the pre-WWII period western democracies were vulnerable: civil rights were sparse, the economy was in deep trouble worldwide and the labor movement revolutionary. Not so today. But looking at America I see a nation subjected to a wave of patriotism, leaders expressing superiority to foreigners including Europe and the UN, citizens and residents being detained without access to open courts and ungagged lawyers, an administration implementing policies hatched at a small number of elitist think-tanks populated with neo-cons, close ties between corporations, money and politics, - and a polarized population whose opinions are driven by entertainment-style headlines.

Still America is the oldest democracy on earth, it’s a federation (?) of independent states, its media structure is somewhat silent yet intact and free, its population more open-minded towards minorities like gays and blacks than ever before, neither party has 60 seats in the Senate, and its militarism is projected outwards not inwards.

In Italy the majority of the media is owned by people in the government while the remaining free-thinking media is subjected to strong pressure, corporations strongly influence politics, far-right populism is gaining significant ground, there is unrest between the government and labor unions about changes in the social welfare system, and the political situation in the Parliament is at times bordering chaotic. Not to mention politicians passing laws granting themselves immunity again.

Yeah, I put my money on Italy anytime, but reading “Blueprint for a New American Century”, Patriot II, and other “plans” doesn’t make me feel completely safe on Americas part either.

18

What about these events in a nation at war?

A man gets a month in jail for saying his country has no chance to win. Another who advises two others, "You don’t want to get killed in this $(%& war" gets three months imprisonment. A woman who says the leader of the enemy nation is a good ruler and better than her nation’s leader gets five years.
The newspapers are warned by the government against “thoughtless utterances”. “Editors were told quite unequivocally that ‘irresponsible’ criticism would not be tolerated and the government would decide what was responsible and what was not.”
74,000 “enemy aliens” locked up in squalid conditions.

The first seven of Britt’s ‘warning signs of fascism’ were definitely in full flower in this nation, with less clear-cut evidence of the others.

That “fascist” nation was England in WWII.

There’s a difference between being vigilant about individual rights and inaccurately crying fascism. The latter, as noted, cheapens the real meaning of fascism and helps assure that people will not be taken seriously if warnings about more significant infringements are issued later.
*examples taken from Blood, Tears and Folly by Len Deighton.

19

** Don’t words have meaning anymore?**

** Fascism**: According to a study by Larence C. Britt, who said…

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia.

For the purpose of this post I will answer each of Mister Britt’s fourteen questions as they applied to the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Castro’s Cuba (red) and The United States (green).

And if any of you geo-leftists have any arguments about my designations, feel free to embarass yourself by defending the commies. :slight_smile:

**1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

YES NO

  1. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

YES NO

  1. Identification of enemies.

YES NO

  1. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

YES NO

  1. Rampant sexism.

(question thrown out because of irrelevancy)

  1. A controlled mass media.

YES NO

  1. Obsession with national security.

YES NO

  1. Religion and ruling elite tied together.

YES AND NO NO

  1. Power of corporations protected.

NO NO

  1. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

YES YES YES NO

  1. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

YES NO

  1. Obsession with crime and punishment.

YES NO

  1. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

YES NO

  1. Fraudulent elections.

ALWAYS NEVER **

20

Excellent posts, if I may say so. I agree that these, along with such other things as detentions as “unlawful combatants” are causes for real concern, but not for concerns about fascism or neo-fascism. PNAC’s policies being implemented with regards to Iraq are ugly political opportunism played out in foreign affairs after 9/11, but they aren’t any more a sign of fascism than US adventurism was in Mexico in 1846 or the Spanish-American war in 1898. The erosion of civil rights post-9/11 as seen in Patriot II and elsewhere is also a cause for serious concern, but it isn’t a sign of actual fascism any more than the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the US Civil War or the forcible internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was. They weren’t pretty, but neither were they fascism.

milum: Your defense against the charges of fascism are certainly, um, colorful, but they might hold a bit more weight if you didn’t think that geo-leftists were defenders of communism. The far left calls the right fascists and the far right calls the left commies, and it’s all just crying wolf and making vacuous noise.