Reply #45: The problem with the fascist/nazi comparison is how hysterical it sounds [View All]

[Bucky]

It suggests a lack of awareness of just how bad, how politically constricted, life was under Hitler and Mussolini. There are some parallels, but you could draw those same parallels with any corrupt regime that lies to its people. If that's the standard for being a nazi, then there's almost no standard at all.

In terms of political substance, Bush is certainly not a fascist. Fascists were corporatists--which doesn't mean they favored giving power to large corporations, by the way. Bush stole an election, something a true fascist would never feel the need to do. Corportism is the belief that certain groups in society have the right and obligation to exercise control over the society in order to maintain social and national cohesion.

Bush subverts the law; a fascist overrides it. Bush brays about his mandates and his political capital; a fascist takes it without excuses. Fascists are generally racist; Bush prides himself on browning up the Republican Party (his real agenda attacks the working class without regard to race). Fascists try to coopt labor movements and keep people quiet by keeping them working; Bush attacks the labor movement and exports jobs to benefit millionaires. Fascists seek to nationalize critical industries while Bushkies seek to privatize critical governmental functions and kowtow to large business interests. Bush is an instinctive deregulator while fascists try to micromanage major sectors of the economy. In a war against a Muslim movement, fascists would attack Islam itself as a hateworthy collective threat to their homeland, while Bush has been fastideous about calling Islam a religion of peace and disassociating from the hate speech coming from some on the Right.

I'm not saying there aren't similarities. There are. They both have a tendency to twist words, hide truth, rally the people through unnecessary wars, and engage in police state tactics against ordinary citizens. They both function thru paranoia and politicize everything and demonize all dissent as disloyalty. But mostly this is because they share a fetish for power. Their egos drive them to reckless misrule and ever shrinking legitimacy. But I'd call Bush more of a republican monarchist--a believer in the supremacy of executive power. He's still dangerous, of course, but if you're gonna be technical, Bush is far being a true fascist.