What is fascism?

[Superman Returns]

Can we dedicate this thread to talking about all definitions of the term and its variations? Maybe a history of fascism....

I'm interested in knowing. I don't think Islamic terrorists fit this term.

[DURHAM D]

1. My favorite - from Mussolini -

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Sounds nothing like Rummy's version. Sounds much more like the US in recent times.

[fairfaxvadem]

5. I'm with you on this

Every time I hear "IslamoFascism" I say "Huh?"

As far as I can tell, what we're dealing with is plain old violent religious extremism.

I'm not seeing the "fascism" part.

[Nevernose]

12. The difference is in the amount of religion

Facism, at least as Hitler practiced it, requires the use/control of religion.

I think that there are plenty of Fascists out there, and here, who have blurred the lines between religion and state so that extreme fundamentalism and fascism are now largely inexchangeable terms. In an earlier, locked, thread, I used the word portmanteau, which I think is accurate. It's not one or the other: BOTH is the goal of the believers, though they don't actually use the WORD facism.

My problem with the word you used -- Islamofascists -- is that it picks out one particular religion to be opposed to, and is usally a Faux News word. Fascists come in many styles and colors, and are not limited to one particular methodology, religion, or locale.

[OregonDem]

9. While I agree with what that quote says, it is mostly likely a false one

That quote is often attributed to El Duce but he probably never said it.


http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html

[OregonDem]

13. Here is a something written By Mussolini that is authentic that says

basically the same thing

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)

Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

[blurp]

41. Misused and misinterpreted quote (if he even said it).

"Corporatism" doesn't mean what you think it means.

[tocqueville]

2. I start with one : clerical fascism (to avoid specific religions by name)

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. For Catholic clerical fascism, the term Catholic integralism is sometimes used, though Catholic integralism may have points of disagreement with fascism.

Examples of clerical fascism

Examples of dictatorships or political movements involving certain elements of clerical fascism include those of António Salazar in Portugal, Maurice Duplessis of Quebec, Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria, Jozef Tiso in Slovakia, Getulio Vargas in Brazil, Ante Pavelić and the Ustashe in Croatia, the Iron Guard movement in Romania, the Rexists in Belgium and the government of Vichy France. The regime of General Franco in Spain had nacionalcatolicismo as part of its ideology. It has been described by some as clerical fascist, especially after the decline in influence of the more secular-fascist Falange beginning in the mid-1940s. With the exception of the Croatian Ustashe movement, scholars debate which other examples in this list should be dubbed, without reservation, clerical fascist.

Some scholars, such as Walter Laqueur, consider certain contemporary movements to be forms of clerical fascism, including Christian Identity and possibly Christian Reconstructionism in the United States; militant forms of politicized Islamic fundamentalism; and militant Hindu nationalism in India (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh / Bharatiya Janata Party).

Other scholars, such as Juan Cole, however point to the fact, that presently the term is used pejoratively by those opposed to religious influence upon politics in general.

..................................

in other words (like George uses to say) - is the concept of clerical fascism applicable to Islamists ? Is Cole right or wrong ?

my attempt to answer is to disregard the religious side and to see if the bases of a fascistic organisation are to be found in Islamist fundamentalism.

Because some epiphenomenons are less important : Franco didn't persecute the Jews (in fact he turned a blind eye) and wasn't for abortion and euthanasia like the Nazis (as a good Catholic). But his society was basically fascistic, there is no argument about that.

Fascism : A recent definition is that by former Colombia University Professor Robert O. Paxton:

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." <3>

Paxton further defines fascism's essence as:

"1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination." <4>


all the definitions above fit on the Islamists

society organisation and religious patterns differ, like Hitler, Mussolini and Franco differed.

so according to this attempt of analysis islamo-fascism isn't completely irrelevant. It's another story if the term is alienating for the Islamic masses and is missused on purpose.

[sam sarrha]

10. i believe you are referring to a Theocracy, religion is a subset of Fascism

theocracy is a subset of Fascism.. unless the Religion is a corporation it cant be fascist.. fascism therefore is not a subset of Theocracy

because a Fascist state usually profess a state approved religion to do its dirty work, it doesn't mean the religion is fascist.. just a pawn or subset of fascism.

Fascism is defined as a relationship of business and government... period. Theocracy is religion and state.

Communism never existed in the USSR, that was a Totalitarian Bureaucracy.

the Iroquois Nation before the invasion of the whit man was a Communist culture.

[tocqueville]

11. see post below

Fascism isn't defined "as a relationship of business and government"... It's far more complicated than that. The wikipedia article shows it pretty well. For example even Mussolinis statements have been poorly translated.

clerical fascism doesn't mean theocracy. In a theocracy Religious leaders ARE secular leaders. Franco was a clerical fascist but not the leader of the Church. It was the Pope.

Morocco of today is a monarchy of which king is the leader of the "church" as descendent of the Prophet. Morocco is on its way to become a democratic monarchy and is very far from a theocracy.

[Irreverend IX]

20. But there's still a big difference...

Between traditional fascism and Islamism. The Islamic theocrats, as well as the Christian theocrats and other totalitarian religious movements, have a value system derived from their religion. Islamic (or Christian or some other religion's) principles form the basis of state policy, and all affairs of the state, economic, military and so on, are regulated in accordance with those religious principles. Fascism, on the other hand, has its own set of fundamental principles for government, which are not derived from a religion. Under fascism, religion and all other aspects of culture are turned to the ends of tbe government. Franco used nacionalcatolicismo to garner public support but he didn't want to turn Spain into another Vatican; a true theocracy would have compromised his power.

The simplest way to explain it is that fascism is more or less pragmatic and theocracy isn't. Fascism is a form of government that binds a nation's power-brokers (state bureaucracy, rich families, large corporations, military) together under a consensus of mutual aid and rules ordinary citizens with unquestionable authority. Every aspect of life in a fascist state is controlled so as to further the power of the rulers. Theocrats, on the other hand, obsess over moldy books and grisly punishments and don't always act in accordance with their best interests. Take Saddam Hussein and Ahmadinejad. Hussein didn't make grandiose threats against Israel because he knew it would just make life harder for him. Ahmadinejad could gain much from an alliance with Israel, but he instead calls for their destruction because he thinks that's what God wants him to do.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tocqueville]

8. it's oversimplification

corporatism is only a part of fascism, not it's essence

Some critics equate too much corporate power and influence with fascism. See Fascism and ideology. Often they cite a quote claimed to be from Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." However the most common cites for the quote do not track back to this phrase, and it is most likely an Internet hoax. <3>. Despite this, the alleged quote has entered into modern discourse, and it appears on thousands of web pages <4>, and in books <5>, and even a conspiracy theory advertisement in the Washington Post.<6>. However, the alleged quote contradicts almost everything else written by Mussolini on the subject of the relationship between corporations and the Fascist State.<7>.

In one 1935 English translation of what Mussolini wrote, the term "corporative state" is used,<8> but this has a different meaning from modern uses of the terms used to discuss business corporations. In that same translation, the phrase "national Corporate State of Fascism," refers to syndicalist corporatism. The dubious quote is sometimes claimed to more accurately summarize what Mussolini did and not what he said. However many scholars of fascism reject this claim. See Fascism and ideology.

There is a very old argument about who controlled whom in the fascist states of Italy and Germany at various points in the timeline of power. It is agreed that the army, the wealthy, and the big corporations ended up with much more say in decision making than other elements of the corporative state <9> <10> <11>. There was a power struggle between the fascist parties/leaders and the army, wealthy, and big corporations. It waxed and waned as to who had more power at any given time. Scholars have used the term "Mussolini's corporate state" in many different ways<12>.

In the United States, corporations representing many different sectors are involved in attempts to influence legislation through lobbying including many non-business groups, unions, membership organizations, and non-profits. While these groups have no official membership in any legislative body, they can often wield considerable power over law-makers. In recent times, the profusion of lobby groups and the increase in campaign contributions has led to widespread controversy and the McCain-Feingold Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism


What constitutes fascism and fascist governments is a highly disputed subject that has proved complicated and contentious. Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets.

Most scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist.

Similarly, fascism as an ideology is also hard to define. Some authors have pointed out that Italian Fascism constituted an incoherent and unintelligible justification of the actions of Benito Mussolini ex post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

according to Umberto Eco, the US of today is a fascist society

Umberto Eco

In a 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism" <4>, the Italian writer and academic Umberto Eco attempts to list general properties of fascist ideolgy. He claims that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that " it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism.

The features of fascism he lists are as follows:

"The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).
"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dicatates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
"Disagreement is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
"Obsession With a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
"Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
"Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
"Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
"Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

[AntiFascist]

17. Here is a way to simplify it then...

think of the military-industrial complex, which has now become the military-industrial-energy complex. When the specific corporations comprising this complex become united with the government then you may end up with an aggressive, imperialist government with aspirations of becoming the next Roman empire, and it can only achieve its efforts through ongoing war, profiting from war the whole time.

[unblock]

4. as rummy used it, it's an emotional term, all connotation, no denotation

it characterizes the enemy's institutional/governing principles as being evil and discredited, whatever they are.

it's actually funny how far from reality the denotation for fascism is for whom they want to apply the term to. but it's a well-established term to describe an evil enemy, so they use it anyway.... :eyes:

[Fredda Weinberg]

6. Here's some informed opinions

Al Qaeda is a revanchist organisation, which holds the West in general and the US in particular responsible for all the evils afflicting the Islamic world and for the decline of the political power of Islam since the end of the Ottoman Empire. It wants to avenge the wrongs allegedly committed against the Muslims since the end of the Ottoman Empire, re-write history and restore an Islamic Caliphate from which Western influence would be totally excluded. It is comparable to the Nazis of Germany in its revanchist ideas and actions. The Nazis blamed the rest of the Western world for the decline of Germany since the First World War and for all the evils afflicting Germany. They wanted to restore the pre-eminent position of Germany in the world. If the world leaders of that time had said "Let us address the root causes of Nazism first, before we fight the Nazis and Adolf Hitler", where will the world be today? The call to address the root causes of the Al Qaeda today is as short-sighted as a call to first address the root causes of Nazism would have been in the early 1940s.

http://www.observerindia.com/analysis/A480.htm

The vision of any kind of new caliphate, shared by Muslims worldwide, is a distant one. Right now, even talk of bringing down trade barriers and free flow of people across Muslim states seems radical. But it is a vision that is needed, and one that should actually be supported by the US and Britain if they are sincere about the development of the Muslim world. The revival of a strong Muslim civilisation would be for the betterment of the whole world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1605653,00.html

Osama bin Laden claimed in one of his tapes, in a phrase that passed practically unnoticed, that the Arab world had been in decline "for 80 years". Why 80 years? That takes us back to the early 1920s, to the end of the first world war, the collapse of the Turkish Ottoman empire and the British and French takeover of the region. The Arabs were then released from four centuries of Turkish rule, only to be governed by infidels. That explains why Bin Laden said there was "no salvation outside Muslim rule" (by which he means the restoration of the caliphate).

http://mondediplo.com/2003/04/02arabworld (subscription required)

[Ms. Clio]

14. and none of those have anything to do with fascism

and there are, at the most, several thousand members of Al-Qaeda, a STATELESS organization, unlike the Nazis. They have absolutely zero chance of achieving any of their "visions" of a caliphate.

[AntiFascist]

19. I'm interested to know....

could Saudi Arabia be considered a fascist state? It is completely controlled by a single, wealthy family, consisting of thousands of members.

Also, I'm sad to see that thread about Iran get completely eliminated (that was really strange!)

[Ms. Clio]

22. Not according to Mussolini's definition, anyway

I think it could be classified as a theocratic near-absolute monarchy, or something along those lines, but nationalism and the State are not the primary organizing principles of the political structure.

I don't really understand what happened to the Iran thread, either. That was definitely weird.

[Fredda Weinberg]

23. Those observations were directly on point

The Nazis were fascists before they seized power - a STATELESS organization, just like al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are today.

Go back to etymology; a "fasces" is a bundle of rods signifying the strength in unity - whether the organizing principle is corporatism or politics or religious fundamentalism, the result is an unaccountable, unchecked source of raw power.

[Ms. Clio]

25. They were not a stateless organization at all -- they drew their ideology

from German nationalism and were part of the German political system before they became dominant.

Al-Q and other terrorist groups are not remotely comparable.

On edit: For actual "informed opinion," try reading Mussolini's own words on the subject.

[Fredda Weinberg]

26. Islam has the umma

and Hamas managed to get themselves elected to the Palestinian Authority.

Sheesh, what mental contortions are required to avoid seeing the obvious.

Why don't you learn more about *why* Islamic fundamentalists believe as they do? They have a sense of social justice, requirements to care for the less fortunate and method for dealing with crime that doesn't depend on expensive legal systems or incarceration. Perfect for dealing with scarce resources.

Fascism is a method, like terrorism - and it's frighteningly effective.

[Ms. Clio]

28. Really, what mental contortions ARE required to avoid seeing the obvious

Or reading anything that is remotely relevant,like Mussolini. The "umma" has nothing to do with NATIONALISM, which is the foundation of Fascism. Fascism is not a "method," it is an ideology, a political system. No matter how you want to confuse these things, words do have actual meanings, and do not mean just what you want them to mean.

Hamas is not "Islam." Hamas is not "the umma." Hamas did not rise to power in Palestine because al-Q dreams of a caliphate. That's just neocon nuttiness.

[Fredda Weinberg]

30. And what does umma mean? Seriously, do you know?

And if you think I'm a neocon, you're deluding yourself. It's my real name ... go look me up.

And why do you assume I'm not familiar with Mussolini's writings? I graduated with a dual major in political science. You think I learned about fascism at DU?

The fasci preceeded Mussolini by decades - some of them were democrats and socialists. So tell me again ... how is fascism an ideology?

Nuttiness is insisting that a reification is a substitute for a concept. But I suspect that politics has more to do with this than intellectual rigor, considering how quickly you resorted to the neocon canard.

[Ms. Clio]

32. Wow, you are just all over the map here

Every time I rebut one of your tangential arguments, off you go down another rabbit hole. What does your name have to do with anything, or your degrees? You are the one who orginally quoted from the Hudson Institute in another thread, and that bunch is just neocon nuttiness in, well, a nutshell.

And "the fasci" were not Fascists. They were indigenous to Sicily and a product of the political and economic conditions of that place and time (the 1890s):

"The Fasci Siciliani (1891-1894) was a popular movement, of democratic and socialist inspiration, which arose in Sicily between the years 1891 and 1893 and whose aim was the collective organization of farmers, workers and miners, especially in the areas rich with sulphur.

Attempting to establish a new sort of organization in Italy, somewhere between the political societies common to the age and the trade unions, between traditional mutualism and cooperation, the Fasci, led by Rosario Garibaldi Bosco (in Palermo), by the physician Nicola Barbato (at Piana dei Greci), by Bernardino Verro (at Corleone), and by Giuseppe de Felice Giuffrida (at Catania), gained the support of the poorest and most exploited classes of the island by channelling their enormous frustration and discontent with the existing order into a coherent program based on vast economic transformation and the establishment of new rights. Consisting of a hodgepodge of traditionalist sentiment, religiosity, and modernist consciousness, the fruit of a mature socialist culture, the movement touched its apex in the summer of 1893, when strong, new conditions were presented to the landowners and mine owners of Sicily concerning the renewal of share cropping and rental contracts."

Honestly, I don't know where you get your information. Not from any recognized historical source, let alone documents from the period, like Mussolini's own words. As a historian those are the sources upon which I rely.

On edit: Here, for example is Gramsci in 1921: The Fasci di combattimento emerged, in the aftermath of the War, with the petty-bourgeois character of the various war-veterans' associations which appeared in that period. Because of their character of determined opposition to the socialist movement - partly a heritage of the conflicts between the Socialist Party and the interventionist associations during the War period - the Fasci won the support of the capitalists and the authorities. The fact that their emergence coincided with the landowners' need to form a white guard against the growing power of the workers' organizations allowed the system of bands created and armed by the big landowners to adopt the same label of Fasci. With their subsequent development, these bands conferred upon that label their own characteristic feature as a white guard of capitalism against the class organs of the proletariat.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1921/08/two_fascisms.htm

[Fredda Weinberg]

33. I quoted the Christian Science monitor, not the Hudson inst

and the last time I checked, they did a decent job of covering international events.

As for the Italian fascists, why don't you study where Mussolini got his ideas? And btw, what was the name of his political party again? And in case you need a hint - it didn't contain the English word "fascist"

[Ms. Clio]

35. Gramsci -- surely a political scientist is familiar with him?

What does he say?

And don't be disingenous -- your own quote from the Christian Science Monitor specifically indicated that the source was the Hudson Institute.

"A few years ago people laughed at them," says Zeyno Baran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the leading expert on Hizb ut-Tahrir. "But now that bin Laden, Zarqawi, and other Islamic groups are saying they want to recreate the Caliphate, people are taking them seriously."

Posted TWICE in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2033118&mesg_id=2033118

Really, you are not interested in an honest debate.

Updated to add links.

[Fredda Weinberg]

42. And the BBC is also neocon nutty?

BIN LADEN OBJECTIVES
Religious war against America and American interests
Remove US forces from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
Liberate Jerusalem from Israelis
Overthrow the "un-Islamic" governments of the region
Restore the Caliphate, or pan-Islamic ruler

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1551100.stm

That Christian Science Monitor article also contained this quote

"Islam obliges Muslims to possess power so that they can intimidate - I would not say terrorize - the enemies of Islam," says Abu Mohammed, a Hizb ut-Tahrir activist. "In the beginning, the Caliphate would strengthen itself internally and it wouldn't initiate jihad."

"But after that we would carry Islam as an intellectual call to all the world," says Abu Mohammed, a pseudonym. "And we will make people bordering the Caliphate believe in Islam. Or if they refuse then we'll ask them to be ruled by Islam."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p01s04-wome.html

And I referenced several other sources - but you continue to mischaracterize my posting. tsk, tsk

As for one of the founders of the Italian communist party, what do you think Gramsci offers to this discussion?

[Ms. Clio]

44. What does that prove? None of those people are the heads of a STATE

They don't have any POWER. There are Christian Reconstructionists in this country with nearly identical dreams and wishes for Dominion. Fortunately, they do not yet govern our nation (at least, not overtly). Al-Q consists of a FEW THOUSAND PEOPLE. They are not an existential threat to the entire world, and nothing in the article you linked to supports that ludicrous argument.

As for Gramsci -- apparently political scientists don't understand the concept of primary sources. Gramsci's perspective is that of a person who was alive and writing in Italy during the period. Interesting that you choose to dismiss him as a "communist" rather than address his analysis of the events that were occurring during his lifetime. Or was it just too complicated?

I think anybody following along can decide if your disingenuous postings have been "mischaracterized," or not.

[Fredda Weinberg]

48. al Qaeda was an existential threat to 3000 people

Between the two attacks on the WTC, along with the other hapless victims.

Why you assert that they have to threaten the world in order to qualify as fascists is beyond me, but then again, you didn't explain why one of the founders of the Italian communist party has anything relevant to say about Islamic fundamentalism or its goals.

BTW, did you know I'm a socialist - and come from a long, proud line of socialists? Oh yeah, you think I'm a neocon. Oh well ... just another mistake.

[Ms. Clio]

51. Honestly, you just don't follow any logical train of thought

What a simplistic and manipulative ploy. A single terrorist attack does not threasten the entire world. And neither do a few thousand guys dreaming about the caliphate. Bush and the Neocon Death Cult are the only existential threats to the entire planet at this point in history.

And since you don't understand what a primary source is, or why an Italian Communist's view of Italian Fascism is historically relevant, I'll just leave you to maunder on about your ancestry.

[Fredda Weinberg]

52. We're not discussing threatening the entire world

The question was the definition of fascism, because the questionably legitimate regime has recently discovered the threat exists - and for that political reason, some here can't accept the term Islamic fascism.

If all the fanatics did was dream, we wouldn't be having this argument. In reality, my city has been attacked twice by the same organization, determined to bring down our symbol of global domination.

As for Gramsci, he had interesting things to say on hegemony - but like Marx, he tends to see everything in terms of economic class. Oh, of course, you have read all three volumes of Das Kapital, haven't you?

[AntiFascist]

53. The Nazis were sponsored by industrialists and banking interests...

and some sort of backroom deal was worked out with the existing leadership to allow them to take over the media and spread propaganda in order to generate more democratic support, before Hitler could be elected. In fact they used mostly intimidation techniques, including the Reichstag fire, to finally do away with any dissenting party opinion, which at the time included various socialist, Christian, and Communist influences. The Catholic Church initially supported Hitler and the socialists and communists became intimidated. (Some of these techniques are very similar to the tricks Bush and company have also used, and are continuing to use, against Democrats btw).

In order for al Qaeda to achieve such a unified fascia comprising a Muslim Nation, they will need to do away with the existing states and their respective governments. I agree with Ms Clio in that this is a hopeless endeavor. The best that they can achieve is an ongoing civil war, playing right into the hands of neoconservatives.

[Zorra]

57. Before they seized power, Nazis were authoritarian conservatives,

as individuals.

It seems that in order to be a fascist, an individual must have the conservative authoritarian psychological makeup. This personality trait seems to be universally accepted as an essential defining characteristic of a fascist.

Exactly like Bu*h, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocons, and perhaps to a lesser extent, members of the republican party.

The PNAC neocons were still a stateless organization when they formed the PNAC. The PNAC was, at one time, a group of individual authoritarian conservatives, essentially stateless fascists (as per your example) who formed an organization (the PNAC) that has, as documented below, the goal of taking over first the US government and later the world, through whatever means possible, in order to create a worldwide authoritarian conservative fascist empire.

The excerpt and link below is, IMO, an excellent example of a formerly stateless group of fascists, who, like Hitler and the Nazis, unified and determined to seize the power of state in order to use any means possible, including electoral fraud and unjustifiable pre-emptive military aggression, in order to create a conservative-authoritarian fascist nation and world:

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
snip---
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
snip---
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

The signatories of this document are all widely recognized authoritarian conservatives. Many of them hold high level positions in the Bu*h administration and other appointed offices. Some of these positions include VP of the US, US Secretary of Defense, and Chairman (if that is the correct title) of the World Bank.

I would like to thank you for posting your etymological "roots" as an aid to describing and defining fascism.

It consolidates and validates my belief that the US government has been taken over by a group of dangerous, vicious fascists.

[tocqueville]

15. you could compare with revisionist zionism

and find exactly the same similarities. Swap caliphate against Eretz Israel. Intresting to know that Jabotinsky was a big fan of Mussolini.

[Fredda Weinberg]

27. And I'm sure you would

But last time I looked, his Revisionist Party was moribund and Betar was eclipsed by Hashomer Hatzair and Bnei Akiva.

But good try ... now, want to find something relevant to the 21st century?

[tocqueville]

56. this "parties" produced two Israeli PMs

and founded Israel through terrorism against the Brits. And Olmerts parents were member of the Herut. His son is member of the Betar which is still alive and kicking.

Relevant for the 21st Century is that the ghosts are still there and pull their strings in the shadows.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

7. I think it is one of those mood ring words like terrorist or liberal

A real long time ago they used to have these rings that girls would wear that would change color and the color was supposed to say what mood she was in. My mom still has one somewhere that we used to play with but anyway there are some words that are like mood rings because what it means depends on the point of view of the person that says the word and who they are saying it about.

I mean maybe the dictionaries they have now say the old definition, but they don't really count any more because what the words really mean can be so many things. Usually they mean that the person using the word has an opposite point of view from the person they are saying it about, or it just means like the thing the person using the word thinks is the worst thing.

So you will hear people call other people fascist or liberal or terrorist etc and it doesn't really mean that the person is a dictionary one, just that the person that calls them that doesn't like them or doesn't like their ideas. One of the ways you can tell is when people get called the opposite like some senator or something there will be people calling them a liberal and then there will be people calling them a fascist and if you go read about them they are really just kind of middle of the road but way against fascism from the dictionary.

And they even made up that saying about terrorists because people were doing it so much, about being a terrorist or a freedom fighter and the difference is whether you agree with them or not or whether America is giving them money, and like in Afghanistan the same people went from being freedom fighters to terrorists depending on that and some of them have gone back again!

[lisainmilo]

16. It's on my website...The true definition...

and it certainly fits no liberal!!!! :)

scroll down to bottom of page.
http://www.johnlisainmilo.com/liberty_2.html

[Ms. Clio]

18. Mussolini: "The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State"

"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

[Fredda Weinberg]

34. Mussolini: “Fascism is a religious concept”

Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.

“The Doctrine of Fascism” which appeared in the Italian Encyclopedia of 1932

[Ms. Clio]

36. He was referencing a "religious" relationship with the State

not with God.

The fact that nationalism is the foundation of Fascism is not debated by genuine historians.

[Fredda Weinberg]

38. Fascism respects the God of ascetics, saints, and heroes

The Fascist State is not indifferent to religious phenomena in general nor does it maintain an attitude of indifference to Roman Catholicism, the special, positive religion of Italians. The State has not got a theology but it has a moral code. The Fascist State sees in religion one of the deepest of spiritual manifestations and for this reason it not only respects religion but defends and protects it. The Fascist State does not attempt, as did Robespierre at the height of the revolutionary delirium of the Convention, to set up a "god" of its own; nor does it vainly seek, as does Bolshevism, to efface God from the soul of man. Fascism respects the God of ascetics, saints, and heroes, and it also respects God as conceived by the ingenuous and primitive heart of the people, the God to whom their prayers are raised.

http://www.dickinson.edu/~rhyne/232/Nine/PoliticalSocialDoctrine.html

As for nationalism ... once again, what does umma mean?

[Ms. Clio]

39. Umma does not mean "nationalism"

it means "the community of Muslims." A transnational concept, in fact.

[Fredda Weinberg]

43. I see only one of us learned Aramaic

And that you didn't quote your source ... hmmm ... I wonder why - perhaps because it also had the literal translation of the word?

The root of umma is probably the Aramaic ummetha, from which Hebrew gets the similar sounding "am", as in "Am Yisroel chai" or "The nation of Israel lives". Not the community of Israel, but you see, a nation, which can also be a transnational concept now that we're in galut (exile).

Hebrew and Arabic share many root words - but if you still don't believe me, consider the Arabic for "United Nations" - hint, it ain't "United Communities"

[Ms. Clio]

45. how you think that does anything but prove my point

is simply baffling.

Fascism = nationalism. Umma = transnationalism.

[Fredda Weinberg]

46. You just don't get it, do you? Nationalism isn't about place

It's about identity. The Islamic nation is as real to them as the United States is to us.

[Ms. Clio]

47. So you are back in your "words mean what I say they mean" mode

For Fascism, nationalism is about a STATE. The umma is not a STATE.

[Fredda Weinberg]

49. The umma is a nation. Just like mine. We have a single

modern state and that's what Islamic fundamentalists want as well. They reject the Western imposition of artifical borders and political institutions. Instead, they want to return to Islamic values and practices, which is a position I can respect even as I reject it.

[The Straight Story]

21. It's like slocism only faster :) (nt)

[upi402]

24. fuddadump

*crash*

[Stardust]

29. Have you read "The Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism" by

Laurence Britt?


http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

Sorry, I don't know how to post a link.


The 14 Characteristics of Fascism
by Lawrence Britt
Spring 2003
Free Inquiry magazine


Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy.

The 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottoes, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Sound familiar?

Well, I guess I do know how to post a link after all. Oh well...

[Pachamama]

31. Great question because I bet if you asked that of every American, I bet

less than 10% would come up with a definition or explanation remotely coming close to the actual definition. Most people couldn't tell you its origins or how the term came to being in reference to Mussolini and what the actual "signs" of fascism are.

Americans need to learn a lot of things including their own history and origins and actually reading the Constitution and trying to understand it. But the term Islamo-fascist is a completely ludicrous term and really quite meaningless as an actual word. But the image that the Bush regime paints when they use that term is that they get to take their really broad stroke brush and once again paint something (in this case muslims) who happen to disagree with their stance or speak out as being "terrorists". Ofcourse, then they throw everyone else in who may speak out against the War on Iraq as being a "supporter - aka appeaser" of fascism.

No folks, we who have bothered to read and know what the definition of fascism is, know they are trying to paint us with the paint brush as well. The real "Appeasers" in fact turn out to be anyone who supports the current Bush Regime and continues to support their aggression in the world.

[Superman Returns]

37. Good comments folks

Just like to add, that in a fascist state, religion is used to benefit the state and the policies of its leaders. Religion also plays to the tradition and history of the state itself and creates national pride.

Fundamentialists on the other hand seek to build a state in which religion dictates policies. Fascism uses and manipulates religion to conform to the leader's policies and it is also intertwined with nationalism. Fundamentalists don't care about the "state" itself but care about producing a state that allows their strict religious views to flourish.

Fascists= state, use religion for nationalist reasons.

Fundamentalists= create a state for their religious views to dominate and dictate law/policy.

Is that good?

[Ms. Clio]

40. That sounds about right to me

yes, a good summary.

[AntiFascist]

54. That is a good way of looking at it....

the only scary thing is where Fundamentalism and Fascism become one. In other words, some people may believe that the Constitution and other ideas from the Enlightenment (Rosicrucian?) compose its own religion building (and I use this term in the most freemasonic way) on previous ideas. When people mention the "New Order" or the "New World Order" these may even transcend superficial ideologies. The "Secret Doctrine of the Assassins" may be condemned by traditional Islam, but it may also be a motivating factor of something more insidious.

[LaPera]

50. This says it all...And will tell you what you want to know in a "nutshell"

http://oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

[Hubert Flottz]

55. See George Bush...