What Do We Do Now That It IS Fascism?

[McCamy Taylor]

In 2007, I wrote “When Does It Become Fascism?”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2371537

A lot has changed since then. We still have organized gangs of violent protesters calling for the overthrow of our elected officials, the suppression of certain religions and the expulsion of various ethnic groups. Back in 2007, they were called KKK and Neo-Nazis and the press treated them as unAmerican. Back in 2007, politician hesitated to ally themselves with the right wing violent extremists. Big business, while sympathetic to their cause, kept them at arm's length. Now the corporate media gives these fascist foot soldiers a very different kind of coverage. They are portrayed as “average Americans”. The Tea Party movement is characterized as "grassroots", even though a number of sources confirm that the Tea Baggers are Astroturf, laid by the Kochs, a wealthy American oil family irate over its loss of influence after the 2008 elections. The politicians who are targeted by these paid thugs are characterized as being “out of step”---out of goose step, that is---and legitimate targets for violence.

For example, here is the Philadelphia Inquirer (now owned by a media consortium controlled by Brian Tierney, former Bush supporter and well known conservative Republican) extolling the virtues of the Tea Baggers:

Granted, the large rallies of the tea parties often draw out all elements, including extremes. However, to pigeonhole this grassroots movement as a fringe element is to deny the political phenomenon of the last few months. In actuality, the tea-party movement should be considered a new "catchall" coalition that brings people from all walks of life together.
Past catchall coalitions have included the Roosevelt New Deal Coalition or the Reagan Democrats, both of which transcended traditional partisan boundaries to agree on a core set of ideas they considered best for the country. While the electoral effect of the tea-party movement remains to be seen, its status as an organization is more properly viewed in this context, not that of an extremist fringe group.

Snip
The movement's strength is not garnered from institutions like political parties. Instead, it is a grassroots movement that began with instances of political participation locally and snowballed into a national phenomenon. Participants often felt excluded from the process, and the movement has brought such individuals off of the couch.
If anything, the movement is a tool of empowerment for average Americans who felt marginalized by the status-quo. Now they can be heard. Empowering a vast group of people is not the mark of an extremist group, which tends to empower a narrower group.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100813_Tea_parties__A_new_kind_of_coalition.html#ixzz0xTxlm1of

This piece is almost as scary as the Tea Parties themselves. Does the writer even understand that he is describing a fascist movement (with all the scary hatred and calls for violence expunged)? Does he care?

First, a definition of “fascism”. Robert O. Paxton from the book Anatomy of Fascism:

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood 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.

Key characteristics of fascism
1.“At bottom is a passionate nationalism”
2.“a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions”
3.“the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external”
4.”dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences”
5.“the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary”

Now, read Mr. Maalouf’s apology for the Tea Parties one more time. Cult of unity? Check. Mass-based party? Check. “Passionate nationalism”? Got it. “A belief that one’s group is a victim?” Covered. Anti-democratic? What else would you call folks who dismiss elected officials as “wonks”?

Add in what he leaves out---

----“working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites” (such as the Koch family, health insurers, the corporate media and others)

----“ pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints” (we have all heard the threats and calls to violence but if you have managed to miss them here is an ADL report http://www.adl.org/extremism/Anti-Government-Extremism-Report.pdf )

---fear of “alien influences” and calls for “exclusionary violence” (Tea Baggers admit that immigration is one of their key issues here http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=b4cc03dbd6820b4b82cb77f47573dce2)

When did it become fascism? When American business began to use the advocates of violence and hate as mouth pieces to promote its corporate agenda.

Now, what are we going to do about it?

[Subdivisions]

1. We're not going to do anything about it.

Which is what we've always done.

[rhett o rick]

39. We are getting our frog-asses boiled. nm

[DJ13]

2. Now in stylish gold

[SugarShack]

3. Don't forget another definition, "country ruled by corporations"

That definately sounds like us!

[hughee99]

4. Stalin was a Fascist?

he seems to fit the description.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Hmm no he wasn't

but that is where the term statism comes in as well...

Definition of STATISM

: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry
First Known Use of STATISM

1919

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism

There are significant differences.

Statists believe in a command economy and no private sector, while Fascists believe in marrying the power of the state with the power of private industry.

They share some elements, and both are totalitarian in nature (that is closed societies) but the way they go about is makes statists to be left wing, and fascist right wing, and they tend to hate each other.

[hughee99]

9. Which one of these doesn't fit Stalin's Russia?

Key characteristics of fascism
1.“At bottom is a passionate nationalism”
2.“a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions”
3.“the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external”
4.”dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences”
5.“the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary”

If these are key characteristics of fascism, one would expect they would be fairly unique to fascism, rather than a general description of how a lot of dictators rise and hold on to power.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Here is the MAJOR CRITICAL DIFFERENCE

WHO OWNS THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Where these two closed societies differ from each other is... in a statist society the STATE owns the means of production and had five year plans

In Fascist States IG Farben WAS privately owned and was not overtly directed by the state. Small but damn CRITICAL difference.

Anyhow, here are the fourteen points of fascism

http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html

And I hope you are not about to peddle the real discredited RW view from ONE political scientist in the UK that uses the following POV for the continuum of politics.

Left wing Right wing

Communist, fascism. liberals GOP, Libertarians, Anarchists.

The more common understanding goes like this

Statist, aka Communist Fascism. (These are the extremes)

Now granted, if you happen to be a citizen in any of these two you still live in a police state, Why they are both called CLOSED SOCIETIES, and the major difference from an open society is that ability not to have free speech, versus free speech, the control of the means of the state, versus right to own weapons, things like that.

[hughee99]

19. My argument is nothing other than the "key points of fascism" list

is not a very good list. Clearly there were significant factors that differentiate fascism from other totalitarian governments, this list contains almost none of them. It does have several things that are common to almost all totalitarian governments, though.

I would compare this list to saying "5 key points of a pickup truck".
Steering wheel
Tires
engine
Windows
Tailgate

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. There I agree, why I pointed you to the 14 points

IN the recent past I had to actually do a lot of writing on this... so it is very fresh in my mind.

[Alcibiades]

49. I hate to disagree

Fascists absolutely support private property and socialists, of course, want to socialize the means of production. My only quibble is with the phrase: "In Fascist States IG Farben (not to mention other large, important businesses, let alone small ones) WAS privately owned and was not overtly directed by the state." Not so much on that last point. Though I hat to quote extensively from wikipedia, I'll do it anyway:

"Private property

Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals, the state could nationalize it .<158> Nazi government corporate takeovers, and threatened takeovers, encouraged compliance with government production plans, even if unprofitable for the firm. For example, the owner of the Junkers aeroplane factory refused the government’s directives, whereupon the Nazis occupied the factory and arrested Hugo Junkers, but paid him for his nationalized business. Although the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, they also increased economic state control.<159> Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished; nevertheless, Adolf Hitler’s social Darwinist beliefs made him reluctant to entirely disregard business competition and private property as economic engines.<160><161> In 1942, Hitler privately said: “I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative”.<162>

To the proposition that businesses were private property in name but not in substance, but, in The Journal of Economic History article "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry", Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner counter that despite state control, business had much production and investment planning freedom — yet acknowledge that Nazi German economy was state-directed.<163>
Centralization

Agricultural and industrial central planning was a prominent feature of Nazi economics. To tie farmers to the land, selling agricultural land was prohibited; farm ownership was nominally private, but discretion over operations and residual income were proscribed. That was achieved by granting business monopoly rights to marketing boards, to control production and prices with a quota system. Quotas also were established for industrial goods, such as pig iron, steel, aluminium, magnesium, gunpowder, explosives, synthetic rubber, fuels, and electricity. A compulsory cartel law was enacted in 1936, allowing the minister of economics to make existing cartels compulsory and permanent, and compel industries to form cartels, where none existed, although disestablished by decree, by 1943, they were replaced with more authoritarian economic agencies.<164>"

Much of this sort of thing eventually came under the direction of Speer.

[cprise]

28. They all seem to fit

But there is a difference, in that the Soviets slowly realized Stalinist policies as an aberration... The original leftist ideas about communism (and human rights) remained and pointed away from Stalinism. Part of the 'problem' for Stalinists is that a strong impetus for education remained in the system, which meant you had a population that was capable of surmising their plight and their relationship with the history that was handed down to them.

In fascism, the masses are intended to remain ignorant and led primarily by their desires.

<i>If these are key characteristics of fascism, one would expect they would be fairly unique to fascism, rather than a general description of how a lot of dictators rise and hold on to power.</i>
OTOH the definition of a modern dictator may simply be a rule that hews closely to fascist policies.

And you may remember that this whole fascist/communist/whatever phenomenon IS a response to modern problems: Issues that arise within and are exacerbated by an anything-goes technological society.

Think of fascism as all of those warm, fuzzy, adorable sentiments and impressions that are associated with with the pastoral ideal (imagine a society populated of Hummel figurines), only "pumped up" by gasoline, electricity, steel, dynamite, and lots of other general industry. Where the pastoral society has died, fascists claim to revive it - like a Frankenstein monster - using a noxious mix of ignorance and heavy industry.

[Alcibiades]

48. 4. hardly applies

”dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences”

Stalinists did not dread class conflict: they celebrated it, as it was the mechanism by which the dictatorship of the proletariat would bring about socialism in one country. They tended to be rather dismissive of bourgeois individualism, and though certainly skeptical of certain types of "aliens" (witness the doctors' trials, among other things) were in theory whole-heartedly multiethnic and transnational in orientation.

#3 may seem to apply, but in theory it wasn't simply that the proletariat were victims, but rather the instruments of world-historical forces. #2 is a little tricky, but again, the crisis would be the crisis of capitalism, something to be welcomed, and a problem to which orthodox Marxists all knew the solution. Item #1 included a Soviet nationalism, but this was not simply a reworked Russian nationalism. Stalin was himself ethnically Georgian and his "theory," such as it was, never entirely lost its roots in Marxist internationalism, despite Stalin's doctrine of socialism in one country.

#5 is right out, unless you define "purer community" in a way utterly different than that which accorded with fascist practice.

What was common between the Soviets and the Nazis, besides such things as war crimes and mass murder (but they are not certainly unique in those things, either) was how civil society was subsumed totally into the state, hence "totalitarianism."

[T Wolf]

10. His government was not "in service" to Russian oligarchs but to his ideology, with a twist of crazy

thrown in.

Here, we have a "kinder, gentler" fascism. Or, we had that before the greed went on steroids.

I'm afraid it's going to get really ugly.

[Doctor_J]

57. I HOPE it is

going to get really ugly, that is. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

[lefty2000]

59. Catch 22

In "Catch 22" (Movie version) a young American pilot says to an old Italian man: "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."

The old man says, "No, it is better to live on your feet than to die on your knees."

[defendandprotect]

46. Yes ... Stalin was a fascist/dictator ... J. Edgar Hoover ALWAYS referred to the USSR ....

as "totalitarian communism" --

And -- that's why so many will still say there has never been a true

practice of communism anywhere -- not intended to be kept in place by a dictatorship!


We're finished with both capitalism and communism, let's hope --

We need to move on to a more socially responsible economic system -- one which grants

economic democracy -- rather than simply control of government, our wealth and

natural resources for the benefit of the few!

[izquierdista]

5. What do we do?

What was not done in Germany of 1931: jail terms for those threatening the peace with weapons at public gatherings; civil and criminal penalties for hate speech; holding organizers (yes, you, Dickhead Armey) responsible for incitement to riot when damage occurs; pulling the license of radio stations that won't correct lies that they broadcast. But most of all, improve the economy of the common citizen, so that he won't be gullible or desperate enough to fall for a pile of racist hate.

We could start by pulling all the shit same they did to people who attempted to enter a Bush staged event from a car with the wrong bumper sticker.

[glinda]

30. Exactly. With no measures now to stop it, it will just get worse.

[rhett o rick]

40. Who do you think will be doning this and what are they waiting for? There wont be any resistance.

Things will continue to get progressively worse until there is nothing we can do.

[Wounded Bear]

6. It must be a bi-partisan group. He compared it to the Roosevelt New Deal Coalition

:sarcasm:

What passes for logic from some of these RWers never ceases to amaze me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Charming, calling them what they are

FASCISTS.

And of course fighting them.

Problem is I fear our fearless leaders (chuckle) are not ready to face the threat or are damn too scared of them.

[phasma ex machina]

12. America was fascist long before any Tea Party showed up.

Therefore the two fasces on either side of the flag in the House.



:puke: :puke: :puke:

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Not quite

the architecture of the House was designed well before the 20th century, but I am sure you knew that.

[phasma ex machina]

17. Using the mid-1800s as the birthdate of American fascism works for me. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Sorry under any political science definition

it wasn't.

The architecture was a node to the Republic, the ROMAN Republic and all the Cicero the founders read, for example. A few of them in Latin mind you.

[phasma ex machina]

22. Not so fast. Far too much of that Roman crap in the capitol got installed during the waning days of

the Civil War when the powers-that-be decided that America wanted to be an empire when it grew up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. And when did Fascism come to be?

Oh yes, 1921, in Italy, and yes Mussolini did adopt the fasces for a couple reasons, that had nothing to do with the Republic but all to do with the Legions. Fasces marched ahead of the legions, well were held by a legionnaire.

And yes, they installed all that as a node to the FOUNDERS. It was kind off we survived.

By the way you can actually say WHEN the American Empire definitely started, oh the glorious year of 1898... and do tell me, where exactly was the secret police? Oh yes, we didn't have it.

[phasma ex machina]

24. Does an empire by any other name keep as many of its own troops in other countries?

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Did you read the date I cited? 1898

not 1998, 1898... the Spanish American War.

But it was not a fascist empire. It might pain you, but fascism has certain very discernible characteristics. We are much closer to it now than ever before in our history... in 1898 we were an Empire, in the guise of all other old world empires.

If you want I can even recommend some good books on the matter.

[phasma ex machina]

26. OK. We're on the same page regarding Amercia's virtual empire.

I probably ground my own fasces, so to speak, more than enough for one evening.

:rofl:

I really do know the accepted PolySci origins of Fascism.

Who knows what monsters America will breed from economic hardship?

Too many unemployed get burned while the powers-that-be fiddle with pitching their vision of a Disney world.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Look up fascism?

[femrap]

15. Find like-minded

people (which is extremely difficult if one lives in conservative, bible-thumping areas) and build a strong community that attends to the essentials of life....food, shelter, friends, and bartering.

That's what you do.....because it's over.

WASF

[Newsjock]

16. We're going to watch 'Dancing With the Stars,' of course

I hear there's a Very Special Episode coming up.

:sarcasm:

[Better Believe It]

18. The first duty of an effective anti-fascist is to learn what fascism really is!

It's been degraded and simplified into an almost meaningless name calling term to describe any right-wing organization or dictatorial government.

You want to learn how the German fascists managed to take power against the majority who opposed them? Read and study that history or forever remain in ignorance.

Here's some comments written by an American socialist in 1969:

By George Lavan Weissman

* * *
Liberals and even most of those who consider themselves Marxists are guilty of using the world fascist very loosely today. They fling it around as an epithet or political swearword against right-wing figures whom they particularly despise, or against reactionaries in general.

Since WWII, the fascist label has been applied to such figures and movements as Gerald L. K. Smith, Senator Joseph McCarthy, Senator Eastland, Barry Goldwater, the Minutemen, the John Birch Society, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Wallace.

Now, were all these fascist, or just some? If only some, then how does one tell which are and which aren't?

Indiscriminate use of the term really reflects vagueness about its meaning. Asked to define fascism, the liberal replies in such terms as dictatorship, mass neurosis, anti-Semitism, the power of unscrupulous propaganda, the hypnotic effect of a mad-genius orator on the masses, etc. Impressionism and confusion on the part of liberals is not surprising. But Marxism's superiority consists of its ability to analyze and differentiate among social and political phenomena. that so many of those calling themselves marxists cannot define fascism any more adequately than the liberals is not wholly their fault. Whether they are aware of it or not, much of their intellectual heritage comes from the social-democratic (reformist socialist) and Stalinist movements, which dominated the left in the 1930s when fascism was scoring victory after victory. These movements not only permitted Nazism to come to power in Germany without a shot being fired against it, but they failed abysmally in understanding the nature and dynamics of fascism and the way to fight it. After fascism's triumphs, they had much to hide and so refrained from making a Marxist analysis which would, at least, have educated subsequent generations.

But there is a Marxist analysis of fascism. It was made by Leon Trotsky not as a postmortem, but during the rise of fascism. This was one of Trotsky's great contributions to Marxism. He began the task after Mussolini's victory in Italy in 1922 and brought it to a high point in the years preceding Hitler's triumph in Germany in 1933.

In his attempts to awaken the German Communist Party and the Communist International (Comintern) to the mortal danger and to rally a united-front against Nazism, Trotsky made a point-by-point critique of the policies of the social-democratic and Stalinist parties. This constitutes a compendium of almost all the mistaken, ineffective, and suicidal positions that workers' organizations can take regarding fascism, since the positions of the German parties ranged from opportunistic default and betrayal on the right (social democratic) to ultra-left abstentionism and betrayal (Stalinist).

The Communist movement was still on its ultra-left binge (the so-called Third Period) when the Nazi movement began to snowball. To the Stalinists, every capitalist party was automatically "fascist". Even more catastrophic than this disorienting of the workers was Stalin's famous dictum that, rather than being opposites, fascism and social democracy were "twins". The socialists were thereupon dubbed "social fascists" and regarded as the main enemy. Of course, there could be no united front with social-fascist organizations, and those who, like Trotsky, urged such united fronts, were also labeled social fascists and treated accordingly.

How divorced from reality the Stalinist line was may be illustrated be recalling its translation into American terms. In the 1932 elections, American Stalinists denounced Franklin Roosevelt as the fascist candidate and Norman Thomas as the social-fascist candidate. What was ludicrous as applied to US politics was tragic in Germany and Austria.

(Recently <1969>, the term social fascism had begun cropping up in articles by members of the new left. Do those using it imagine that they have invented the term? Or, if they are aware of its history, are they indifferent to its connotations?)

After the Nazis came to power, the Stalinists boasted that their line had been 100 per cent correct, that Hitler could only last a few months, and that a Soviet Germany would then emerge. The time limit for this miracle was extended from three, six, to nine months, and then the idle boasts dwindled into silence. The magnitude of the defeat suffered by the working class, the special character of fascism, distinguishing it from other reactionary regimes or dictatorships, became apparent to all, and the threat to the Soviet Union or a rearmed German imperialism began to take on reality. This brought about a change in Moscow's line in 1935 and the Communist parties throughout the world thereupon zigzagged far to the right, to the right even of the social-democrats. This was their stance in the face of the spreading fascist danger in France and Spain.

The military ruin of German and Italian fascism in WWII convinced most people that fascism had been destroyed for good and was so utterly discredited that it could never again entice any followers. Events since then, particularly the emergence of new fascist groups and tendencies in almost every capitalist country,have dispelled such wishful thinking. The illusion that WWII was fought to make the world safe from fascism has gone the way of the earlier illusion that WWI was fought to make the world safe for democracy. The germ of fascism is endemic in capitalism; a crisis can raise it to epidemic proportions unless drastic countermeasures are applied.

[McCamy Taylor]

27. Right. Fascism is about money. The ideology gets stuck on to increase profits.

No matter what ideology the corporate fascist spouts what he is really saying is the accumulation of wealth in my hands is more important than the lives and liberty of everyone else .

[TBF]

38. We've certainly got that covered -

the gap now between rich & poor is wider than it's been in decades. Huffington Post did a write-up on it this summer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/income-gap-between-rich-a_n_639984.html

[PurgedVoter]

29. K&R simple definition of fascism

Eisenhower and Mussolini agreed on the basic definition of fascism. Since one led by it and the other fought it, I think it is pretty good to use their definitions. Fascism is where the control of corporations and of the state are in the same hands. If you are looking for symptoms or characteristics of fascists, this can also be seen fairly universally. Fascists believe that wars is good and compassion is weakness.

The reason that Fascism appears to be difficult to define, is that the words and symbols used are without real truth. The intent is to divide some people, unite others, and take control. Whatever works is fine for the fascist.

Fascism is what happens when narcissistic, industry leading, sociopaths are allowed to get their way.

Mussolini also said that fascism should be properly be called corporatism.

[glinda]

31. We are there.

[Better Believe It]

36. I would say that is a simplistic definition of fascism. Fascism is also mass movement

financed by a section of the capitalist class and that is organized into armed militias and gangs to crush all working class, liberal and progressive organizations in the streets which enables the fascists to seize political power.

[mmonk]

32. Exposure and marginalization is the main way.

[Doctor_J]

52. Yeah, that's been working so well until now

:eyes:

[mmonk]

53. I don't see the marginalization in our society yet.

We're pretending their xenophobic behavior is a normal position and legitimate debate.

[tavalon]

33. I would have said before, I don't know

But I think it's time to turn local. Let the country go and keep friends and family close. Learn the skills needed for the time after, because fascism will fall too but what comes after is even less organized. We will need a separate economy, a barter economy. That reminds me, I need to go water the lettuce.

[Deep13]

34. For it be truly fascist, the extremists have to succeed in securing legitimate power.

When you see a conservative government breaking up the tea parties because they are a destabilizing force that is no longer needed, then it will be a pretty good indication that fascism is here.

[Better Believe It]

37. So a government that breaks up tea parties indicate a fascist gov't has taken power. Why is that?

[Deep13]

51. Fascists need rabble-rousers to destablize the old status quo...

...to take advantage of the power vacuum. Once in office, that rabble-rousing is now a threat to the fascists. Before coming to power, the Nazis relied on their uniformed thugs, the SA, called brown shirts. Once Hitler became chancellor, he had the brown shirts forcibly dissolved.

[Hydra]

43. The tea party is corporate funded

And very small. The plug can be pulled at any time, which makes it an incredibly convenient and useful tool. The media only covers them because it's part of the program. 500 teabaggers can get massive coverage while a million of us could march and we'd never see it in the MSM.

Given that fact, they won't even have to put them down. One day, they'll simply disappear.

[Doctor_J]

56. On the contrary. The Nazis were fascists while the brownshirts and SA

were causing trouble in the streets. Just because Boner doesn't denounce the tea baggers doesn't mean that he is not the head of a fascist cabal that controls the government that refuses to enact the will of the people.

[Deep13]

58. The SA was dissolved after Hitler came to power. nt

[Doctor_J]

61. It was dissolved after he became Chancellor

and was kept around under a different name for awhile after that to "encourage" people to join the party. It wasn't actually disbanded until Hitler became afraid of Rohm and killed him. At any rate, the teabaggers/SA were key to the fascist takeover

[Deep13]

63. That's what I meant. Yes, necessary for acquiring power...

...but once acquired and consolidated, they become a threat to that power.

[Lorien]

35. Demand campaign finance reform and reinstating the Fairness Doctrine

but we won't because the TV isn't telling us that either is an issue worth our notice, and they never will.

[molly77]

41. Hi, I'm new

Have been reading DU for years . I am wondering why there is any question that we are already in a full blown fascist govt. Amy Goodman has asked the question, "What would be the difference if we had state media?"

How long have we been reading about the laziness of journalists while at the same time their death rates are rising exponentially? Why would we not presume that an honest reporter could not find work.The Sunday morning political shows are a joke now. When bush was in office one could understand extremely conservative spokespeople from congress etc. But why are the same ones on now? The so called liberals are drowned out and interrupted so they can't form a thought.

The definition merging of corporation and govt by Mussolini..well we just had TARP and the banks do not have to account for their gifts from the US taxpayers. While ACORN has to fight ridiculous foolish pranks to be eligible for funding.We cannot correct our mistakes unless we use the right words.I have written to my congress people a LOT! Until I realized, I should not have to beg for them to vote for US instead of corporations.

[Hydra]

44. Welcome to DU

And your insight is penetrating, but be aware that there are many people here who would rather not believe we've gone as far as we have.

I favor your side- if a group of mega-corps can have anything they want from DC, how is that not Fascism?

[Doctor_J]

60. In case you haven't noticed, we can't "demand" anything

please put forth a concrete suggestion.

[Scruffy1]

42. Another great post

[sulphurdunn]

45. He invented the term.

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

He put it in an American context.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

[Alcibiades]

50. Mussolini meant corporate in a different sense

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

Not to be confused with corporatism in the US, which refers to the other sort of corporation.

[sulphurdunn]

62. Yes. I stand corrected

[TheKentuckian]

47. Bring it down with extreme prejudice. That might be horrendous but at such a stage their is little

to lose for a free people.

Better a walk on part in the war than the lead role in a cage.

[MaeScott]

54. Excellent post. Will share w/others, thx. nt

[Panaconda]

55. Perhaps this is not fascism

I wonder if the "illusions" about this culture are not our own, certainly fueled by desegregation, and civil rights, and "cultural revolution", and Church Committees, and Watergate prosecutions and the promise of "reform" on a very broad scale. If, however, we honestly try to date the undeniable beginnings of "corporatism", it starts at the turn of the 20th century.

In a phrase, I'm not sure that what we see isn't the actual face of "liberal democracy", now returned to "normalcy"... just as the right-wing has claimed. And if the "march toward fascism" were to be suddenly reversed by the triumph of the Democrats, etc... how much would really change?

The inverse of the above is just as troubling: if "this" is not "Fascism", does it make it more or less palatable to "accept" the ever accelerating course that we see around us?

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but every time I think about "Fascism" in America, I start to feel manipulated. Is what we fight really a "degenerate" trend, to be countered by a return to "cherished traditions"? I have to admit that I have trouble telling the difference between the two.