I'm still trying to comprehend what fascism is,exactly.

[jbm]

The easy definitions seem to easy,(fascism is when business interests control government)and strike me more being symptons rather then a clear definition.

I'm wondering if fascism is one of those things we identify by looking backwards at it's causes. I've read that all fascist governments shared the same series of events and that those events began with a disenfranchised lower class,while the middle class shared elements with both the ruling class and the poor. If that's true,then I would think that we are in a danger zone right now. The poor received none of the tax benefits given by this administration,yet they experienced an increase in state taxes,and certain services were cut. The middle class benefited from the tax cut,and get to hear things like "tax cuts for the rich" so that they can think,"yup! that's me",but at the same time they have to deal with medical insurance gradually becoming a luxury for them as well,and a steady loss of well paying jobs.

Historically,at some point the lower class will rebel in some fashion,and the middle class will be torn at first,but as things worsen for them,they will align themselves with the lower levels and a leftist surge will occur. This seems to be the defining moment. If the left breaks through and offers up strong leadership that manages to set right the inequalities,then all is well,but if the left is in disarray and unable to lead,then the right returns to power and in order to stabilize and and return to the status quo,they ditch the facades and become totalitarian.

I don't know how accurate my take on this is. The internet is a wonderful learning tool,but at the same time,I've found I learn in bits and pieces and there's no real gauge to measure the validity of the knowledge. Can anyone help me out here? Am I in the ballpark,and if I am..tell me why fascism isn't in our future?

(I hate to post and run,but I gotta leave for awhile..I'll hunt this thread up when I get back. Thanks in advance for any enlightenments you can share with me!)

[RBHam]

1. THIS

[proud patriot]

11. I like FDR's definition

It's something that people can grasp :hi:

[CosmicVortex10]

74. Bass Ackward...

Technically:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.


In reality, its a system where private property is allowed to exist on paper (you have the deed to your house and make payments) but government ultimately controls everything, you AND buisness.

So, its not "fascism is when business interests control government", its the inverse.

[private_ryan]

2. here you go

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
**********
calling everything you don't like fascism cheapens it.

[bobthedrummer]

5. Sure sounds like the neo-conservative agenda

PNAC for instance is a fascist plan not a democratic one.
They even are privatizing war with Private Military Companies/PMC
http://www.icij.org/dtaweb/icij_bow.asp?Section=Chapter&ChapNum=2

[burrowowl]

3. Mussolini said

that facism should be properly called corporatism.
In the USSR, it wasn't communism, but state capitalism.

[HereSince1628]

29. Yes but Mussolini didn't mean corporations.

He meant it as all purpose/activity joined into one body.

The concept of fascism comes from a word that meand bound together.
Mussolini's idea was that the interests of industry, government, and the people would be bound together... Consequently there is a strong central government even to the point of dictatorship.

[MrPrax]

42. Your both right...!

I believe that Mussman's theory of corporatism pertained to 'body' rahter than the legal entity, but there is little to say that these bodies wouldn't find expression in a corporation.

They legally used the term 'syndicates' and that these would bind the parts of the Body. To use the metaphors of Metropolis (a pre-Fascist play/movie); the Brain (management/science) and the Hand (labor) would be mediated by the Heart (The State). The Body would work as one.

One of the least examined aspect of 'corportism' is it explains a system of 'corporates' that would be unified in an economic system that would be ultimately suordinated to the State; such an economic system would then make political representation irrelevent.

This point is one that makes fascism fine favor with most elite theories as, since the People are not politically educated or enlightened, then they are best served by having their interests articulated through these economic units. Generally the system would simply be run by 'all-knowing' elites employed for a greater good.

One can see a certain level of familarity in such other ideologies such as Lenin's 'democratic centralism' or Straussian 'neo-conervative' and why aspects of fascism are popular among the wealthy.

No doubt 'social darwinism' and theories by Velben are precessors to this ideology and, again, why modern neo-conservatism finds expression.

[HereSince1628]

44. Precisely, and BTW "fasces" made it to the US Dime 1916-45

The historic (ancient rome) symbol and the concept of unity and authority was adopted for an American dime,

http://www.coinpeople.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29

[November 2004]

4. My advice is to read up on

Spain, Germany and Italy in the 1930's.

Also, remember as in the Bolshevik revolution, the lower class is too darn tired to really rebel. The middle class must realize it is in their interest to join with them rather than keep reaching for the illusive upper class brass ring.

I would say we are closer to fascism that I'd like to admit.

Patriot Act
Homeland Security
Gap in Money; earnings vs. unearned money; workers vs. execs

It seems that the majority of the middle class is still blaming the poor for their plight and blaming themselves for not reaching the upper class; in other words, we can go either way.

If Bush is reelected in 2004, I seriously believe we are in grave danger.

If any democrat is elected yet the jobs keep leaving, we may have a swing to the left rather than to fascism.

But, I did this all from the gut...what do I know?

:shrug:

:hi:

[Tactical Progressive]

6. Fascism is the opposite of Socialism

Economically that means 'free-market' feudalism.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Tactical Progressive]

54. The Nazi party didn't 'become' Fascist

They were Fascist.

[William Seger]

71. There was nothing "socialist" about the NSDAP

Socialism was a popular idea after WWI, so Hitler was just trying to win the support of German workers by lying about his agenda while actually planning to derail the union movement. (Hmmm... who does that remind me of...) He pretended to be redefining socialism by putting "national" in front, implying an Arian-only variety of socialism, but Hitler really wasn't much interested in political philosophy. He detested both socialism and liberalism mainly because he considered them to be "Jewish" philosophies, and secondarily because they conflicted with his theory that a strong-man dictatorship was the only "natural" form of government. (Hmmm... who does that remind me of...)

One aspect of "modern" fascism, then and now, is that it's based on a phony populism that champions working-class people with loads of lip service (while subliminally appealing to their fears and prejudices), yet offers virtually nothing in the way of an agenda that really benefits working class people. Fascists in the 30s and today believe in social Darwinism, so their agenda always looks after the best interests of the capitalistic ruling class. They "explain" this approach in their propaganda by promising the workers that the benefits will "trickle down" to them, but in reality, social Darwinists don't give a damn about the lower and middle classes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Think Bush + Ashcroft + the military + Exxon on a grand scale.

Throw in lot's of flagwaving, a docile media, a timid opposition, buckets of money, and a good dose of fear of "The Enemy". (Whoever that may be on any given day).

Note: The "Enemy" needn't be foreign. Plenty of domestic enemies to be feared, hated and silenced.

Liberals and other leftists.
Minorities, especially non-white ones.
Feminists.
Environmentalists.
Non Fundamentalist Christians or Jews.
Non Abrahamic religions - plus Muslims
Humanists
Anyone who says that capitalism isn't the answer to every problem.
Anyone who thinks that the DumbSon is a sociopathic boob.
Journalists who ask questions.

And, many more.

[jwb48]

8. Very Useful Tread

I think this is very useful thread. And I believe we should carefully examine the lessons of history and see these times more clearly. This is about more than an election, or even a specific candidate. The issue is changing the direction of this country before we no longer have the tools to do it without incredible loss of life and liberty. This is a movement against a predictable outcome of the current policies. Not that I think the likes of GW are well versed enough to purposely lead us to fascism, but since he doesn't read or receive input from anyone other than his staff, since it appears someone else is pulling the strings behind his presidency, since this movement to the right has been orchestrated by a well-financed web of power, these things combine to form a dark picture of where we are headed. Seeing this perspective pits movement against movement, and squashes the pettiness of status quo politics. In a movement that pits democracy in a republic against fascism and totalitarianism, we have many allies on both the left and right of the political spectrum.

[proud patriot]

20. Very important to learn what we can from the past so as to avoid

repeating mistakes made in history .

[coda]

9. Here's a link to an article I had in files.

though it's from '92.

http://www.remember.org/hist.root.what.html



And a quote from Mussolini that confirms one of it's main tenets.


"Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."

_Benito Mussolini

[mouse7]

10. Dumbya with a mustache

You know how the "evil" Spock had a beard in the mirror universe?

Same thing.

Bush grows a mustache and people recognize exactly what type of govenment we have here.

[ret5hd]

12. See this thread for a partial answer:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=962291

While not the main point of the thread, the writer postulates that fascism is essentially fundamentalism applied to the socioeconomic realm.

<snip from article linked from above link>
One scholar suggested that it's helpful to understand fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political fundamentalism.
</snip>

Makes sense to me...ymmv

[PATRICK]

13. Defined into narrow inconsequence

Sounds like a familiar process now. Processes friendly to the imitiation(but not the label) of fascism are in full swing, replete with the most successful methodologies applied to a more libertarian, afffable and materialistic segment of the population. Looking up the definitions is very disappointing. The narrow experience of Italy and Germany and Spain becomes the core content not the example of repeating processes. That other dialogue takes place among the left. A good example of the disconnect was the spirited "debate" between Gore Vidal and William Buckley Jr. at the Chicago Democratic Convention in 1968.

It has become instead a controversial epithet, a horrific episode for the Hollywood myth mills(the good guys always win), or that academic discussion among historians. Very early in the fifties, the GOP and the right lunged at the opportunity to shift the brand to cover Communism and all things socialistic. In their reaction all names that might well apply to them and all names of socially progressive virtues were twisted and anathemized. In their flight from "Democratic" "socialism" "liberal" they became what they tried to put on their Dorian Gray portrait of the left. The people wanted to believe that as well, first from war weariness, then from a succession of fears, irritations and animus the Democrats(hardly a leftist party)never understood or dealt with except in the losing losing ways of the 30's German left(in fact more ineffectual than that as time went on).

Far better, far far better is to see the trajectories of right wing behavior or statist, corporatist, despotic and robber baron power grabs through the sorry centuries. It does not dilute the particular animal that was post-WWI and Depression Europe but shows out of what arises the worst evils. During a psychological study(Vermont, ironically?) the army tried to determine what set freedom loving America apart from Germany so that it hadn't and wouldn't happen here. Instead they found the "elements" of fascism actually stronger in bedrock main street America.

I think it had to be for it to go so bad in pluralistic, libertarian and relatively well off America.

The right, smarting from the unwravelling of their global moves in the 40's(isolationism balanced with selective empire buuilding)is now up to its old old tricks. The brash newcomers who thought socialism would be the power gambit to use the exploited masses now seem a convenient bugaboo to heighten the right reaction. The real threat to the right is the middle ground, the countries embracing prosperity, democracy, progress, peace and socialistic governance on behalf of the people.(Which is why, if an economic collapse must take place this year, Bushco will strive heartily to crunch Europe in the chosen scenario).

The scoundrels who hide from or behind this interest in labels are the same. The breakdown of the global electorate into the naively complacent, the riled activists, the suckers and the privileged is depressingly the same. Mediocrity as an invitation laced with overwhelming greed is ever offered to a new generation "cured" of the old demons. Once swept out(as Bush's famous favorite philosopher once said) and nothing replaced, new guests arrive into the clean quarters much much worse than the first.

Was the obeisance to authority, the fertile ground of torn Germany and Italy, the passion for national values against tepid modernist progressive governance become a lazy even repressive status quo- was all that so common to Gemrany it couldn't happen here? Marx thought social revolt must start in Germany. He never considered the opposite being as being as likely or more so. In a sense he typified the difficulty in getting a handle on the self made evils of the human race and putting a face on the particular exploiters who must always be there to bring it out. Four generations of Bushes have engaged in war profiteering from all sides before during and after, with barely a nip of punishment. The gold teeth of Holocaust victims slain in the ovens they financed is something they will not think a=bout, but they will spend to make the general right wing corporatist dream ascendant in America. If we are going to start blaming the human condition. I think it polite to honor the top of the pyramid first, but not ignore the whole monstrosity a single good guy/bad guy war can never really solve. It is always most easy to become what you are fighting. The criminals who trigger the malignancy must be named and punished. The participation of the good must be strengthened to the nth degree for our very survival is at stake in modern times.

Often we see the opposite in our anguish. We punish the masses for their social vices and sidestep the criminals occupying the seat of all comfortable myths. Like Montaigne during the Wars of Religion, we retreat to our cyber towers(or Canada) to restore our philosophical sanity. We can never seem to expose or punish them. The nasty Bush dynasty may be one of history's most ignoble examples. That teflon cloak over an evil too many people(who ironically believe in the Devil and call him Marx)do not believe in. The greatest power a piece of common wisdom and a hackneed saying never applied to our own despots. Anti-truth, murderous planetary and racial "abortion". The difficulty of defining in this schismatic rationality is itself a political struggle.

Don't get hopeful over analyses. Get busy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Great analysis!! Must read for everybody.

The re-emergence of fascism under the cloak of "free-enterprise" and disguised as "patriotism", though doomed, has, and will continue to kill millions and lay waste to the planet.

For the most part, Americans, and most of the industialized world refuse to acknowledge what is happening, because in the famous words of Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us." We continue to enjoy the "good life" of materialism on the backs of the rest of the world.
At some point, they will arise in their anger and come for us. The religious fanatics of Al-queda are but the first tiny tremor of the coming catastrophe. It won't be motivated by some God or other, but by our own greed and negligence of our brothers and sisters.

As you say, we must "strengthen the good" and get busy.

[karlschneider]

30. With a modicum of gentle editing for a few small spelling, syntax and

grammatic oversights, your piece would be a very excellent candidate for an op-ed in any major media venue. If that was an extemporaneous posting, you are wasting your talents here! :D

[RBHam]

34. what doe extramporaneous mean?

some of us are just truck drivers

lol
:-)
by the way, what the hell did he say?
:shrug:

[PATRICK]

85. a member of Typo-holics Anonymoose

Dashed off with barely a glance at the inevitable. Hope sprongs eternal, I suppose. A casualty of my schedule. As for op-eds, languishing at the doorstep of the politically conservative high and mighty seems less important than just getting ideas out to a smaller number of receptive minds.

Probably not managing my time to its optimum, but there it is. I think there is more work needed on the points too. The problem is not the glories, infirmities and starry-eyed historical labeling of human activity, but ordinary human nature itself. Somehow history is always used before during and after a crime to sidestep actual responsibility and box it with the most impressive bow. Hamlet made some such comment, the irony of his own disastrous processes confirming his observation, dooming his decision making. "The fault...lies in ourselves."

Hamlet would be a Democrat- and an angry one. King Claudius, be not comforted.

Postal Worker

[jbm]

37. Thank you for the analysis!

Although I must confess,I'm going to have to reread it in the morning whne my brain is functioning a little better,but I'm impressed!

[rman]

53. ^^^^^ kick

-

[seemslikeadream]

14. Fascism is capitalism plus murder

Upton Sinclair

[wanderingbear]

15. fascism = Control.. It is the opposite of liberty.

[Thoth]

27. Great summary and a good bumper sticker!

:-)

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[ldoolin]

17. I'll take a stab

In ordinary circumstances, the political right represents the interests of the very rich, the aristocracy, the ruling class if you will. That's conservatism. The left represents the interests of the common people. Liberalism simply means modern western notions of democracy, progress, and human rights.

Fascism emerges when the political right breaks out of being limited to a movement of the upper classes, and becomes a broad based mass movement, as the lower and middle classes are convinced that it is in their interests to support the political policies of the right. Unlike traditional conservatism, fascism is anti-liberal. Fascism is generally characterized by:

Contempt for modern notions of democracy and human rights
Contempt for the "weak" and for notions of equality
Demagoguery, rallying the people against imagined enemies (environmentalists, homosexuals, peaceniks, Jews, socialists, liberals, other races, other religions, etc.)
Nihilism, social Darwinism, and maybe some postmodernist elements
A strong "organic" leader emerging, promising to bring law and order and to put an end to the alleged threats from imagined enemies, in exchange for dictatorial powers

And yes, American is definitely in the danger zone right now. We haven't gotten to the dictatorial organic leader stage yet but we definitely have demagogues rallying much of the public against imagined enemies, a lot of people hold antiliberal and nihilistic views including a lot of young people who think they are being rebellious by doing so, and the right has emerged as a mass movement with large numbers of working class and middle class people convinced that the right rather than the left represents their interests.

All that's left before full-fledged fascism emerges is a strong leader being given dictatorial powers. (Bush if he wins in 2004?)

[Thoth]

28. Well said!

[ldoolin]

31. Thanks

Thanks...and I was going to mention the Orcinus blog too as the poster below did. He seems to have a good understanding of how today's "conservatives" are on the same path that historically has led to fascism. Also another point I wanted to make but slipped my mind when I was posting: Fascism is not limited to Germany, Italy, Spain, and Portugal during the 1930s and 1940s, some of the Latin American dictatorships of the 1970s such as Pinochet in Chile had the same characteristics. And I also think the North Korea government, which originally was Marxist-Leninist, has devolved into something very closely resembling fascism: "great leader" or organic leader worship, demagoguery against imagined racial enemies (Japanese in their case), and blood and soil ideology.

[Snow]

88. Right - although North Korea was and still is more

Stalinist than anything else. Dunno what to call them now, other than an incompetent mess. South Korea was a military dictatorship, essentially fascist, from after WWII up till Kim Daejoong assumed the presidency. They hauled themselves out of it, but they also had to overcome their fear of the North and their belief that only having a military dictator could protect them from it.

[jbm]

38. Thank you for this....

I appreciate all of you taking the time to explain this more thoroughly.

[SanMig22]

62. Can fascists be liberals?

While I think your explanations above are generally dead-on, and have a gut-level aversion to associating fascism with anything positive, I'll devil's advocate on the assertion that "fascism is anti-liberal."

Liberal, as the opposite of conservative, is used to mean "receptive to change in order to make society better" more than the connotation I assume you're using here - "insisting on dignity and human rights for all."

In the former sense, fascists can be extremely liberal - liberal in a bad sense. They're usually quite restless for change - and eager to trample their enemies in the process - to realize their (however twisted) vision of a better society.

[ldoolin]

89. I would say not

Because no matter what definition one uses for liberal, it has inherent in it a belief in human rights and civil rights. Once somebody abandons those, they cease to be a liberal, and fascism by definition is contemptuous of human rights and civil rights. The two are mutually exclusive.

"Receptive to change in order to make society better" could apply across the political spectrum. Liberals are receptive to change in order to make society better; so are conservatives, communists, fascists, anarchists, moderates, monarchists, and just about everybody else. So I see that as a meaningless definition of liberal.

[DrBB]

18. Best brief analysis and definition on the web: Orcinus (link)

"Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An Exegesis" is David Neiwert's rather lengthy, but incredibly concise and useful piece on American Fascism. Neiwerth made his bones studying the Patriot movement. He gives a nice overview of all the major opinions on the definition of fascism, and proposes an incredibly concise and useful one.

If what you're looking for is something other than the loose, grab-bag usage that prevails here and on the Left generally--definitions created mostly for defining Bush in, rather than for making real and useful distinctions--Neiwert's piece is the real deal.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/

Look on the left nav bar--you'll find the html and PDF versions there.

[burrowowl]

68. Great find, the Smirk

and Mussolini do resemble in SMIRKS!

[Breezy du Nord]

19. My Amer. Gov teacher told us facism is a response to communism

Facist regimes in history seem to exhibit this, apparently. Actually, it was knid of funny when I got into a debate in this class with a conservative boy. He said that communists and facists are one in the same, but I don't really think that's true. I had a good time going at it with him though.

[Judi Lynn]

21. Right wing posters have been trying to distance themselves from "fascists"

for a couple of years.

I saw my first one try to make the connection between fascism and communism a couple of years ago on a message board.

Truly pathetic.

If they can sell ignorant people on this ploy, they stand completely free of any negative associations, whatsoever, and the "left" absorbs all the historical reference of fiendish, brutal thuggery of all fascists, as well as European and Chinese communists.

Nice trick if you can pull it off. The only people who will buy it, however, are illiterate.

[Maximus Darius]

22. If the left breaks through and offers up strong leadership...

- "- We must bear in mind that imperialism is a world system, the last stage of capitalism — and it must be defeated in a world confrontation. The strategic end of this struggle should be the destruction of imperialism."


>>>>"If the left breaks through and offers up strong leadership that manages to set right the inequalities,then all is well,..."

"VIVA LA REVOLUCION CUBANA", "VIA EL CHE", "VIVA FIDEL"...

[Judi Lynn]

25. Don't forget a Battista supporting Cuban, Rolando Masferrer

Who met his death in Miami, in an inter-"exile" dispute, resulting in a car-bombing:

Another well-publicized killing in Miami was that of ROLANDO MASFERRER.

MASFERRER had been a senator in Cuba, but was best known for a small army he commanded in Cuba, known as "Masferrer's Tigers". He used this small army prior to CASTRO'S assumption of power in Cuba to best down any factions which opposed the Cuban government. In Miami he was owner and editor of a Spanish language newspaper named "Libertad". On October 31, 1975, he was blown up by a bomb when he started his car parked at his home.

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_051-075/doc0073.htm



He aided the Battista State police in running down dissidents, beating, torturing, and murdering them. Also published a right-wing newspaper.

Very ugly person.

[jbm]

36. actaully,not long after I posted this..

I got to thinking about that particular sentence and realized it was incorrect. Your point is well taken.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

23. We became a Fascist-governed country in December 2000...

...the day that the U. S. Supreme Court selected Junior and the NeoCons to occupy the centers of government.

Fascism is already here.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. My definition...

Communist Russia/China but run by a corporation.

[doc03]

26. Fascism

A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Sound familiar
hmmmmmmm!

[nemo137]

32. for a really good definition, check out

roger eatwell's book "Fascism: a history." it also has case studies of countries where fascism did and didn't work.

[Cleita]

33. It's foundation is lies.

No one mentioned the lies, but facism is based on lies, on getting the masses to follow, so the fascists can pursue their agenda without interference from the ordinary citizen. Yes, Saddam is an evil man. We will invade Iraq to free the Iraqi people from a bad man. You must give us your nineteen-year-old children to sacrifice them to get this bad man. We got the bad man! *wave flags in a burst of patriotism.* Ooops! Things are going bad? We have an orange alert because even though we got the bad man, there is another bad man. Give us more nineteen-year-olds to sacrifice for the mother' er homeland.

[usregimechange]

35. same as authoritarianism n/t

[jbm]

39. Thanks to everyone who replied...

I am always amazed at the level of intelligence at this site. I appreciate all the links and references to other sources that were posted here. Have a great night!:)

[SanMig22]

40. Is North Korea fascist?

"Fascism is when business interests control government" is getting it backwards, as the definition of a dictatorship is total control - therefore the ruler by definition must have control over business interests.
Still, a fascist system will settle into one in which business interests and the dictator walk in lockstep in subjugating and terrorizing the people.
But a question: Look at the dictionary definition of fascism in the "Here you go" post above, and the extant government that most matches it is North Korea's. But few if any people call Pyongyang fascist.
Is that because North Korea is (ostensibly) communist? Can a country be communist and fascist at the same time, or are the two mutually exclusive?

[ldoolin]

46. It resembles fascism

I mentioned it in a post above. I think the case with North Korea is they were originally communist but have devolved into something else, that has many of the same characteristics as fascism does.

The usual route to fascism comes from a mass movement of the right fed by demagugues stirring up hatred against imagined enemies, and then a strong dictatorial leader emerging with promises to stamp out those enemies. Since North Korea didn't follow that route they aren't often referred to as fascist.

I would say that North Korea today closely resembles fascism but might not be fascist in the dictionary sense. They like many other countries had a Marxist-Leninist revolution, but after the Korean War started adding some "innovations" to communism which they called the Juche Idea, roughly translated as national self-reliance. They isolated themselves from other countries, including to some extent the other communist countries, and set out to try and build and completely self-contained economy. Added to this was a growing worship of Kim Il Sung as an organic leader of the Korean people, demagoguery over imagined "threats" from Japan which often take the form of anti-Japanese racism, a militarism pervading society, and a racialist "blood and soil" ideology, all of which are hallmarks of fascism. So yes, I would say that they have something today that closely resembles fascism, and has little in common with communism.

Welcome to DU :toast:

[SanMig22]

48. Looks like a duck

Thanks for the welcome...and for the thorough answer.

A case could be made for North Korea having traveled the "usual route" to fascism that you described: It began with a mass movement by fervent nationalist demagogues stirring up hatred (and starting a war) against imagined enemies - mainly Koreans perceived to have collaborated with the Japanese when Korea was a colony of Japan from 1910 to 1945.

And to say that North Korea has little in common with communism won't fly, because - its innumerable flaws and human-rights abuses aside - its factors of production are completely owned and controlled by the state, which is the basic definition of communism.

I take it that you think communism and fascism are mutually exclusive. Most of my friends on both the left and the right feel likewise, based on the answers I get when I ask this North Korea question. For my part, I don't have any problem describing Pyongyang as both. But they - evidently too stuck in dogmatic left-right labels (?) - can't bring themselves to do so.

[ldoolin]

90. A couple of points

The factors of production being completely owned and controlled by the state is not the basic definition of communism. Communism is where the factors of production are held in common by all the people - whether through the state or not. There can be voluntary communism (people who live communally and share everything under their roof), communism where industries are run as worker owned collectives without any state ownership (anarcho-syndicalism or council communism), and state communism (Marxism-Leninism). Under Marxist-Leninist theory they are held by the state, or by the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" which claims to act in the name of the people, with the eventual goal of the state withering away and people living in a "natural" communistic fashion.

Also, there could certainly be situations where the state owns and controls the factors of production, which are not communism. The term "communism" would apply here only if the state were doing this along the lines of Marxist theory with an intent of bringing about an eventual withering away of the state. Example: A government which owns and controls all the land and factors of production, and allows a few people nominal control over portions of the government's land in exchange for swearing fealty to the king, is feudalism, not communism. Even though the state owns everything.

I do think that North Korea drifted far from any intention of following Marxist-Leninist theory (other than lip-service), and certainly from any intentions of trying to bring about a "natural" communistic society where the state would wither away, many years if not decades ago. The "Juche idea" has all of the usual hallmarks of fascism, so even if North Korea still has all the land and means of production state-owned (for now), they're no longer communist. I have looked at some of the newspapers and books coming out of Pyongyang, and was struck by how closely the writings resembled those from Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany - and how little they had in common with those coming from, say, Cuba or China. You seem to not agree but I believe that fascism and communism are mutually exclusive.

[Snow]

92. Hmm. Try this thought....

I always thought of North Korea (and South Korea under Park Chunghee) as quintessentially Stalinist, with 5-year plans, collectivized farms, etc. However, the Juche thing smacks as much of the isolation that the late Chosun dynasty favored (with good reason) and may stem from those roots. It may well be fascistic anyway, but sort of 'parallel political evolution', as it were. Does that make sense?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. More like Tsarist Russia than Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany.

Simply saying that it's communist don't make it so. Just as Stalin's Russia had little to do with communism and a hell of a lot to do with dictatorial powers by one man.

Just as the National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI for short) had nothing to do with Socialism and destroyed the unions that represented the workers. In fact Hitler worked hand in glove with the capitalists who saw him as a bulwark against the workers and socialists.

Can a country be Communist and Fascist at the same time? No. Can they be similar in their use of power? Yes. A simlar question could be asked, "Can a coutry be both democratic and fascist?" The answer would appear to be Yes. It's more than conceivable that the people of a country could democratically elect a fascist government. Or, a communist or socialist government.

Want to know why I find Anarchism (with a capital "A") appealing?

[SanMig22]

61. Can a country be communist and fascist at the same time?

Please, skip the analogies and arguments for the capitalization of common nouns and explain why you think a country can't be communist and fascist at the same time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Oh, so sorry to confuse you.

Try this.

Communism is a theory of government in which all hierarchy of class and race is subservient to the needs of the community. A system which advocates the abolition of wealth in which property is held in common by all for the use of all. It is anti-nationalistic.

Fascism is a theory of government that is extremely hierarchical in which wealth and power are held in the hands of the few. It is highly nationalistic and militarist.

You should, if you take some time to think about it, be able to figure out that Fascism and Communism are antithetical.

I imagine you may respond by saying that North Korea, which claims to be communist, shows many of attribtutes of fascism. I agree. The operative word being "claims".

What I'm curious about is, what point are you trying to make?

North Korea is a brutal dictatorship, no matter what it calls itself. Or you, I, or anyone may call it.

[SanMig22]

65. North Korea's not communist?

"The point I'm trying to make" is that North Korea neatly fits into any objective definition of communism as well as any objective definition of fascism.

Nevertheless, people on both the left and right - despite Pyongyang's racist nationalism, society-consuming militarism and human-rights atrocities - balk at calling it fascist.

I'd never heard anyone balk at calling North Korea communist, though...but you say and stress that it only claims to be communist. Do you mean to say that North Korea is capitalist?

The simplest definition of communism is a system in which the state owns the factors of production. The opposite is capitalism, in which the private sector owns the factors of production.

Your definition of communism is more like a statement of the positives that a healthy communist system would bring about.

[Snow]

93. I tend to agree that North Korea's not communist,

I think that's simply a label of convenience they adapted. Case in point: former dictator Park Chunghee was 'president' of the 'democracy' of South Korea during the 70's and 80's. However, in thelate 1940's, as an army colonel, he led a rebellion in a southern provincial city, for which his brother was executed, and at that point in time he was - a communist. It's all opportunism, IMHO, and a number of Korea scholars refer to the north as the 'last monarchy' of Korea. That may be as apt a description as any, except that most Korean monarchs were considerably more competent. The final dynasty lasted over 500 years, and you don't do that with either incompetence or brutality.

[Mike Niendorff]

66. (handy-dandy time-saver post (tm))

What I'm curious about is, what point are you trying to make?

Let me save everyone some time here.

What this poster is doing is trying (aggressively) to inject the RW talking-point of "fascism == left-wing" into this thread. If s/he can't sell that idea, the fallback will be "well, ok, it may not be 'left wing', but it isn't really 'right wing' either".

This bit of apologetics is a *major* staple of the far right and their neo-fascist fringe elements. Using this method, they simultaneously (1) disavow their association with historical fascist states and (2) attempt to redirect blame for those states' atrocities onto "leftists", "communists", "socialists" and pretty much anyone else that's on their list of Officially Approved Enemies (which conveniently excludes themselves, of course). Worst case, they'll fall back on the "fair and balanced" boilerplate claim that "the left wing is at least as much to blame for fascism as the right wing is (but really much, much more so ... just as soon as we can get you to buy into that!)".

Once they've managed to convince the reader that "left wingers" are the real source of fascism (or, at minimum, no less blameworthy as the fascist right), then they'll proceed to further redirect conversation away from the dangers of the far right and focus exclusively on their newly-injected theme : "the dangers of left wing fascism". In no time at all, any mention of "right wing fascists" will completely disappear from the conversation.

In the end, it all just dovetails right back into their RW recruitment literature, with all historical evils being projected onto "the left" and any potential scrutiny of the fascist right being intercepted, blocked, and redirected toward the RW's more-preferred enemies.

This is a well-practised propaganda tactic of the far right, and any DU'er who looks into the history of fascism should be well-prepared to deal with it.


MDN

[SanMig22]

67. Uh, no.

I resent your accusations.

I'm simply trying to understand why people think a country can't be both fascist and communist, which North Korea seems to be.

Think out of the box, friend.

[Mike Niendorff]

69. resent it all you want.

You're working from a standard-issue RW propaganda script, and I called you on it. Deal with it.


MDN

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Mike Niendorff]

77. My, how nice of you to take all that time to explain this agenda ...

... that you claim not to have. :eyes:

I do, however, find it interesting that you don't seem to be even remotely concerned with fascism -- either in theory or in practice -- except as it relates to (1) North Korean communists and (2) American liberals.

Gee, I wonder what else that tells us about this agenda that you allegedly don't have ...


MDN

[Judi Lynn]

76. Outstanding points, and accurate.

I've seen this comical attempt to combine communism, fascism, appearing on message boards for over a year.

Absolutely odd, isn't it? Makes you wish you could get a good look at the giant ultra-right wing-nut who "thought" it up, doesn't it? Lordalmighty.

Thanks a lot.

[SanMig22]

78. 2 questions, no insults

O.K., JudiLyn. Skip the lame (and false) personal insults and answer me two questions.

Is North Korea communist? I say yes.

Is North Korea fascist? I say yes.

If you say no to either, explain why.

By no means am I saying communism and fascism are the same thing. I'm just saying they're not mutually exclusive.

Remember, this whole post is about what fascism means. It's quite interesting to compare how people use the word with its objective definition.

Deciding whether you think Pyongyang is fascist helps to indicate if you think the term fascist is exclusive to the right, or can also be used to describe governments on the left.

Fascism seems more at home on the right, but Pyongyang's case shows that it can exist anywhere on the political spectrum.

[burrowowl]

70. Fell in love with

Anarchy when I was 10. No need for archies if everyone acts with responsibility. Or maybe as Jesus said: Love God with all yourself and Love thy neighbor as thyself.

[K-W]

41. One thing alot of people are getting wrong

Facism is not corporate control over the government. It is control over the government by one group. Facism comes about when the elites get so scared that they put a radical right group in power. The radical right group convinces the elites that they are the only way to save corporate interests and then, in the case of a democracy, uses propaganda/nationalism/racism etc to get power. Then the government heavily funds the military, to both feed corporate elites and to wage wars to increase and sustain a nationalistic fervor.

Facism in capitalism is a predictable response to times of economic panic. The USA solved its last major economic upheavel using liberalism. Creating a middle class buffer and sharing enough wealth and political power with the majority to keep them relatively satisified domestically, and internationally by opening markets for corporations by any means neccessary.

The question is, why now do we seem to be dismantaling liberalism in exchange for facism. The answer lies in the economic shifts in the country. After WW2, Europe had to rebuild, Japan had to rebuild, the soviet union was far from industrialized. The US had relative monopolies on much of the worlds production and the corporations could afford liberalism. As Japan and Europe grew, they cut into that monopoly. US corporations had to compete and competition means having to reduce prices and that leads corporations to cut costs. That brings us to the modern economy.

So the corporations are freaking out. They are afraid that Japan and Eurpope are going to drastically cut into their profits. If Japan and Europe surpass the US or even match it in economic power, the world system, which is rigged in favor of the US is going to change and US corporations are not going to be able to sustain thier current profits. And, anyone who knows capitalism can tell you, corporations expect perpetual growth and hardly deal with stagnating profits. Reduced profits is something they will do desperate things to avoid.

The one area the US does still have a monopoly on is military production. That has been one of the economic strategies to deal with the changing global economy. Spending on the military feeds dollars into corporations and keeps the US the main source of military products in the world.

So, US corporations are desperate, they are pulling thier dollars out of liberalism, but in a democracy, they cannot afford people being unhappy, so they need some way to control the people. That leads them to conservatism, which offers an alternative way to control people. Rather than giving them a share of the wealth and power, it undercuts the political power of the masses and strengthens the power of the state against populist movements at the polls or in the streets. So the corporations bankroll a conservative movement, in hopes that it can ensure domestic stability and take drastic international measures in the global market. For Germany, it was meant to break into the global market. They wanted back into the european economic market and they wanted thier own empire. Britin and france werent about to let germany get in easy and germany wasnt willing to settle for thier terms. For the US, the goal is to retain economic control over the world to protect international liberalism. That is why we are in Iraq. If we control the oil, we have significant control over the european and japanese economies. It is all there in PNAC. They are as cognicint as any liberal of the situation.

So the question is, how radical are the neo-cons and how desperate are the corporations. There is strong reason to suspect that things are only going to get worse for the US economy as the European Union strengthens and Japan continues its efficient industry.

[PATRICK]

86. So not really the "ideal" Global world

But a high level War of the Roses among Corporations for which we are both prize and cannon fodder. Governments seem hardly to compete except in how to be efficient lackeys. That isn't globalism at all but world war. The real globalism is a unitive, cooperative process that the selfish minded have merely co-opted for their expanded battlefield. Like any other career grouping, coroporate moguls not only protect their own against outside attack, but are blind to the monsters in their midst.

This is the same result one would have when suffering under military despots(more upfront) and other dysfunctional forces against civilization. If I hear one more time how this system is "not perfect, but" I am going to ask just when the unecessary pain level will be great enough to put better people in charge of the world's affairs- and how that will inevitably be too late.

[Iverson]

43. consider the root word and maybe these books

fasces - a bundle of sticks tied together

You get the image: strength through unity and sublimating the individual to the group.

This book by Kevin Passmore is a good start.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192801554/qid=1072618843/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5720271-5535115?v=glance&s=books

Also, Art and Propaganda in the 20th Century has an excellent chapter on fascism.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0810927136/qid=1072618933/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-5720271-5535115?v=glance&s=books

[DrBB]

45. Everyone interested in this topic should know about Orcinus

I posted on it above, but as the thread gets longer people disregard older posts, and it's worth having up twice:

David Niewert's blog, Orcinus, is one of the best things on the web in terms of having a concrete, rigorous definition of fascism and using that as a basis for monitoring its development in the US. Niewert cut his teeth on this topic investigating the so-called Patriot movement in the Northwest. His piece called "Rush, Fascism and Newspeak," which ran on Cursor, is a concise overview of scholarly definitions of fascism, and narrows in on a rigorous one that allows for real distinctions among right wing phenomena. It's crucial, IMO, not to go around labelling everything the corporatists do as "fascist," since that will prevent us from recognizing the real thing when it arrives.

I know a lot of people here are conversant with rigorous treatments of the subject, so I'm not addressing them, but for those who haven't made any systematic study of this stuff Niewert provides the best intro to it on the web, IMO. You owe it to yourself to check it out.

And the blog itself is always interesting.

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

47. I downloaded "Rush, Fascism and Newspeak"

and read it and it was very well written and well worth the five bucks he asked for it.

[Mike Niendorff]

56. I also found it to be well written and worth the time to read.

For those who are interested, the link to the .pdf file on his site is screwed up -- the correct link is as follows :

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/Rush%20Newspeak%20%20Fascism.pdf

As to the content of the piece, my only major criticism is that he spends a little too much of his time expounding on his theories about RW "transmitters" (ie: RW media and activists which are used by neo-fascists to launder their views for public consumption by the broader "conservative" movement). I think the concept is sound, but he could have made the point much more concisely (ie: without spending 40 or so pages on it :) ), and he could also have dug a bit deeper into how their aggressive exploitation of "traditionalist" and "national revival" motifs ties directly into the fascist ideal of a return to the glories of a mythic past.

As to his definition of fascism, I think it's pretty good, and he ties together a lot of views from a lot of somewhat-differing sources into a good overarching picture. I particularly like the fact that he seems to understand that fascism is an adaptive ideology -- it does not manifest itself in the same way everywhere. German fascism was different from Italian fascism. American-born fascism is, likewise, adapting itself to the particular circumstances and history of this country (for example: by incorporating "Christian", rather than Germanic-pagan, religious imagery into its nationalist mythology).

This is a very important concept, and one that a lot of people seem to miss when talking about this subject. Fascism is deeply intertwined with a brand of extremist ultra-nationalism, but this ultra-nationalism openly adapts itself to the differing historical (and cultural, and "racial") characteristics of its different nationalist audiences. Mussolini referred to the concept as the Theory of the Organic State, wherein the individual was merely a carrier -- a vessel -- for the coveyance and survival of an overarching "national organism" -- an organism which, of course, found its full embodiment and expression through the fascist state. The individual was merely one disposable cell within this larger animal. The nature and behavior of this "national organism" were determined by the national, cultural and racial identity of the people who comprised it. Its "will" was, of course, whatever its (fascist) leaders declared it to be.

In this context, international conflicts are re-cast as Darwinistic struggles for survival between various "cultures" and "races" which have been recast, in the fascist mind, literally as living national entities -- entities whose lives and interests extend beyond those of the individual transient human beings who are the nation/state/race's "carriers" for a given generation.

When you hear RWers screaming and carrying on about "culture wars", this is what they are really talking about. A fair number of them probably do not yet realize that they have adopted one of the major tenets of fascist ideology -- but, if their movement continues down this road, it will ultimately make no difference whether they realize it or not.


MDN

[ldoolin]

91. It's a very good work, in general

Well, I have my own criticisms of Neiwert's lines of reasoning sometimes too. (I find him problematic for the same reasons I find Chip Berlet, Leonard Zeskind, and Jonathan Mozzochi to be problematic. I can go into specifics if anyone wants to hear it.)

But that particular work of his, and his writings on fascism in general, are excellent. As are his reporting on right-wing vigilanteism and harassment of liberals, especially over the Iraq war.

[corporatewhore]

51. mussolini sez

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

[MysticMind]

55. in universal political standards..

Fascism is not a capitalist system. In universal standards extreme capitalists are liberals, while conservatives want the government and business to work together to plan the economy for the benefit of business and economic growth.

In Britain and America the conservative parties have become more liberal and favor more laissez-faire policies. American liberalism is closer to being social democratic than universally liberal, although Democrats like Clinton added more liberal policies to their agenda(ie. free trade).

I would assume fascism takes the government and business to working together to plan the economy for the benefit of business and economic growth to the extreme.

[baldguy]

57. Think of the worst rat-faced, picayune, inept, evil corporate bastard.

And put him in a uniform, and give him legal authority to do whatever he wants.

That's fascism.

[annak110]

58. From Carsten's The Rise of Fascism, a general definition:

The 1920s and the 1930’s saw a rise in Fascism (corporatism) that culminated in the second world war of the twentieth century. The outcome in Italy, Germany, Finland, Spain, Flanders, Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Rumania, involved a takeover of extant governments. There were fascist movements in the U.K, in France and in the U.S. as well. Corporate owners from the U.S. supported these movements and, ultimately, supported and traded with Hitler whose movement was, at the time, the most successful and, after the war, helped to bring a number of fascists to the United States and to Central and South America (Klaus Barbie was one of these). Hitler’s keepers wanted to rule the world hence “The New World Order” was much discussed by fascists. A man named F.L Carsten who grew up in fascist Germany wrote a book, which was published in the ‘60s, entitled, The Rise of Fascism. In this book Carsten offers a rather long list of commonalities among the Fascist movements part of which follows:

“…they were not only strongly nationalist and violently anti-Communist and anti-Marxist…(they)not only hated Liberalism and democracy and the political parties … they wanted to eliminate them and to replace them by a new authoritarian and corporative state. In this state there would only be one party; its hierarchy would overlap with that of the state and its machinery would take over functions of the state. Its members would be the only ones entitled to hold high state offices…early members considered themselves called upon to save and to lead their nation…their parties were conceived as tightly organized semi-military machines with which state and society were to be conquered…part of the movements’ ideology was a powerful myth…of the nation and the race…above all there was the myth of the ‘Leader’ who was venerated like a Saint by the faithful, who could do no wrong and must not be criticized, who was God-given, and to whom superhuman qualities were attributed…”

Carsten believed that this rise in Fascism “was due to a malaise, and maladjustment of capitalist society, the victims of which were the lower middle classes more that any other social group.”

Someone has asked here why Hitler’s party was called “National Socialist” well it certainly was not because the German Fascists really thought of themselves as “Socialists”, and they certainly were not Socialists (unfortunately) Socialism was an enemy of Fascism. However, Socialism was making serious inroads among the people who were then poverty stricken, many could not get work. Fascism, elitist as it is, could not really get close to out-of-work workers, it had not been able to do so in the earlier part of the century. Workers had seen a depression, had lost jobs, were coming into a second depression and were seeing the appeal of Socialism, so the opportunistic Fascists in Germany grabbed the name that would help them get worker support. Obviously the movement cared little for workers.

[Mike Niendorff]

59. Regarding German fascism (quoting from Mein Kampf)

Hitler, from the very beginning, was quite open about choosing party names that were specifically designed to dupe working-class people into supporting him, even as he simultaneously schemed to demolish the union movement, to murder leftists and "socialists", and to replace any semblance of working-class solidarity with his own brand of virulant, anti-Semitic nationalism.

To quote from Mein Kampf (volume 1, chapter 8) :

"Thus, in our own circle we discussed the foundation of a new party. The basic ideas which we had in mind were the same as those later realized in the ' German Workers' Party.' The name of the movement to be founded would from the very beginning have to offer the possibility of approaching the broad masses; for without this quality the whole task seemed aimless and superfluous."

-- Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf
-- http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch08.html


MDN

[annak110]

60. Yes, scapegoating people who are naturally opposed to fascism

is a time honored part of right-wing propaganda, all fascism used jewish people, along with socialists and communists, and all the other long-time enemies of the right. Hitler was brought in from Austria presumably because he was charismatic and could lie successfully to people who were afraid.

Remember too that the United States turned away a Jewish ship which was full of refugees from fascism. I remember that, as a child, I was horrified that representatives of my country would do this.

[durutti]

64. Fascism: What It Is and How to Fight It

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

[Lone_Wolf]

72. The roots for Fascism are...

militarism, racism, and imperialism. Right now, we are probably the most fascist nation this planet has ever seen.

[veracity]

75. lower classes never rebel

Historically, revolutions are fomented by the middle class. The lower classes are always powerless, unorganized, largely uneducated, and far too busy trying to figure out how to survive to storm Bastilles. Fascism isn't a philosophy as is communism...it's far more recognizable when it's in operation - and when the power and control is concentrated at the top... hmmm...sounds like what's happening here....

[kath]

79. The 14 Characteristics of Fascism ---

A friend sent me this a week or two back. Reading it sent a chill down my spine:

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

The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist,
wrote an article about fascism, which appeared in Free Inquiry magazine -- a journal of humanist thought. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco
(Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).
He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The article is "Fascism Anyone?," Lawrence Britt, Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20.

The 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, 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.

<MORE>

[Blue_Roses]

80. Fascism as defined by :

www.historychannel.com

There is a wealth of information on this site which not only defines history, but gives accounts of each decade and century. I wish they would have had this site available when I was studying history years ago.

fascism

Fascism, philosophy of government that glorifies the nation-state at the expense of the individual. Major concepts of fascism include opposition to democratic and socialist movements; racist ideologies, such as anti-Semitism; aggressive military policy; and belief in an authoritarian leader who embodies the ideals of the nation.

Fascism generally gains support by promising social justice to discontented elements of the working and middle classes, and social order to powerful financial interests. While retaining class divisions and usually protecting capitalist and landowning interests, the fascist state exercises control at all levels of individual and economic activity, employing special police forces to instill fear.

The term was first used by the party started by Mussolini, who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II, and has also been applied to other right-wing movements, such as National Socialism in Germany and the Franco regime in Spain. The Italian Social Movement (MSI), a minor neofascist party formed in Italy after World War II, won wider support when the pervasive corruption of the governing parties was exposed in the early 1990s, and it became a partner in the conservative government formed after the 1994 elections. In 1995, however, the MSI rejected fascist ideology and dissolved itself in favor of the right-wing National Alliance.

--more--

[Lone_Wolf]

81. Here's some good information

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/082103F.shtml

[info being]

82. Have you seen those bumper stickers, "Power of Pride"

That's Fascism.

[Nlighten1]

83. David Neiwarts essay: Rush, Newspeak and Fascism is a must read.

http://www.cursor.org/stories/fascismintroduction.php

[rman]

84. Rule of the white collar sociopaths

I happened to stumble upon a fairly in depth description of what a sociopath is, and it fits the fascist powers perfectly.

I'd say the fascist enablers, those who hold much power and make things happen, are 'white collar' because they are reasonably well adapted to the invironement of business and politics; fairly well educated, intelligent (though not extraordinarly so - their primary strength seems to be strong motivation), and of course they are rich and powerfull. They are not your average crook. And surely they are not in accordance with society.


Profile of a Sociopath
http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/socio.htm

"Glibness/Superficial Charm
Language can be used without effort by them to confuse and convince their audience. Captivating storytellers that exude self-confidence, they can spin a web that intrigues others. Since they are persuasive, they have the capacity to destroy their critics verbally or emotionally.

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." Craves adulation and attendance. Must be the center of attention with their own fantasies as the "spokesman for God," "enlightened," "leader of humankind," etc. Creates an us-versus-them mentality

Pathological Lying
...

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
...

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
...

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
...

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image and that of the group as needed to avoid prosecution and to increase income and to recruit a range of members. Is able to adapt or relocate as needed to preserve the group. Can resurface later with a new name, a new front group and a new twist on the scam.

[PATRICK]

87. You describe

fascism's middle management preened in glorious attire with the perks of sadistic dominance and assorted trimmings. This has been highlighted before, the people doomed to insignificance(for good reasons usually) who see a chance to unite and propel themselves above. This describes ambitious young people who feel excluded by society. Take advantage and take revenge.

The danger is the romance; the illusion of the lie is both unsustainable and poisoned. What we fear and they hope for can never succeed in creating a utopian dystopia. Medicority will out and vice will corrupt. Fascism is not the only ideology that provides such false hope, which is why I think looking at larger patterns is in order. Simply providing the disgruntled with some dignity and hope would alleviate some of their proclivities if done very early and in a healthy society. Looking at the recent relatively(I said relatively!) minor irritations and putdowns it took to get the right wing roaring in the US, perhaps it is even more a failure of wisdom and vigilance on the part of the "good and wise". The Democrats persist in glossing over the fertile menace while puzzling ineffectually at the same time how to win back the deluded.

Seems very late in the game.

[genius]

94. USA-PATRIOT and Homeland Security

It's here.