Fascism Anyone?
Laurence W. Britt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.
We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.
Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.
For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.
Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
Note
1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or imitating Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.
References
Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980.
Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963.
Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001.
Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999.
de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976.
Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999.
Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996.
Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001.
Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.
Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001.
Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.
-- Modified on 9/6/2007 11:00:17 PM
But a lot of it was pre-existing. I'd call it fascism lite. Much of it was existing before he got in. All it really needs now is a more twisted and motivated leader running it.
you turn a favorable eye to it....eh?
I think there was one quality on the list that I don't see the US practicing. Everything else was either practiced culturally, government policy, or both.
I could think of one thing I know is a Fascist quality which isn't on the list: a shadow government. In Nazi Germany, every official bureau of government had its own matching bureau of the Nazi party. No decision was made by the "front" government; the shadow government made every decision and usually carried it out.
The same was true for the Soviet government (showing that Bolshevism and Fascism were actually breeds of the same species). The same is currently true of the Iranian government.
It's why the Republican Congress insulating itself from the Democratic party having "secret meetings" and slipping things into legislation after the vote was so worrisome to me. Tom Delay certainly looks like a fascist to me. "The Hammer" is a fascist nick-name if I ever heard one. There were other qualities, like the White House using RNC email addresses to conceal correspondences.
Seeing that developing made me check with the Canadian Consulate. Since the country has pulled back somewhat, I feel less urgency about getting there.
Don't kid yourself about your objectivity.
Look at Hannah Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism," or "The Black Book of Communism," by Cortois, Werth et. al. Or the pertinent parts of "Europe" by Norman Davies. Several history books agree completely with what I say. Read those books, and then tell me what you think.
I don't pull this stuff out of my ass. Those books aren't written by crackpots but well-regarded scholars. If you don't see me as objective now, you just have a bad sample of my life and writing. I'm an objective person who is informed on the subject.
You think that freedom is a stable state of existence? Fact is, it's so far just a flash of known human history. At the very least it takes a lot of care, vigilance and maintenance-- much more internally, because that's where the threat usually comes from. It's why I recoil from characters like Tom Delay.
-- Modified on 9/8/2007 10:43:46 AM
There are many historical experts that have opinions that are shit.
The point is not that the U.S. could fall from our present Representative Republic into something darker. The point is that you have zero logical evidence that Bush is trying to take us there. It would take terrible circumstances, far beyond what we've recently experienced to be the catalytic force to trigger such a movement. Could it happen? Certainly. Not many people realize how close the U.S. came to losing capitalism to Communism during the 1920's and 30's.
The similarities to the fringe forces of our system to fascism were far stronger during WWII and the public's reaction, acceptance and participation in similar behavior was stronger during WWII. Do you think FDR was trying to take us there? How about Lincoln?
No, your fear and/or hatred of Bush is simply irrational.
-- Modified on 9/8/2007 11:07:32 AM
. . . but just through blundering, ignorance and irresponsibility, he's putting much of the machinery into place. Even Dick Cheney, I think, is first and foremost ignorant. You don't know what they're letting guys under them get away with. Moreover, it's apparent that they think of themselves as imitating Lincoln.
Some of fascist elements have been put in place by others, such as the cozy relationship between the government and corporations.
I could see the justification for a lot of this if we were in a real war against a real nation-state and if the war had an ending. He has thrown us into what should have been a merely metaphorical war, like the War on Drugs, and has said it's indefinite. Not only that, it isn't a nation-state were really fighting: it's against what is really an international crime syndicate that need not be based in any particular nation. Take away a few base-camps, and they will find others in failed states. (Afghanistan was a failed state, which made invasion justified.)
There's a real contrast with both Roosevelt and Lincoln. They were going up against real, geographically defined, nation-states, and you could see the ending with the removal of those States. Lincoln was more justified because the enemy "State" bordered right on the US, right on border with Washington, in fact. The closer the hostile threat, the more dire the necessity. So, I don't see any comparison between the War on Terror and the Civil War. None.
For Roosevelt, he did put in place a totalitarian quality that was permanent: the Military Industrial Complex. He also had an affinity with Josef Stalin that was . . . disturbing. With Lincoln, the things he did during war-time, for one thing, did not survive after the war. He arrested and held people during Congressional recess. Then he appealed it to Congress for approval, and the Congress approved. In other words, Lincoln acknowledged Constitutional checks an balances. He didn't try to work around them like they were mere annoyances. Another contrast to George Bush. After the war, the case Ex Parte Milligan put an end to any remaining fascist element.
For ignorance, Iraq is an example of trying to make an investigation and policing action into something we could "win." Like a ground war. This was wrong-headed on so many levels.
you make a better mole than poster.
If you want to get a laugh, though, you could try reciting some facts that would explain exactly how close the US came to "losing capitalism to communism".
I mean, get a fuckin grip on yourself and stop reading all that lib bullshit you're forcefeeding yourself.
I'm starting to get scared for you zin...
-- Modified on 9/7/2007 10:48:59 PM
It's not lib bullshit that I wrote. "The Black Book of Communism" is hardly written by liberals.
Really, I don't know how anybody could think that liberalism leads to totalitarianism. That's the one that requires the aluminum dunce cap.
but why argue about semantics...
look, i understand the underlying principles that concern you and frankly, some of the identified traits concern me as well. In particular, the abuse of religion by the hard right. I think the belief in God enhances someones life and anytime someone is interesting in learning why, I'll take the time to explain.
But fucknuts like the aforementioned Tom Delay who USE religion, turn more people off, than on. And as a result actually do more harm then good. THIS, IMO, depending upon intent, begins to skirt on what I consider evil.
Nevertheless, I think it is as much a matter of degrees that seperate us. IOW, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I believe I have more faith in the our system of government and the American people to "get it right".
That's why you and Doc get the diapers. lol
That's why I think the notion of leaving here for anywhere in the world based on anything related to fear of government is off the wall.
Besides, Canada? I mean MFG, thay do have REAL hot chicks there but it's so frigging cold most of the time and NO chance of swimming in the ocean...no way, not me...
At least he'll have "free" (albeit delayed) healthcare.
come here when the shit really hits the fan.
fact is, without us, Canada's system would have collapsed and been exposed as the heap of shit that it is
on a plane ride home from montreal i challenged anyone within earshot to tell me what major medical inovation has come out of canada in the last 10 years and no one could name one.
end of report
send a copy to mikey moore
as california's, is it?
Did you challenge anybody to name one major medical innovation to come out of CA in the last 10 years? Who the hell thinks major medical innovations come out of a single place or time?
Who the hell was within earshot of you anyway? The nice stewardess who wouldn't give you another drink?
Honestly BK, you could have made your point in a half-assed intelligent way and surprised the hell right oout of us.
that was stupid
your stupid assertion.
So you're on this airplane, and you get up and challenge anybody to "name one major medical development to come out of Canada" - and the flight attendant says, "no more shots for him".
Jesus, BK. Are you always that dopey? Or are we just talking about defending your brain farts?
I thought I would push the image one step further, to both being paranoid and a dunce. I also hate the designation "tinfoil." It isn't tin.
""I also hate the designation "tinfoil." It isn't tin.""
I can't tell you how hard I'm laughing, nor how "you" this statement is. (And I mean that endearingly).
BK
1 - Mission Accomplished!
2 - Guantanamo! Abu Ghraib!
3 - Osama! Saddam! The War on Terror!
4 - Military Expenditures!
(http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld)
5 - Terry Schiavo! Wardrobe Malfunctions! Constitutional Amendments against Gay Marriage!
6 - Fox News Network and the REAL anti-Christ, Rupert Murdoch
7 - Homeland Security Color Codes!
8 - "With the might of God on our side we will triumph over Iraq. God will watch over our troops and grant us a victory over the threat of Saddam's army. God will bless us and keep us safe in the coming battle." - George W. Bush
9 - Enron; Global Crossing; Carlysle Group; De-Regulation; Halliburton; the list is endless
10 - Nothing new here. Not since Reagan threw down the gauntlet and broke the Air Traffic Controllers union in the 80's.
11 - SEE BELOW
12 - Homeland Security; Alberto Gonzales. 'Nuff Said.
13 - Jack Abramoff. 'Nuff Said II.
14 - Florida 2000; Ohio 2004; Diebold; Karl Rove
11 - I put this one at the end for a reason. I Googled the term "funding for the arts under GWB" and the first link on the page was to the very webpage listing RR's 14 points. Too tasty a tidbit to keep to myself. Try it for yourself. dont use the quotation marks.
???6 - Fox News Network and the REAL anti-Christ, Rupert Murdoch?????
You guys belong in diapers..
-- Modified on 9/7/2007 12:46:26 PM
Seriouly Doc, You CANNOT SAY I'm not fun to have around....lol
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130149537876
-- Modified on 9/7/2007 7:23:29 PM
back in the early 70's.
After the battle of Stalingrad, most German's were thinking 'how the f*ck did we get into this mess.' And after the Battle of the Bulge and US forces crossing the Rhine----many many and did I say many Germans were praying to God for the US and British forces to roll faster in order to get the killing over with and to indirectly stop the soviets on the eastern front.
The only Germans units to fight at all and unfortunately fight hard were the last small crop of hitler youth that went thru the waffen SS indocrination boot camp. Those poor little 11, 12 & 13 year old saps fought to the death. Most of the older youth were already drafted into the regular units and taking part in operations or were dead.
As soon as regular units on the western front could surrender without being shot by SS units they did.
But speaking of facism and religion-- The SS indoctrination boot camp had a big lecture on leaving the Catholic Church--and the Lutheran Church. They did not demand that the boots promulgate a denouncement of The Christian religion but they came real close. And the waffen SS leaders replaced God with a real cheesy dumbass Beowolf pagan super race type of thing. The Waffen SS that survived the war mostly say how at some point afterwards, they knew it was a bunch of sh*t and most of them went back to God. The southern German Catholics especially.
Wow, didn't mean to ramble. But facists are the ones that are anti-God. Republicans aren't.
Geezer, fact is, if we are dealing with a fascist faction in power,do you not think it would be within their capabilities to cynically manipulate religion and religious observances to their own ends? I.E. Pat Robertson is in many ways as fascist in his behavior as any follower of Mussolini.
I do not believe the true Republican perspective is anti-god, or Fascist in nature. But some of those who cloak themselves in the mantle of the GOP are in fact, modern fascist equivalents.
Take THAT sucka!!!! lol
must be the same guy that had the Virgin Mary Toast!!!!!
lmao