Researching possibilities....

[Weird Harold]

That would be Heinlein's short novel 'If This Goes On...' serialized in 'Astounding Science Fiction' magazine in 1940. It was issued again in 1953 as one of the collection of stories titled 'Revolt in 2100'.

That's the one.

After some reflection, I think RAH had a point in choosing a Theocracy to replace the Republic -- I think it would be much easier to rouse a broad base of religious fervor to fuel a takeover than it would be to rouse a fascist or socialist fervor to fuel a purely political coup.

Prohibition is an example of how a religiously dominated movement to pass a law "for your own good" can take over the US. But it would take some extraordinary circumstances to parlay that fervor into a dictatorship in the US.

At one time, the KKK was reportedly in control of something like 70% of elected offices in the US on the State and Local levels. They were well on the way to domination of Congress as well but the lack of term-limits and "incumbant factor" dragged out the turnover beyond the time the KKK's hate-based philosophy could sustain that much support. A good history of the KKK might provide some ideas; there is nothing inherent in the US Constitution that would have prevented a KKK controlled 'Dictatorship' if circumstances had been even slightly different and they could have sustained the effort for even a few decades more.

 

[polynices]

No.

Fascism is indistinguishable from monarchy, just as democracy is a nice name for mob rule.

Fascism is efficient. A fascist dictator can hang criminals immediately, act to repair disasters immediately, use the state's resources immediately. Fascists can act wise or play the fool. They can be saints or criminals.

Fascist philosophy takes this fundamental stance: The individual and corporation wants to exploit the commonwealth for its own prosperity. Well and good. But the exploitation isnt free. There are no free lunches. You gotta pay the kitty if you do well. Lawyers and clever accountants cant save you. There are no tax lawyers in a fascist state. You keep the bulk of what you make, and the state gets a percentage to husband the commonwealth. If you wanna sell Fords or Chevys in a fascist state you better plan on building a Ford or Chevy plant here to employ some of your customers. You do not get to bribe anyone to keep Toyota out of the market. If you intentionally harm someone you get a trial, if youre guilty you get shot. If the prosecutor or cops lie about you, they get a trial and get shot, too.

Of course, a distingushing feature of many forms of fascism is a reliance on over-simplification in argument. Another, in Nazi Germany at least, was what's been described as 'the flight from rationality'. Here's a quote from Kershaw's Hitler:

‘… In a lecture on 3rd May, the Germanist Ernst Bertram spoke of the ‘uprising against rationality (ratio) inimical to life (lebensfeindlich), destructive enlightenment, alien political dogmatism , every form of the “ideas of 1789”, all anti-Germanic tendencies and excessive foreign influences (Überfremdungen)’. Failure of the ‘struggle’ against such tendencies, he went on, would lead to ‘the end of the white world, chaos, or a planet of termites’. …

- Pages 481 – 482, Ian Kershaw: Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris [Allen Lane/Penguin, 2000]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Polynices

I understand how fascism works. All people really care about is prosperity, protection, and parties. Fascists offer all three at cutrate prices. Good jobs, fun times, thugs & perverts off the street! America has none of it now, and wont for several years. Americans prefer the bullshit and thievery of our present political system. But more and more of us are frowning and polishing our pitchforks.

 

[polynices]

Polynices

I understand how fascism works. All people really care about is prosperity, protection, and parties. Fascists offer all three at cutrate prices. Good jobs, fun times, thugs & perverts off the street! America has none of it now, and wont for several years. Americans prefer the bullshit and thievery of our present political system. But more and more of us are frowning and polishing our pitchforks.

I'm not entirely sure how serious you are. I got the sense from your earlier posts that you were just taking up a position to dramatise attitudes that might bring a modern fascist state about. If you were doing that, I'd say you did a pretty good job. However, if you're serious about what you said, I think you've been conned. (Remember, Winston Smith came to love Big Brother, albeit under duress.)

Hitler correctly diagnosed aspects of the rottenness of 1920s Germany - especially the vindictive provisions of the Treaty of Versailles and the consequent great inflation. He wasn't wrong in his diagnosis, but the cure he proposed - a fascist state led by himself - was poison, as history clearly demonstrates.

My earlier post argues that the way we're currently dominated by the banks and big business is actually a form of fascism - but a much subtler fascism than Hitler's. It's instructive that Hitler also attacked big business in the early days of the NSDAP, but then switched radically as he came close to power, making a notorious deal with the industrialists - who supported him because they thought they could control him. They were wrong, of course. Hitler was an opportunist and fascism is opportunistic. Having no core values beyond the will to power, it can temporarily adopt causes whenever it's convenient. It can therefore harp on people's grievances until it gets into power - either by election (as Hitler partly did), or by military coup, as in Chile, for instance. Fascism tells people what they want to hear. But once in power, it goes its own way and doesn't willingly relinquish that power. That's what you need to be afraid of.

And I'm afraid, by the way, that the appeal to purity - especially the purity of a previous golden age - Good jobs, fun times, thugs & perverts off the street! etc - is another classically fascist feature. Himmler put together a whole mystical philosophy to justify Nazism, based largely on a heroically blonde Viking past - all of it bogus in any historical sense.

Fascism uses what it can to fool the people. But when it's fooled them, it puts its foot on their necks and never takes it off.

Although I'm not one for polishing pitchforks, I agree that we need to take action - mainly against the exploitive dominance of the banks. Something could actually be achieved by concerted, mass, non-violent action - c.f. the 'velvet' revolutions in the former Soviet bloc. But the big issue is what you're polishing your metaphorical pitchfork for - and, as I said earlier, you've been conned if you think fascist authoritarianism is the answer, however accurately you identify the problems.

- polynices

 

[Weird Harold]

My earlier post argues that the way we're currently dominated by the banks and big business is actually a form of fascism - but a much subtler fascism than Hitler's. ...

I think that this thread suffers from a common defintion of 'Fascism'

The site this compilation came from is somewhat biased, but it is a short and concise a descriptionof Fascism as a quick search turned up.

Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3
​

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - ...

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - ...

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - ...

4. Supremacy of the Military - ...

5. Rampant Sexism - ...

6. Controlled Mass Media - ...

7. Obsession with National Security - ...

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - ...

9. Corporate Power is Protected - ...

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - ...

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - ...

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - ...

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - ...

14. Fraudulent Elections - ...

(The explanations of each point are in the link under the title.)

Fascism uses what it can to fool the people. But when it's fooled them, it puts its foot on their necks and never takes it off.

By your definition of Fascism as a cynical power grab, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and GWB are all Fascists; You might br right about GWB

Far too many Fascists Regimes -- Generalismo Franco is the only exception I can think of -- have degenerated into the kind of cynical anything-to-remain-in-power regime you describe, but in doing so they abandon Fascism for a generic dictatorship or totalitarian kleptocracy. On the other hand, I don't think there is any more dangerous politician than a dedicated, true-believer in fascism.

 

[polynices]

Hi Weird Harold,

I agree that there are problems of definition - but that, in fact, derives from the nature of fascism itself. It's interesting that people who try to define it are often reduced to giving a list of possible features, not all of which have to be present for fascism to be diagnosed. This is similar to the list of seventeen - I think - behaviours that may indicate schizophrenia - only seven of which, if I remember correctly, have to be demonstrated to a psychiatrist for a patient to be labelled schizophrenic. (Which means, of course, that two patients who exhibit no similar symptoms at all can both be categorised as suffering from the same disease.)

In his book The Anatomy of Fascism (Alfred Knopf, 2004; Penguin, 2005), Robert O. Paxton quotes Franz Neumann:

"National Socialism's ideology is constantly shifting. It has certain magical beliefs - leadership adoration, supremacy of the master race - but it is not laid down in a series of categorical and dogmatic pronouncements." (page 219)

Paxton goes on to say that he accepts Neumann's description to a large extent, but with some qualifications:

"...this book is drawn to Neumann's position and I examined at some length ... the peculiar relationship of fascism to its ideology - simultaneously proclaimed as central, yet amended or violated as expedient."(Also on page 219.)

His final position is a little different from Neumann's (and my own), however:

"One can steer between two extremes: fascism consisted neither of the uncomplicated application of its program, nor of freewheeling opportunism." (p. 219)

He then gives his own shopping list of fascist features - comparable to the one you quoted.

My own position, as I've already indicated, is that the will to unopposed power is central to fascism. All other features are merely local variants, depending on time and place. I realise that makes my definition very broad, but I certainly don't apply the term 'fascist' to everyone who exercises authority. I think 'fascist' has to apply to a particular kind of dominance, against which there is no practical appeal. It doesn't matter if those who exert that dominance wear the external trappings normally associated with twentieth century fascism or not. (That is, to be simplistic, you don't have to wear shiny boots with riding breeches and a black tunic to be a fascist. Nor do you have to march about chanting aggressive slogans. A quiet manner and an ordinary business suit will do.)

You say: By your definition of Fascism as a cynical power grab, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and GWB are all Fascists; You might be right about GWB.

Yes. Absolutely. You've probably noticed that my central reference point is Orwell's 1984 (The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. etc.) Orwell was certainly thinking as much about Stalin's Russia as about Hitler's Germany when he wrote the book - and, incidentally, about certain features of war-time Britain as well.

For me, it doesn't matter whose Gulag or Concentration Camp you're imprisoned in - or, for that matter, whose 'extraordinary rendition' you've been subjected to. If power is exercised without recourse to justice or any form of impartial appeal, then the exercise of that power is fascist. And I think, to go back to my original point, that banks, with the connivance of politicians, are exercising power in exactly that way at the moment. It's just their style that's different.

- polynices

 

[voluptuary_manque]

With the fall of the Soviet Union, calling those people you don't like Communists has become a waste of breath. Therefore in light of the politics of the moment, Fascism can be defined as "those people I don't like who have more power than I do, the rotten bastards!" This is very useful. It allows the term to be bandied about by unhappy chatterers, bully pulpit-ologists, deranged 'populists' and the like of whatever stripe they choose. As Tom says in his sig line, "I used to be outraged, now I'm just amused."

 

[Weird Harold]

For me, it doesn't matter whose Gulag or Concentration Camp you're imprisoned in - or, for that matter, whose 'extraordinary rendition' you've been subjected to. If power is exercised without recourse to justice or any form of impartial appeal, then the exercise of that power is fascist. And I think, to go back to my original point, that banks, with the connivance of politicians, are exercising power in exactly that way at the moment. It's just their style that's different.

I think that the difference between Corporatism and Fascism does matter in the context of the original poster's question. In the end, living conditions under the two isms might not be all that different, but the means of gaining power and the 'manpower required' would be drastically different.

Trinique is looking to write a story about the rise to power and how that might happen in the US. The method by which the puppet (or CEO) of multinational bank or corporation could become dictator of the US is grossly different than the way a charismatic demagogue could become dictator of th US.

 

[Trinique_Fire]

I think that the difference between Corporatism and Fascism does matter in the context of the original poster's question. In the end, living conditions under the two isms might not be all that different, but the means of gaining power and the 'manpower required' would be drastically different.

Trinique is looking to write a story about the rise to power and how that might happen in the US. The method by which the puppet (or CEO) of multinational bank or corporation could become dictator of the US is grossly different than the way a charismatic demagogue could become dictator of th US.

I have enjoyed every single post in this thread. Whether or not all of you think it matters, I am absorbing, reflecting on, and taking notes on every response to my initial post. While I'm very passionate about my writing (and especially my writing of this book), I have a hard time grasping the intricacies and facts that are presented throughout history. I'm very attached to a few time periods in history, but I am by no means a history buff or some kind of genius. I have a lot to learn and clearly a lot of research to do, but everyone who has posted so far has helped in a big way. So...thank you for that.

Still reading and learning here...keep em coming, everyone!

 

[polynices]

I think Weird Harold's suggestion that religion might be a route to a take-over is very plausible:

After some reflection, I think RAH had a point in choosing a Theocracy to replace the Republic -- I think it would be much easier to rouse a broad base of religious fervor to fuel a takeover than it would be to rouse a fascist or socialist fervor to fuel a purely political coup.

Any revolution requires powerful belief from the populace - in the early stages, at least. (That is, before it's too late for what they think to matter any more.) Religious fervour might well provide that belief. After all, the Iranian regime has survived a long time now, even though so many Iranians hate it.

Another route to engendering the right set of beliefs on a large scale is television, of course. It's significant that Italy's Berlusconi built a TV empire before he went into politics. Not all of his influence was directly political, however. I understand a lot of his programming involved attractive tits and bums - possibly a surer way of gaining some voters' affections than political editorial alone. The current president of Chile - who isn't necessarily a fascist, as far as I know - also owns (or owned) a TV network. He exploited the propaganda possibilities of the recent miners crisis masterfully.

In the twenties, Hitler spent a lot of time deciding on his 'look' - the uniforms he wore and so on. He and Goebbels were also early adapters of technology for propaganda purposes - first a national party newspaper, then radio, then film. Hitler was also one of the first politicans to campaign by air - flying from place to place during elections to get maximum coverage. So communications technology - 'the media' - combined with a popular, if facile, message might well put a President in your White House who had fascist leanings. If that happened, there'd be no need for a military coup. Once in power, the fascists could do what Hitler did - rewrite the constitution to make it 'more modern' - i.e. fascist. And control of the media - of entertainment as well as politics - might fool enough people for long enough so that when they woke up to what was really happening it would be too late to do anything about it.

Of course, the new dictator would have to guarantee control of the armed forces at some point - and there might be a few awkward generals who wanted to oppose him. But private security firms like Blackwater might well fill the gap for a while - a private army similar to Hitler's brownshirts who'd do the nasty stuff when necessary.

Of course, having an external threat to justify suspension of civil liberties would be essential as well - but they could probably come up with something along those lines if they thought hard enough. (And, although the Reichstag fire actually was an act of terrorism and wasn't laid by the Nazis themselves - as many historians believed for a long time - it was a wonderful opportunity when it came: a real gift to consolidate Hitler's power.)

I'm not saying it would be easy, but if a potential fascist dictator could fool the people for a while, I think anything could happen. And TV is an excellent medium for fooling people. (Abe Lincoln himself might have had second thoughts if Fox News had been around when he was, for example.)

- polynices

 

[CharleyH]

If there was a successful outbreak of Nazism in America today, what kind of manpower would it take to overthrow the government? I'm not looking for "it can't be done" type answers, but rather, answers that would address the real possibility of such a thing happening. Would our tv/radio/internet be censored? Who would modern day Nazis go after? Would there be camps? Or would something more modern be devised? Additional thoughts, ideas, brainstorms welcome.

Research for an ongoing book.

Indeed. The first attack would (if I put myself in the place of a narcissistic ego-manic) the control of propaganda. It starts with not-so-veiled xenophobia on Fox News and moves on to Gypsies being banished from France. It's how these things start.

 

[PerilEyes]

First of all, addressing the "it won't happen" answer, I saw it can happen because it did happen. People across Europe were sucked in by the marvels of fascist regimes in the 20th century. How was that possible? They were rational like us, did they not see what was going on? I think it can happen again, we just won't recognize it when it does and this is how it'll suck us in.

If fascism were to return to the degree it existed in the inter-war period, it would have to include alot of the same elements, but at the same time it won't be the same. Xenophobia, for example, will be there. But while the fascists of the 1920s and 1930s targeted ethnic groups (the Jews even though constitute a religious community were attacked because of their cultural makeup), I think this time around it will be religious in nature. To trigger it all, we're looking a national crisis or a series of national crises of immense consequence. One of these will obviously be economic in nature, and we're also looking at national security affair, probably a terrorist attack. But of course, this is all debate as are all 'what if' scenarios.

 

[CharleyH]

First of all, addressing the "it won't happen" answer, I saw it can happen because it did happen. People across Europe were sucked in by the marvels of fascist regimes in the 20th century. How was that possible? They were rational like us, did they not see what was going on? I think it can happen again, we just won't recognize it when it does and this is how it'll suck us in.

If fascism were to return to the degree it existed in the inter-war period, it would have to include alot of the same elements, but at the same time it won't be the same. Xenophobia, for example, will be there. But while the fascists of the 1920s and 1930s targeted ethnic groups (the Jews even though constitute a religious community were attacked because of their cultural makeup), I think this time around it will be religious in nature. To trigger it all, we're looking a national crisis or a series of national crises of immense consequence. One of these will obviously be economic in nature, and we're also looking at national security affair, probably a terrorist attack. But of course, this is all debate as are all 'what if' scenarios.

You're not listening, friend.

 

[oggbashan]

There are three defenses against the rise of modern Fascism:

1. Knowledge of what happened in Italy, Germany and Spain despite Holocaust deniers.

2. The internet which provides multiple means of obtaining news information. Propaganda is much more difficult to sell effectively than it was in the 1930s.

3. Relative sophistication of the population. They, or most of 'they', know that wearing pantyliners doesn't make you fitter and more active despite the advertising.

However, if you get the chance, watch Reifenstahl's Triumph of the Will. In spite of the age of the technology, the message is still compelling.

Og

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Fascism will happen when the government becomes unreliable and unstable. People dont care about propaganda when they need work or shelter or medical care or protection. Don Corleone can make your crisis go away. Ninety percent of the working people are already groomed to follow their employer without question or complaint.

 

[Weird Harold]

There are three defenses against the rise of modern Fascism:

I wouldn't put too much faith in those defenses.

1. Knowledge of what happened in Italy, Germany and Spain despite Holocaust deniers.

"This isn't at all like those regimes," said with an innocent expression and ernest manner, seems sufficient to deflect comparisons to past evils. It doesn't take a holocaust denier to bypass the presumed knowledge of history by asserting that "we won't make Hitler's mistakes," to those who agree with Nazi goals and "HItler perverted the grand vision," to those who don't agree with the goals.

There is also the presumption of an accurate knowledge of history -- even without deliberate revisionist history competing with the truth. That doesn't seem to be the case in the US; significant numbers of US Students aren't even knowledgeable about US history, let alone World History.

2. The internet which provides multiple means of obtaining news information. Propaganda is much more difficult to sell effectively than it was in the 1930s.

The internet is a wonderful resource, but judging by some of the sources cited by the fringe elements of the general board, it is also a wonderful propaganda tool. Crackpot conspiracy theories and marginal political views reach a much larger, and in many respects more gullible, audience much faster than ever before. Marginal parties like the Libertarians and Tea Party are largely driven by the internet.

3. Relative sophistication of the population. They, or most of 'they', know that wearing pantyliners doesn't make you fitter and more active despite the advertising.

While the general population has presumably gotten more sophisticated, so has Madison Avenue and rest of the world's advertising agencies have gotten seriously more capable. The commercials may say, "drink our beer and become rediculously stupid jerks," but the name of the beer is first to come to mind when in the store. Most voters would say that negative campaigns are offensive and avoid any mention of what the voters really need to know, but negative campaigns work and until they quit working, voters will still bitch about them.

I have a small problem with relying on resistance to propaganda in the hands of people who aren't sophisticated enough to refrain from clicking on spam e-mails and/or send their life savings to nigeria.

However, if you get the chance, watch Reifenstahl's Triumph of the Will. In spite of the age of the technology, the message is still compelling.

In many ways, Triumph of the Will is even more compelling now because modern voters aren't subjected to feature-length propaganda very often. It's one reason filmmakers like Micheal Moore and Oliver Stone have such followings -- "sophisticated modern viewers" don't recognise their films as "propaganda."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

People are pretty much creatures of habit regardless of enlightenment. You can almost guarantee that they'll revert to the default position in times of crisis or confusion or over-stimulation.