USA 'Fascist'?

fascism

(făsh´ĭzm) , totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini, who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain. The term is derived from the Latin fasces.

Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy

Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.

A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma.

Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard Wagner, is closely linked with fascism's rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and "the will."

The Fascist State

Fascism has found adherents in all countries. Its essentially vague and emotional nature facilitates the development of unique national varieties, whose leaders often deny indignantly that they are fascists at all. In its dictatorial methods and in its use of brutal intimidation of the opposition by the militia and the secret police, fascism does not greatly distinguish itself from other despotic and totalitarian regimes. There are particular similarities with the Communist regime in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. However, unlike Communism, fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place and function. Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers, and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the corporative state is a part of fascist dogma.

Although Mussolini's and Hitler's governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored it as an obstacle to socialization. On the other hand, the state adopted a paternalistic attitude toward labor, improving its conditions in some respects, reducing unemployment through large-scale public works and armament programs, and controlling its leisure time through organized activities.


Origins of Fascism

While socialism (particularly Marxism) came into existence as a clearly formulated theory or program based on a specific interpretation of history, fascism introduced no systematic exposition of its ideology or purpose other than a negative reaction against socialist and democratic egalitarianism. The growth of democratic ideology and popular participation in politics in the 19th cent. was terrifying to some conservative elements in European society, and fascism grew out of the attempt to counter it by forming mass parties based largely on the middle classes and the petty bourgeoisie, exploiting their fear of political domination by the lower classes. Forerunners of fascism, such as Georges Boulanger in France and Adolf Stöker and Karl Lueger in Germany and Austria, in their efforts to gain political power played on people's fears of revolution with its subsequent chaos, anarchy, and general insecurity. They appealed to nationalist sentiments and prejudices, exploited anti-Semitism, and portrayed themselves as champions of law, order, Christian morality, and the sanctity of private property.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/fascism
 
Last edited:
I've been reading a book called War Made Easy by Norman Solomon. This book looks at every war since WW 2 and shows how the US used lies and misrepresentations to convince the American people that it was necessary to fight a war.

The big wars, the little wars, the wars in between: all were started by administration lies and press collusion. (Haven't reached the part about Desert Storm yet, so I don't know if it is included in the pantheon of lies.)

Viet Nam, Dominican Republic, Granada, Panama, and most certainly Iraq, all were wars which were the products of the American propoganda machine.

Whatever America's reasons are for going to war, you can bet that they have nothing to do with the reasons given to the American people.

It's all pretty disquieting.
 
sweetnpetite quoted:
They appealed to nationalist sentiments and prejudices, exploited anti-Semitism, and portrayed themselves as champions of law, order, Christian morality, and the sanctity of private property.

Has a kinda familiar ring to it, doesn't it?
 
More than the warmongering and the pos-9/11 erosion of rights, there were always two very obvious things that appeared to me as definite fascizoid aspects of US culture, that most of you probably don't even notice. One is the truly frightening cult of the American flag. The other is the almost equally frightening deification of The Forefathers.
 
Those who seek to dominate our government currently are fascists. Some of their supporters are fascists.

But America isn't fascist. And Americans aren't fascist. The real Americans, the ones who truly believe in America and not a cult flag symbol you can wave as a keeping-up-with-the-Joneses compensation thing.

I share Doc's dismay that our leaders and our <fuck it> dumber breathern have made it so foreigners can no longer separate America from those fascist assholes who are co-opting us. Maybe it is finally time for the American Rerevolution.
 
The other is the almost equally frightening deification of The Forefathers.

The weird part is that our forefathers were pretty damn cool. If you want to look somewhere for intellectual and/or philosophical and/or political heroes, turn to Jefferson and Franklin. They were the personification of the 18th century's ideal men, knowing a lot about everything: scientists, architects, printers, politicians, diplomats, farmers, writers. And they liked sex!

But to deify them? It destroys the very things that make them great.

As for the cult of the flag: this plan for a Constitutional amendment banning the burning of the American flag is just plain nuts! Can there be a better example of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution than burning the flag as a protest to what ails this country? I'm not talking now, GWB, Iraq, Patriot Act, etc. I'm talking any time in American history. If you've got a beef, burn the fucking flag! It's perfect!

And yet, in this proto-fascist environment we find ourselves, the flag is assuming sacred status and in the eyes of its worshippers is therefore inviolate.

How totally ironic. In banning the statement that is the burning of the flag, they are destroying the very thing that makes it special; its sacredness, if you will.

They are replacing ideals with meaningless symbols. Once the symbols have no meaning, then they can apply whatever meaning to them they wish.

Fascism is alive and well.
 
I'm with Jefferson when it comes to classifying political activity.

Simply put, there are democrats, those who believe in democracy, and what he called 'aristocrats', those who don't.

Democrats believe in balance and know that a society needs to change in the face of pressures of the world.

Aristocrats, fascists, or what ever you want to call them, believe in Truth. And will allow nothing to stand in its way.
 
Lauren Hynde said:
More than the warmongering and the pos-9/11 erosion of rights, there were always two very obvious things that appeared to me as definite fascizoid aspects of US culture, that most of you probably don't even notice. One is the truly frightening cult of the American flag. The other is the almost equally frightening deification of The Forefathers.
The Founding Fathers, you mean? Franklin, Washington, and so on. Yes, that baffles me too. When I look back into my own national history, I see that we look at the shapers of our nations, kings and generals, with a mixture of amusement and embarrasment.
 
sweetnpetite said:
??????????

I don't understand your post.

People who are not citizens of the (almost) United States of America see things in a different perspective. They read different opinions of what's happening in the world; they have a differnt historical perspective; they view things in a differnt light. There is a very differnt press outside of the (onetime) US of A - and a very critical one too. Does this help?
 
thebullet said:
As for the cult of the flag: this plan for a Constitutional amendment banning the burning of the American flag is just plain nuts! Can there be a better example of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution than burning the flag as a protest to what ails this country? I'm not talking now, GWB, Iraq, Patriot Act, etc. I'm talking any time in American history. If you've got a beef, burn the fucking flag! It's perfect!
I've never understood the whole flag thing. It's a graphical prepresentation of a nation. Just as "Germany", the word, is a sonic and text representtion of a nation. Why, when I put it on a sheet, suddenly holy?

Because it's not the burning of an american flag that they want to prohibit. (And that you think is a good way to protest.) The American flag is represented on so many items... clothes, product packages, books, magazines... that are getting burned in thousands every day withoput as muich as a shrug. It's the burning of a specific version of it. A product manufactured to a specification.

Why is it so powerful? It's just a damn piece of cloth.
 
Lucifer_Carroll said:
Those who seek to dominate our government currently are fascists. Some of their supporters are fascists.

But America isn't fascist. And Americans aren't fascist. The real Americans, the ones who truly believe in America and not a cult flag symbol you can wave as a keeping-up-with-the-Joneses compensation thing.

I share Doc's dismay that our leaders and our <fuck it> dumber breathern have made it so foreigners can no longer separate America from those fascist assholes who are co-opting us. Maybe it is finally time for the American Rerevolution.

Well said.
Your first sentance is all too close to the truth, in view of both actions and philosophy. And this has been documented here in the forum.

Some of us non-USofmiddleA folk certainly DO separate 'America from those fascist assholes', as you so succinctly put it.
 
Lauren Hynde said:
More than the warmongering and the pos-9/11 erosion of rights, there were always two very obvious things that appeared to me as definite fascizoid aspects of US culture, that most of you probably don't even notice. One is the truly frightening cult of the American flag. The other is the almost equally frightening deification of The Forefathers.

Yeah, I noticed that flag thing a long time ago, and it's always creeped me out. It always reminds me of Cub Scouts, where I first learned all this flag etiquette in a kind of proto-fascist setting. I was also in Hebrew School at that time, where we learned that we had to kiss our prayer books if we ever dropped them. I always equated the two.

As for the Founding Fathers, I think a big part of their veneration is because we don't have any royalty over here, and despite what we say, we really miss it.

That veneration also extends to whoever's in the white house too. People here will fight with you for "disagreeing with the President." Is there any other place in the free world where that would happen?

But you're right. Both those things are symptoms of fascism--deification of your founders (remember Horst Wessel?) and elevation of national symbols to the status of religious icons.
 
dr_mabeuse said:
Well, that's a big part of what shocked me. I mean, I know that looked at objectively, we're the most warlike nation on the planet. We've been in involved in or helped out in just about every military conflict that's occurred in the last 50 years. (I don't think we were involved in the India-Pakistan war, but I might be wrong, or in the Falklands war.) We might look at our involvement in flattering terms--as helping out democracy or whatever we want to say--but that's not how the rest of the world sees it.

Still, I always thought that foreigners would somehow know that the poeple of the US--you, me, and the other guy--are not our government. That we ourselves are a decent, peace-loving people. Maybe that's not the case, though, and that fact kind of horrifies me.


We were involved in the Falklands. The UK is our ally. We supplied intelligence, satellite feeds, even aviation fuel and other logistic support.
 
dr_mabeuse said:
A friend of mine made some close friends in Eastrern Europe when he was over there a couple years ago, and this summer got to repay their hospitality for a week when they toured the USA.

They loved their visit and thought the USA was great (they especially liked the West, where my friend lives, scene of so many Westerns). Their only complaint was that they were shocked at how 'fascist' the country was, and how dissatisfied and unhappy people here seemed to be with their lives.

This kind of surprised me. I know that much (if not most) of the world looks at the USA as a war-monger, but the chliche is that the government might be warlike, but the people who live here are decent. I never thought that other people might see us as 'fascist'.

Their comments have haunted me since. I guess it bothers me a lot to be seen as fascist, no matter how unfair that characterization might be.

When an Eastern European refers to the U.S. as 'fascist', they are probably way too young to be refering to Mussolini's Fascism or its direct descendents. They were probably using the term in much the same way as undergraduates do ("the police are a bunch of fascist bastards").

The U.S. is patently a democratic country, albeit one that tries to impose democracy on the rest of the world, unlike, say, the Ancient Roman or British empires.
 
dr_mabeuse said:
As for the Founding Fathers, I think a big part of their veneration is because we don't have any royalty over here, and despite what we say, we really miss it.

Many human beings are not comfortable with democracy. Too much thought and too much personal responsibility involved.

So they look for a symbol that they can follow and pass the responsibility to.

This is a lot less work, and when it comes to politics, a lot of people are really lazy.
 
There's a 3rd element I forgot to mention before, and that forms a well-defined trinity with the cult of the flag and the deification of the Founding Fathers, but it's difficult to put this in terms that don't come out the wrong way. It's the way the US is perceived to look at the Constitution, as if it were a set of guiding rules dictated directly by God (or as the case is, the Founding Father-gods). Not that the rest of the free world doesn't take their own respective constitutions as the supreme law of their lands, but the US Constitution has almost an a-priori religious status. It doesn't matter if the principles it prescribes are outdated and referred to a completely different era with a completely different set of problems. It doesn't matter if something is morally wrong or right - first comes what this untouchable, unquestionable, immutable constitutional bible says.
 
Lauren Hynde said:
There's a 3rd element I forgot to mention before, and that forms a well-defined trinity with the cult of the flag and the deification of the Founding Fathers, but it's difficult to put this in terms that don't come out the wrong way. It's the way the US is perceived to look at the Constitution, as if it were a set of guiding rules dictated directly by God (or as the case is, the Founding Father-gods). Not that the rest of the free world doesn't take their own respective constitutions as the supreme law of their lands, but the US Constitution has almost an a-priori religious status. It doesn't matter if the principles it prescribes are outdated and referred to a completely different era with a completely different set of problems. It doesn't matter if something is morally wrong or right - first comes what this untouchable, unquestionable, immutable constitutional bible says.

I've always hated this too, the infallibility that we attribute to the words of the framers, even though we now recognize how fallible they were (slaves only count as 3/4 of a person, right?). The thing is, if we don't vociferously guard the Constitution from change, we'll end up with a myriad of amendments that are 1,000 times worse than what is currently written. Yes, that often hinders updates like the Equal Rights Amendment, but it also prevents gay marriage amendments from getting too far as they likely won't be ratified by enough states.

But no, the Founding Fathers were not transcribing the word of God, and they never contemplated the society we have today when drafting it. I think we tend to be amazed that it has stood up so well, all things considered, so we do honor it to a great degree. Besides, it's all we've got left to protect us from our government.
 
thebullet said:
The big wars, the little wars, the wars in between: all were started by administration lies and press collusion. (Haven't reached the part about Desert Storm yet, so I don't know if it is included in the pantheon of lies.)
Yes. I'd have to google the specifics, but I recall there were leaked documents indicating that the Bush I administration had advance knowledge of Saddam's plans regarding Kuwait, and allowed him to believe the U.S. would remain neutral.

When the invasion took place, we were naturally shocked and appalled and left with no honorable choice but to defend the underdog. Just as shocked as we were when we learned he had used chemical weapons "on his own people." Which is immoral, unlike using them against Iran with Ronald Reagan's help.

Oops. I'm Bush I bashing and Reagan bashing. This kind of thing has to stop.
 
rgraham666 said:
Many human beings are not comfortable with democracy.

Last week, an AP poll showed that a majority of Americans now believe that the Iraq invasion wasn't such a good idea, didn't help end terrorism, and has probably made terrorism worse. Approximately half think the president might not have been entirely honest about the reasons to go to war. There's a stunning revelation.

I've lost faith in democracy myself, Rob. Not because I'm lazy, but because I'm outnumbered by people who are either lazy or dense as lumps of mercury.
 
rgraham666 said:
I'm with Jefferson when it comes to classifying political activity.

Simply put, there are democrats, those who believe in democracy, and what he called 'aristocrats', those who don't.

Democrats believe in balance and know that a society needs to change in the face of pressures of the world.

Maybe there's a fatal flaw in human beings that makes democracy unsustainable: too many people are too willing to be led. And the more prosperous the society becomes, the happier we are to follow the herd, paying little attention to who the herd itself is following.

And why not? As long as the majority of voting adults have two cars, three TV sets, and a mortgage big enough to keep them busy, why not be grateful that there are other people eager to do the complicated work of running the country? By the time we realize that things have gone badly wrong, we've given up so much power to so few people, we're all but helpless without their guidance.

As long as being elected to lead requires enormous wealth, the leaders of a U.S.-style democracy will emerge from the class of people who have the least to gain from democracy: the would-be aristocrats whose inherited wealth and power would be better served by an aristocracy.

Isn't it inevitable that such leadership will learn how to manipulate the system to their advantage? With the majority of citizens relatively uninvolved, the gap between rich and poor grows wider, civil liberties are chipped away - and before the middle classes knows what's hit them, they middle rungs of the ladder have been removed and they're very near the bottom, shouldering more than their share of the nation's tax and labor burden.

Example: the so-called "death tax," enforced against only the largest estates, was intended to prevent the rise of an American aristocracy. Theoretically, it would assure that the power associated with vast wealth had to be earned, rather than inherited. How would you convince a majority of Americans to go along with revoking a tax that protects democracy itself? It's easy if they're not paying close attention.

Ask most people why a death tax is unfair, and the sound-bite you'll hear parrotted back will probably be the one about how the tax destroys family farms. That's total b.s. The New York Times once assigned a team of reporters to document a single case of a family farm that was dismantled because of the estate tax. They came up empty. Family farms are mostly lost because they can't compete with giant agribusiness interests.

How is it possible to sell so many people a lie that works against their own interests, and is of benefit to a tiny minority of the wealthiest Americans?

Keep them distracted.

Use their patriotism to unite them, and then use it against them.

Spread the idea that opposing the nation's leaders is the same as supporting its enemies.

While you're further cementing your power base by selectively removing certain freedoms, focus people's attention on a symbol of freedom, instead. Like the flag.

Bonus Round: See if you can turn the whole concept of freedom on its head by getting people so brainwashed, they'll assent to a law stripping protesters of the freedom to burn the symbol of freedom.
 
Shereads, I often tell myself that the biggest problem with democracy is that we humans aren't suited by nature to be democrats. We're still apes deep down inside.

And apes organise themselves into troops with alphas in control. The rest do what the alphas tell them and conspire to become alphas themselves. I've even heard of chimpanzees murdering an alpha in his sleep so they could rise in status.

Only when we actually become Homo Sapiens rather than Homo Instrumenta (Tool Using Man, my term for us) will democracy work well.
 
thebullet said:
The weird part is that our forefathers were pretty damn cool. If you want to look somewhere for intellectual and/or philosophical and/or political heroes, turn to Jefferson and Franklin. They were the personification of the 18th century's ideal men, knowing a lot about everything: scientists, architects, printers, politicians, diplomats, farmers, writers. And they liked sex!

What a bunch of liberal elite intellectual snobs!

We want this country run by ordinary fellows with below average IQ's- but a lot of faith in God and Country. We don't want our leaders to make us feel stupid and inferior.
 
Back
Top