Friday, December 09, 2005


I find the following article to be very interesting. It comes from Free Inquiry, a magazine to which I subscribe. Please read this, and then let us discuss our thoughts.

Facism Anyone?
By Laurence W. Britt

Free Inquiry Magazine, Vol 22 no 2, [15 July 2003],

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, Francos Spain, Salazars Portugal, Papadopouloss Greece, Pinochets Chile, and Suhartos 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 peoples attention from other problems, to shift blame forfailures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choicerelentless propaganda and disinformationwere 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, andterrorists. 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 elites 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 an 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.

When facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the American flag.
- Huey Long

Snave's notes: I have to admit that one criticism of this article I have read is a fair one: this looks like it has been written by somebody who has seen things going on that he doesn't like here in the United States, and he has compared those things to what he saw in his research of fascist regimes, i.e. he is comparing the United States of America's current administration (or regime, if you will) with those past regimes by looking for similarities, in order to imply that the USA is a fascist nation. I feel this may tend to make the above article a bit simplistic or even ingenuous or fallacious in its approach, although I will admit I can see where some of the comparions may indeed be vaild. Whether or not our current right-wing leaders are fascists is a matter for debate, but I lean toward the belief that under our current administration we are closer to being a fascist nation than we have ever been.

I will print another article on this subject in the near future. It is a good one by Umberto Eco, a little more philosophical in nature than this one.


Blogger Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

Snave, I respectfully disagree with your belief that the United States is closer to being a fascist nation than it has ever been. I submit to you the McCarthy era and the presidency of "Stonewall" Jackson. I won't argue that, on occasion, this nation is uncomfortably close to the right, and that, increasingly, the right is sticking close to their Christian conservative base, but the same is and has been true of the left since before the Civil War. Fundamentally, politics and religion aside, how is Pat Robertson different from Louis Farrakhan? How is Jerry Falwell different from Al Sharpton?

2:33 PM  
Blogger Snave said...

Good points MC! During the McCarthy era, it might have been more so that it is nowadays. I still tend to get pretty queasy when I think about the nationalism after 9-11 and all the God-talk that has been going on in the upper political echelon. I also tend to look at things like the outing of Valerie Plame, and I think "so this is what they do to you if you disagree..." I think our military has always been glorified quite a bit, so that part isn't necessarily a current thing. Same with American elitism and with the country basically being run by corporations. I think it's mainly the religion thing, and the way the administration reacts to those who disagree with them or who try to shed light on their doings.

I'm not sure what you mean about "but the same is and has been true of the left since before the Civil War, but will respond in kind if you care to elaborate a bit.

As individuals, Robertson and Falwell maybe aren't a whole lot different in their approaches than Farrakhan and Sharpton (aggressive, tend to say outlandish things), but I would submit that Robertson has a television program viewed by millions, and that he probably has a greater influence on the American people than the others do. I would also tend to believe that Robertson and Falwell would have more influence on the Republican party and on national politics than Farrakhan and Sharpton would have on the Democrats or on the national scene.

Man, Cartman looks like his ass is on fire!! Owwww! Heh!

3:12 PM  
Blogger Sheryl said...

I think it is important to point out that fascism is not an absolute. It's not as if one day you aren't fascist and the next day you are. There's an evolution in a direction, and when you have an inbalance in power between those who favor such policies, then it leads to extremism.

It's entirely possible that the US has headed in the direction of fascism in the past, but then recalibrated itself back towards more moderate policies.

I think there is a push and pull between people who prefer authoritarian models and those who prefer more liberal models. It's more a question of which groups have the upper hand. Whether people like Mandelbrot who consider themselves moderate recognize the trend in time to help stop it.

12:33 AM  
Blogger Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

Snave, the core of the left has been liberal churches dating back to the abolitionist movement, and religious figures still feature prominently at least insofar as they lead voters towards their party. In the past, they have also served a useful buffer by putting forth ideas and beliefs held by more radical members of the Democratic Party while still giving the DP some means to distance themselves. Of course, that is now moot with Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi in prominent positions, and with Teddy Kennedy hanging in front of the mike as though he thought it were a bottle of Jack. On the other side of the aisle, frankly, the main non-doctrinal difference is that the Republicans are too uptight to get wasted in public.

Oh, and Snave, that's some French person's depiction of Cartman farting fire like he did during the episode where Cartman got an anal probe. I love that. :)

Sheryl, I've seen several prominent Republicans already starting to shift more towards the center to better position themselves for reelection next year and for the presidency in '08. I'm even starting to see that a touch in the Democratic Party, though not rapidly enough or with enough organization to have as much hope as I'd like to see for next year's midterm elections. The old joke, "I don't belong to an organized party. I'm a (insert party here)," has certainly applied to the Democratic Party as of late, and as long as that remains a problem, I cannot and will not be excessively optimistic about your party's future on the national stage.

As a side note, I don't think the conflict is nearly as simple as those who prefer a push towards more authoritarian models and those who prefer more liberty. I think the push is more often between those who favor more authoritarianism in different ways. In very general terms, the right wing of the Republican Party favors more state authority in social matters, while the left wing of the Democrats favors more state authority in fiscal matters.

12:49 PM  
Blogger Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

Sheryl, as another side-note, I know fully well that I'm not all that moderate compared to the general population. I'm merely moderate compared to the party with which I share the most ideological ties, the Libertarian Party, or as I think of them, a bunch of tactically-inept extremists who loathe the very things that would actually get some of what they want accomplished.

1:36 PM  
Blogger Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

And my previous post was supposed to have a bit of a lighter tone. If it sounded like it, I didn't mean to sound snippy.

1:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home