When is the use of the “F” word appropriate?

Just reading the definition of fascism yields all you need to know. Run down the laundry list and compare it with the united states. Nationalism? I know 9/11 was a tough time for us, and we did ‘come together’ as a nation, but encouraging blind patriotism/nationalism was very apparent, yellow ribbons anyone?? Militarism is another rampant trait that is held up as the savior of our country. As well as the other definitions, I think the ‘fascist’ label fits well with every prez candidate except our main man, ron paul. Keep up the good work saker-Reflux

Thought provoking stuff. However, my objection is that a fascist state would deal with internal dissidence far more harshly than the US does. OK, I know civil liberties have been curtailed since 9/11, but Americans (for the most part) are still basically free to express their opinions and organise protests. That relatively few actually choose to do so does not negate the above. Surely a real fascist state would be locking up far more ‘political’ criminals than the US is doing?

In spite of the similarities in policies, there is one critical difference that makes what is occuring in the US profoundly different. The mid 20th century fascist states–Germany, Japan, and Italy–sought the primacy of their countries for the benefit of the ethnic majority in that state. For example, the Nazis fought for the supremacy of the German state and German peoples in Europe. Their platform was most appealing to the middle and lower middle classes. All fascist regimes in the pre-WWII era were very much concerned about the welfare of the populations.

The same can not be said for the US. From Iraq to Pakistan to Israel, the policies we pursue are antithetical to the interests of the country as a whole. We went to war against Iraq–a secular Arab country who had a Christian foreign minister (Tariq Aziz)–for the benefit of whom? It increasingly appears that the answer is Israel.

At home, both parties continue to forward programs to enhance immigration to the great detriment of the majority of the majority from all economic strata except the most affluent who stand to gain the most from the continuing influx of H1B’s.

What is happening here is so fundamentally different that a whole new word needs to be used. The old tags have lost their meaning.

I call it “Beige” fascism, in that it is not as blatantly brutal and oppressive to it’s own citizens as it is in North Korea or Saudi Arabia.
It’s more Orwellian in that they give americans bigger TVs and more flavors of Doritos and the apparently satiated populace don’t realize that they are in a kind of Big Brother
Society.

I find your arguments for the f-word for the probable candidates in the US as convincing as they are disturbing. Let us not forget that regimes like those in Portugal, South-Africa and others did organize elections and had to a certain extent freedom of expression (for certain parts of the population). But did it start with Bush Jr. and his neocons? It started earlier and it is difficult to say exactly when – and it has not been an entirely linear process. So I would say – the f-word is right but there may still be countervailing powers in the state apparatus or the ruling class itself. And – the example of Portugal comes to my mind – the US would not be the first country in which a broken army ends the rule of the warmongers simply because it has had enough.
Some prospect, innit?

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Mussolini: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism:

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism–ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

Is “ruling class” the educated class with skills tailored to and demanded by the global economy? Sometimes referred to as the upper middle class?

The new “ruling class” to use that phrase is transnational (although increasingly centered in Asia,) and is increasingly breaking down and transcending the divisions of the nation state.

They want security, stability (including transparency and predictability), and peace. Because these things are good for business. Business is increasingly global and interdependent.

They seek the end of conflict over time, and the establishment of a predictable rule of law globally. Because again, that is good for business.

They don’t “rule” by “fraud.” They increase global income and wealth by accelerating global technological progress and knowledge. They derive much of the benefits of the wealth they create in the form of “private goods.” But much of the wealth they create accrues to others in the form of “public goods”—both to other members of the upper middle class and to the masses more generally.

The prosperity of the upper middle classes has resulted in the largest reduction in poverty in recorded human history. Please note though that the aggregate global numbers are misleading. In fact the progress has largely been in Asia, although Latin America has also experienced slight to moderate progress.

The middle east has been quite sluggish (before growing substantially in the 2000s.)

Africa, however, has continued to become poorer over many decades, excluding a surge in growth in the 2000s. Africa remains a global disaster and catastrophe, and a scar on the global human conscience. This tragedy has taken place in part because Africa remains largely autarchic, or not integrated into and interdependent with the global economy. The rest of the world has a moral obligation to help Africa, but is not directly responsible for Africa’s plight. (Colonialism ended decades ago.) The rest of the world is much poorer than it would have been had Africa (and to a lesser degree the middle east) prospered.

Regarding the American left and right. They are very similar for the most part with few real differences. Only a few like McCain and former Senator Moynihan have actually stood up against powerful special interest groups (by supporting a reduction in the number of years a drug stays on patent, trying to block the granting of federal spectrum licenses to telecom companies rather than their auction for hundreds of billions of dollars, trying to block purchases of defense equipment for “pork”) Across the political spectrum, American politicians (and politicians for all the other large free democracies) are generally heavily influenced by special interests that seek to benefit their own small group at the expense of society as a whole (and every other special interest group).

America and almost all large plural free democracies in the world are best defined not as fascist or autocratic democracies but as plutocracies. Where there are many special interest groups and power centers continuously competing with each other and forming rapidly shifting alliances to advance specific policies.

Policy is decided by the alliance of special interest groups that dominates for a specific issue at the moment. Hence the very short term nature, unpredictability, inconsistency and counterproductive (from the standpoint of society as a whole) nature of policy.

Few people in any country favor “fascism” narrowly defined. The global business community least of all. They are bad, unpredictable, and less easily influenced by the global and interdependent business community.

Could someone describe “autocratic capitalism.” Does this refer to China? Interestingly, China is becoming increasingly plutocratic (with growing pockets of pluralism) Its economic freedom and plutocratic nature is increasingly comparable to America’s, but with a Chinese cultural face.

For many people around the world and for a growing number of Americans, China is the new global “America.” It is a place where ambitious people go to “make it” and reach for the stars. Many non-Chinese people I know want to move to China.

Most people around to world would probably love to move to China (if not for the pollution.) It is increasingly to global gold standard in how to do things. Is this what is mean by popular “autocratic capitalism”?

“Ahh the classic economist’s ‘trickle down’ theory. Statistics, however, even those produced by the IMF and World Bank, show quite the opposite. The gap between the rich and poor within countries is not narrowing, but getting wider. The same between the rich and poor nations.”

The aggregate statistics are very interesting. Inequality within nations is increasing almost everywhere. But inequality globally is falling. It is explained by a mathematical truism. Many Asians that are poor by global standards are seeing rapid increases in their standards of living. As a result, even though within Asian countries inequality is rising, since Asia is such a large part of the global economy global inequality is dropping. Again, it is very important to be precise with words and phrases.

”*The prosperity of the upper middle classes has resulted in the largest reduction in poverty in recorded human history. Please note though that the aggregate global numbers are misleading. In fact the progress has largely been in Asia, although Latin America has also experienced slight to moderate progress.

As above. Statistic show otherwise.
Many of the ex Eastern Bloc countries have seen huge increases in poverty, particularly the old Soviet Union.”

There was a large increase in poverty in the early 1990s that has subsequently reversed. Part of the problem is that income in the 1980s was probably much lower than recorded by official statistics. In Eastern Europe and Russia there has been a huge transfer of income between the old and the young (which have the skills demanded by the new global economy.) Poverty among older workers has indeed skyrocketed as you might have implied.

Still, since most of the world’s people live in Asia, Asian growth trumped most of these affects at the global level.

To change the topic a bit, much of growing inequality can be explained by the growing skill gap between workers with skills demanded by the evolving global economy and workers with skills not demanded. In fact the demarcations aren’t strictly by formal education. We are seeing increased inequality within Phd, Masters, Bachelors, some College, HS graduates, HS dropouts based on the skill delineation. (Although the knowledge workers compose more than 10% in the US and other rich countries.)

It is important to note, however, that the relative income of HS dropouts and HS graduates are falling everywhere—even though some countries partly ameliorate this with higher unemployment (caused by artificially raised wages) and transfer payments.

”Most people around to world would probably love to move to China (if not for the pollution.) It is increasingly to global gold standard in how to do things. Is this what is mean by popular “autocratic capitalism”?

Most capitalists, yes. Workers, no.”

Actually, if you look at the aggregate statistics within China, they are astounding. Real incomes are several times higher for poor Chinese than 30 years ago. It is true that inequality has soared, but even so 10% annual growth since 1979 can do wonders for most workers.

And let me correct you . . . most of the people I know who want to move to China are “workers.” In fact Chinese wages are increasingly higher than American wages for many professions. Engineers in China make incomes comparable to American engineers even though the cost of living in China is less than in the States (if you exclude rents which are increasingly higher in China). If you haven’t visited China recently please visit again. You will be stunned by the recent transformation.

HS dropouts with skills that are not in demand have benefited far less. But even there real incomes (if you exclude rental prices) have risen massively. China, communist propaganda aside, was one of the poorest countries per capita on earth in 1979. So even though hundreds of millions of Chinese remain very poor, Chinese poor use to be far far poorer.

When you speak of exploitation, I presume you are referring to workers getting paid less than their marginal product (the amount of addition income that their work generates.) During a time of rapid productivity growth (technological progress), “exploitation” as you measure it can soar while the real incomes of the “exploited” also soar. Regardless of how “unfair” this might be, this is the story of China. (and India and a lot of other countries.)

The global media is so obsessed with celebrity gossip and other boring stories. As a result many are unaware of the stunning growth taking place in much of the developing world.

When I visit parts of India I haven’t been to in a couple of years, it is often hard to recognize. And of course you can add an extra zero in the end to property prices from your last visit to determine property prices in next visit.

I regard this as a much more important and meaningful story than “Israel/Palestine” that quite honestly puts me to sleep (kiss and make up already), and geopolitical “analysis” by obsolete old fogies that refer back to a bygone era in a previous century.

Colbert gravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.

The people know too much,
democracy rising democracy now.
Rage against the machine.

Honesty compassion intelligence guts.

No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
Divided we fall.

slaughtered by dark forces

The darkest force out there, the one which does most of the slaughtering, is the USRaelian Empire. Gravel does not approve of that. I really know very little about his politics, nor do I really care about them, all I want is the Imperial forces back in their “homeland” which he, Kucinich and Paul, advocate. How Gravel would deal with gun toting rednecks inside the homeland is really of no concern to me.

on a more personal note: Anand, you should stop reading the nonsense spewed by the US military’s propaganda machine. The more you read that red white n blue nonsense, the more you quote it, the more out of touch with the real world you are, the more bizarre you sound. Really, do yourself a favor and quit reading that nonsense.

Let’s get one thing straight: the USA got its ass kicked in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, it is in the process of being booted out of Somalia. The propaganda is trying to cover this is, not unlike Hitler who from inside his surrounded bunker promised a victory to the last idiots who listened to him.

Oh, and one more thing – there is no such thing as “Iraqi Armed Forces”. There is the Badr Corps, the Mehdi forces, the Sunni insurgency, the Kurdish forces, etc. The Imperial propaganda can refer to them in any way it wants, but the reality is that all these guys are loyal to their militia bosses.

And before I forget: there are no battalion or brigade level engagements either since there is nobody to engage with such assets. Quoting TO&E does not make anything real.

Now which will it be – the blue pill or the red pill?

Regarding Iraq, you believe that there isn’t a nationalistic spirit or sense among Iraqis. That Iraq has always been a hodgepodge virtual country since 1920 that Iraqis feel no affinity for. You have a partial point. Many Iraqis are divided on this topic. The Iraqis that I have interacted with (excluding some Kurds) believe that there is a sense of national identity among Iraqis. The reaction to the Biden bill in the Senate among Iraqis encouraged me. It confirms that a “nationalistic” sentiment still exists among some Iraqis. Most of the Shia (Badr, Mahdi, Dawa, and Fadhila Sadrist alike) stood up to Khamenei (alongside their fellow Sunni Arab and Kurdish Iraqi brothers) this year and forced him to back down. Whether they can continue to work together in brotherhood and friendship remains an open question. Time will prove what will happen.

Most hopeful for me is the dramatic progress in Iraq’s second most populous and very diverse Ninevah province. The provincial police handle security inside the province well and in a generally nonsectarian way with increasingly less dependence on the nonsectarian and very high quality 3rd and 2nd Iraqi Army Divisions (that are better quality than any army divisions in the Syrian or Iranian army today.) However, other mixed diverse areas are demonstrating less progress.

Many of the ministries in Baghdad and some of the provinces remain highly sectarian. As are some provincial police.

The least partisan, least sectarian, most patriotic, and most competent part of the GoI at the moment is the IA (Iraqi Army.) The IA has substantial sprit de couer. Parts of it have problems to be sure. That said, I will ask you a simple question. Prove to me that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th or 9th IADs (excluding re-designated SIB units) are nonsectarian, partisan, disloyal to the GoI, or otherwise incompetent based on information available from the last 3 months.

Excluding the old British trained IA 1-10 from Basrah now redesignated IA 3-8 being fixed up by the Georgian brigade in Wasit province, the 8th IAD also fights in a very competent and professional manner despite being disproportionately Shia.

You are right that there have been few engagements between the IA and other armed militant groups above the platoon level in months. The IA has decisively won every platoon or squad level engagement it has fought against armed groups for many months. Most of the violence in Iraq in recent months might be called ordinary and organized crime in other countries. But Iraq continues to have many very serious problems and challenges. As US troops leave Iraq in 2008 and 2009, Iraqis will have to solve many of their most serious challenges increasingly on their own. The outcome remains uncertain.

The IA 1-5 and IA 3-5 in Diyala continue to have problems. The fifth IAD is unlikely to be able to relieve the MNF-I forces in Diyala province for some time to come.

But most of the IA has been loyal to the chain of command so far, and performed professionally and effectively on the field. You might argue that that is because the loose Kurdish Alliance with the Shia political parties and some Sunni Arab political parties has more or less held in Baghdad to some degree. You might argue that Iraq’s Army will not be fully tested until a major rupture occurs between Iraq’s major political parties. You have a point. But how can you be certain that “there is no such thing as “Iraqi Armed Forces”?” You don’t know one way or another. That the IA has held together as well as it has so far is encouraging as far as it goes.

“Let’s get one thing straight: the” Iraqi Army has not “got its ass kicked in Iraq.” You have to acknowledge that they have been “winning” lately. Although you can disagree regarding how much of their victory is tactical versus strategic. US troops won’t be needed in 16 out of 18 Iraqi provinces in 6 months. Violence inside Iraq is at its lowest level since the spring of 2005, although still admittedly very high. This is hardly a sign that the IA is getting its butt kicked.

More importantly, the IA is increasingly moving to tactical oversight, and then operational oversight, and finally strategic oversight in most of Iraq. Until “all” security responsibilities and civil law are conducted by provincial police, courts, and provincial governments . . . the GoI and the IA will not have won. (All armies represent a type of marshal law and occupation.) Iraq is still 2 years away from complete provincial self-reliance.

BTW, I know the author of this piece pretty well. This isn’t “propaganda” as you put it. And DJ Elliott certainly does not follow the US government or Pentagon line. I have learnt some pretty nasty things about parts of the IA from him.

He is well aware of this point: “To interact with Iraqis closely for a long time is to bond with them and to love them. The US trainers and advisors with the IA have generally bonded with them and are not completely dispassionate in their appraisals of them with the rest of the US military and the rest of the world. This has to be taken into account when they describe the IA in glowing terms.” He knows when advisors go “native” and start identifying a bit to much with the specific Iraqi counterparts they work with. DJ sees through the “bull” and the “PR.” He is well aware of the IA’s many problems.

I know him a bit better than you do. I have never met anyone as familiar with the ISF as DJ Elliott. If you want to go up against him . . . give it your best shot. But know that he is armed to the teeth with facts, data, articles, and first hand accounts.

Do you know any Iraqi army officers or NCOs first hand? Have you heard anything about the IA from them? Do you know any other individuals who work with the IA inside of our outside of Iraq? What are the sources for your information regarding the IA?

VS,anticapitalista, and Anand:

Instead of quoting secondary and tertiary sources on what Fascism is we can go directly to primary sources. There is no shortage of documentary evidence on how fascists saw themselves and whose interests they were serving. Fascism can not be identified by the methods by which it chooses to combat its opponents. The same tactics are used by powerful organizations and parties regardless of their professed beliefs.

So, here is a translation of the Program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Munich, February 24, 1920, Gottfried Feder, Das Programm der N.S.D.A.P. und seine weltanschalichen Grundgedanken). Here is a link to the German source: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/nsdap25/index.html

Anyone reading this document can plainly see that German Fascism (Nazism)–the archetypal “fascist” movement–was basically a middle and working class movement. Its enemies were both on its right (globalist capitalists) and left (globalist communists–Jews in both camps). There is no need to quote Trotsky to define their identity. Or Naomi Wolf either for that matter–a prominent exponent of the school of resentment known as “feminism.”

Here is a translation of the document:

The Program of the German Workers’ Party is a limited program. Its leaders have no intention, once its aims have been achieved, of establishing new ones, merely in order to insure the continued existence of the party by the artificial creations of discontent among the masses.

11.We demand, on the basis of the right of national self-determination, the union of all Germans in a Greater Germany.
2.We demand equality for the German nation among other nations, the revocation of the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain.
3.We deman land (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our excess population.
4.Only a racial comrade can be a citizen. Only a person of German blood, irrespective of religious denomination, can be a citizen. No Jew, therefore, can be a racial comrade.
5.Noncitizens shall be able to live in Germany as guests only, and must be placed under alien legislation.
6.We therefore demand that every public office, no matter of what kind, and no matter whether it be national, state, or local office, be held by none but citizens. We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of making party considerations, and not character and ability, the criterion for appointments to official positions.
7.We demand that the state make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population the memembers of foreign nations (noncitizens) are to be expelled from Germany.
8.Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich without delay.
9.All citizens are to possess equal rights and obligations.
10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform mental and physical work. Individual activity must not violate the general interest, but must be exercised within the framework of the community, and for the general good.
11. The abolition of all income unearned by work and trouble.
12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices of life and property, imposed by any war on the nation, personal gain from the war must be characterized as a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all business enterprises that have been organized into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
15. We demand the generous development of old age insurance.
16. We demand the creation and support of a healthy middle class, and the immediate socialization of the huge department stores and their lease, at low rates, to small tradesmen. We demand that as far as national, state, or municipal purchases are concerned, the utmost consideration be shown to small tradesmen.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national needs, and the creation of a law for the expropriation without compensation of land for communal purposes. We demand the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18. We demand a ruthless battle against those who, by their activities, injure the genral good. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death, regardless of faith or race.
19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist world order, be replaced by German law.
20. To open the doors of higher education—and thus to leading positions—to every able and hard-working German, the state must provide for a thorough restructuring of our educational system. The curricula of all educational institutions are to be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. As soon as the mind begins to develop, the schools must teach civic thought (citizenship classes). We demand the education, at state expense, of particularly talented children of poor parents, regardless of the latters’ class or occupation.
21. The state must see to it that national health standards are raised. It must do so by protecting mothers and children, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports and by the greatest possible support for all organizations engaged in the physical training of the youth.
22. We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the creation of a people’s army.
23. We demand legal warfare against intentional political lies and their dissemination through the press. To facilitate the creation of a German press, we demand:
1.that all editors of, and contributors to, newspapers that appear in the German language be racial comrades;
2.that no non-German newspaper may appear without the express permission of the government. Such papers may not be printed in the German language;
3.that non-Germans shall be forbidden by law to hold any financial share in a German newspaper, or to influence it in any way. We demand that the penalty of violating such a law shall be the closing of the newspapers involved, and the immediate expulsion of the non-Germans involved. Newspapers which violate the general good are to be banned. We demand legal warfare against those tendencies in art and literature which exert an undermining influence on our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.
24. We demand freedom of all religious denominations, provided they do not endager the existence of the state, or violate the moral and ethical feelings of the Germanic race. The party as such, stands for positive Christianity, without, however, allying itself to a particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can be achieved only from within, on the basis of the common interest before self-interest.
25. To implement these points, we demand the creation of a strong central power in Germany. A central political parliament should possess unconditional authority over the entire Reich, and its organization in general. Corporations based on estate and profession should be performed to apply the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.
The leaders of the Party promise to do everything that is in their power, and if need, to risk their very lives, to translate this program into action.
Munich, February 24, 1920
Gottfried Feder, Das Programm der NSDAP und seine weltanschaulichen Grundgedanken

VS,

If you object to the use of Nazi Germany and the documents generated by its committed members as a prototype for what a fascist state and fascism is (because their platform only applied to Germans), strip out every mention of “Germany” or “German” and you still have the essence of fascism–a middle and working class movement opposed to aristocracy, unearned income, anti-immigration, universal education regardless of income, and professional promotion based on meritocracy (instead of class) backed by the power of the state to enforce these values. It is intrinsically a nationalistic philosophy /ideology–and rin its ethnic focus racist as well. Militarism is also clearly a component. But to say militarism alone and the suppression of civil liberties alone is the “core” of fascism is really confused. At any rate we will probably always disagree which is fine.

Finally, please permit me to indulge my loathing for Naomi Wolf and her ilk who are nothing more than propagandists. Her career has been based on finding inequities, particularly gender-based inequities, everywhere she looks from commercial advertising to academic promotions. She along with members of other academic departments with dubious academic worthiness–Afro-American Studies, Jewish-American Studies, Woman’s Studies–are the real social revolutionaries who want to engineer the new middle and professional classes in America based on skin color, gender, and ethnicity, and imagined past injustice–rather than merit. To quote her is to lose all credibility. She is part of the problem in America, particularly the education system which values all everything which is non-Christian, non-male, non-white, and of course, non-Western.

Ironically, you would deny me the use of the Nazi’s own documents in explaining what fascism is but Naomi Wolf in her lecture uses the example of the Weimar Republic generously!

@anonymous (BTW – I wish you guys would sign your posts – even with a silly handle – just so I know who said what):

I really cannot argue as to whether National-Socialism is Fascism or not. It seems to me that Nazism is something really specifically German, linked to old German myths, and carefully tailored to the German mindset whereas Fascism is more of a universal phenomenon. The idea of “Korean Nazis” just makes no sense to me whereas “Korean Fascists” does.

As for Naomi Wolf – please loathe her to your heart’s content. She appeared on my radar screen with her lecture on Fascism in 10 easy steps and I liked it a lot. I never read anything by her in the past, and possibly never will in the future.

The fact that I am a White Christian male, albeit not a “Western” one, really says nothing to me at all and if Naomi Wolf hates everything White, male, Christian and Western it leaves me utterly indifferent as these categories really mean little to me. Take even “Christian”. Are we talking about Billy Graham, Saint John Chrysostome, the Papacy, Reverend Moon or the LDS?

What I will say is that I wonder what you mean about “imagined past injustices” in America when even the very *name* America is an injustice :-)) Not to mention that if there is one thing the USA needs today that’s social revolutionaries.

Lastly, please believe me that I do not deny you anything at all. I might disagree with something you say, but I would never presume to tell you what words to use or what things to write. And I never ever remove a post from this blog. So please disagree with me as forcefully as you can and “bring it on!” as Dubya told the Iraqis. Hopefully, I will fare better than he did ;-)

The Saker

“Vineyard, do you agree with Mahatma Gandhi?

The short answer is ‘yes’. The longer one is as follows:

I have become convinced that the use military force is only justifiable in case of actual armed aggression. I don’t believe in preventive or preemptive wars. However, since I sit and write this in my relatively safe and cozy home and nobody is likely to come and kill or kidnap my family. I am not willing to condemn those who take up arms to liberate themselves from oppression. I believe that my relative safety places a higher burden upon me to renounce violence while not condemning those who do use it in far more tragic circumstances. “

This answer confuses me. Mahatma Gandhi strongly believed in non-violence even if it led to the violent extreme torture and death of every Indian and the end of Indian civilization, culture, language, and tradition in the world (which he acknowledged might happen.). Mahatma Gandhi further believed that non-violence in thoughts was more important than non-violence in actions. He believed that it was very important to love the person torturing and killing everyone you knew and loved with all your heart and soul (with the divine love that transcends all life.) It was far better to commit violence with love and compassion in your heart, than commit non-violence outwardly with anger in your heart.

This is the teaching of all eastern religions in fact. (And I suspect of Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Zorastrianism) Love all, including your enemy, with all your heart and soul always.

The question is, if someone breaks into your home and attempts to harm you or your family, would you love that person with all your heart and soul as all religions insist should be done? And would you demand that the police practice non-violence and sathya graha in their attempt to prevent the criminal from hurting you and your family?

America use to have a much higher crime rate only a few decades ago. Although crime is lower now than anytime in our recorded history, America still has more than 10,000 violent deaths a year (versus 55,000 violent deaths a year in Brazil and much higher per-capita violent death rates than that in Venezuela and South Africa). So what I am describing might happen to you and your loved ones. The question is whether police should use force to prevent the deaths of civilians and otherwise try to stop crime.

Would you insist on yourself and those you love being tortured and killed rather than allow police to use force to prevent suffering and death?

Gandhi insisted on precisely that. And that the police not use force to stop the partition riots that killed 1-2 million and ethnically cleansed 20-30 million people in a few weeks. Gandhi felt that the police should use Sathya Graha to inspire and discourage people from using violence.

Nonviolence is an extremely tough and courageous path. That is why I have the deepest respect and admiration for pacifists including Mahatma Gandhi, Jains, the Dalai Lama, nonviolent Taoists, nonviolent Budhists, etc.

Dear friend,

I hope that I will not disappoint you when I say that I do believe in engaging with everyone regardless of their ideas. Besides, if a Nazi says something correct, is that a reason to dismiss him?
I was raised in a visceral hatred of anything ‘communist’, others are raised with just as much hatred towards anything ‘Christian’, or ‘Nazi’ or ‘Jewish’ – but is not all hatred the same in its blindness?
Since I have finally understood how misguided my former hatred of everything ‘communists’ was, I really do feel like rejecting *any* person on the basis of his/her beliefs. I still reject communism as an ideology, but I do not see those who believe in it as fundamentally different from myself anymore.
I have no idea whether ‘anonymous’ is a Nazi or not and neither does anonymous know what my values, beliefs and ideas are, for that matter. So let us all judge each other by the value, or lack thereof, of what we say here rather than on what we suspect a person’s beliefs might be.
Lastly, Nazis suffer like all humans do, they cry like the rest of us does, and they seek hope like we do. That common humanity that we share with them is far more important than what separates us. I realize that they might not think of the rest of us in these terms, but that does not matter since, we would all agree, their ideas are quite mistaken.
my 2cts.

“So let us all judge each other by the value, or lack thereof, of what we say here rather than on what we suspect a person’s beliefs might be.”

I could not agree more!

@anticapitalista, VS, and anand:

I now believe that the present form of governance in our country–an elite group governing largely brainwashed masses–is more akin to Bolshevism than Fascism, but I really do not know that any previous historical example is comparable to our predicament. In the control of the largely unquestioning media, legislature, and executive branch, as well as judiciary, the neocons have achieved a degree of control never before seen in American history. And the allegiance of the neocons is to whom–the USA? No! Their allegiance is Israel first. Their goal is the security and comfort of Israel. So who is the Imperial power? America? or Israel? Can you blame the servant for the sins of its master?

@anand: American foreign policy should be to protect and further the interests of the American people. It is not to provide welfare and jobs to the rest of the world. We do not owe the world anything. It is the globalists who think and write as you. Americans are being bled dry financially as well as militarily thanks to thinking such as this!

@anticapitalista: I am an American patriot. I am one of the rare Americans who actually believes in freedom, and justice under the law, and putting the interests of the American people first in our foreign and domestic policies! I am not a Communist, fascist,hatemongering Neocon, or racist Nazi! I love the promise and the ideals enshrined in the Constitution–if only we abided by it! If I seemed to be acting like a provocateur I am sorry. But terms like “fascism” are chosen by propagandists like Naomi Wolf (to whom I will return in a moment) for their emotional content as much as their literal meaning, and it is helpful for folks to know what fascists believe. And VS may deny it, but going to primary sources and reading what they wrote is important. I believe that fascism as it found in expression in 1930s Germany is the archetype/model for other fascist movements. Maybe I am wrong. I simply do not know. I will research this some more but at any rate, I AM A PATRIOT! And a worried one!

Now, to return to my favorite hatemonger, Naomi Wolf: she is no patriot concerned about the rise of fascism (however you care to define it) in the US! This new member of the John Birch society is a phony! In fact, she is a radical advocate of use of the coercive power of the sate. She advocates the use of temporary forced male sterilization and government licensing to father children. Even in her lecture regarding the signs of fascism she cites the imprisoning of lobbyists! Jesus, Naomi, you mean the ones who are passing our country’s secrets to Israel????? Imprisoning traitors to the country? That is now a sign????

Naomi Wolf is no friend of freedom. She is just as radical as Podhoretz and his confreres. I do not fully understand her role but here is her take on why the global war on terror was undertaken:

“There are huge profits to be made from a global war on terror, a hyped global war on terror … Basically, at the end of the Cold War, that third of the economy that made Cold War weapons was looking at declining market share unless we found a new enemy, and so these same arms manufacturers have now shifted into security technologies and surveillance technologies, and they have lobbyists, and their lobbyists are working closely with Homeland Security, and writing these laws. So, in a hyped war, where billions are at stake, you need an enemy.” (From,http://words-of-power.blogspot.com/2007/11/randi-rhodes-interviews-naomi-wolf.html”>this blog.) So has she not heard about the Israel lobby which has been well-demonstrated to be the driving force behind the war? Is she ignorant? No, of course, not! She is instead pointing to the armaments industry! Not the neocons and their Israeli handlers. She points to real problems but instead of pointing the finger at the source of our troubles she further obfuscates the issue by pointing to another non-player, the armament manufacturers! Hey Naomi, what evidence do you have of the lobbying efforts of our armaments industry? Like Greenspan and Palast, I personally suspect she is intentionally trying to obscure the issues and she may well be a neocon/Israeli pawn. Are the neocons simply afraid of what they have spawned? I don’t know, but it is worth keeping an open mind. The propaganda war is always active and the fight for the control of the mind of man is ongoing.

I like the checklist of fascist characteristics provided by the Council for Secular Humanism.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. Check.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. Check.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. Check.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Check.

5. Rampant sexism. Check.

6. A controlled mass media. Check.

7. Obsession with national security. Check.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Check.

9. Power of corporations protected. Check.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Check.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Check.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Check.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Check.

14. Fraudulent elections. Check.

Is the US a fascist regime? Check.

@mizgin:

The Council for secular humanism has an agenda and they are conveniently defining fascism as everything that they are not!

To see how much nonsense, let’s take a few of their points:

“5. Rampant sexism. Check.”

Nonsense! What example do they offer? The sanctity of the notion of motherhood as the well-spring of renewal for the country and the birth of future fascists is more like it!

“6. A controlled mass media. Check.”

Hardly different from Bolshevism, no?

“7. Obsession with national security. Check.”

A rather paramount concern to all nations except those distracted in distant lands removed from the interests of the majority of citizens.

“8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Check.”

Really? Interesting idea, but totally wrong. Fascism is through and through secular in its outlook. If there is one sacred object in fascism it is the state. Fascist states do not concern themselves with the mystical. Bolshevists and communists do.

“9. Power of corporations protected. Check.”

Wrong again! Fascists are populists at heart and their enemies are just as much the corporatists/capitalists as Communists.

“10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Check.”

Workers were attracted to the social progressiveness of fascism and the centrality of such socialist ideals as old age pensions and composed the majority of the Nazi party.

“11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Check.”

Suppression of art considered subversive, yes. But where do you find this in the US?

“12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Check.”

Maybe, because fascism grew out of populist resentment and need for justice ?

“13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.”

Our present kleptocracy is well-characterized by this, and maybe all countries?

My main complaint with use of the word “fascism” is that it is being used to engender visceral emotions of hate and fear because of its association with Nazism. Propagandists use the term for that effect, when in reality this is so far removed from fascism that I struggle to find a word.

Here I go again, but listen to how Naomi Wolf uses the word. She actually defines it by its police tactics in relation to the individual, which is simply a rhetorical posture to engender the most hate for the object of her attack. In this case, it is the Bush and Cheney administration, but these guys are puppets. The puppet masters are the neocons and the Israelis! I am suspicious of her agenda. I think that she may be covering for the neocons in the press and academia as well as government by scapegoating GWB and Cheney.

I can’t believe I find myself defending Cheney, but if Naomi Wolf is against him, well, my antipathy for her tactics almost forces me to defend him! Perhaps, this is irrational but she her devotion to individual liberty remains suspect in my eyes.

I’ve been following the thread with some interest, especially the attempt by VS, anticapitalista and others to clarify a useful definition of fascism. Anticapitalista almost has me convinced that it may not be useful to apply the fascist label to what’s going on in the US, but I still have questions.

To take up Trotsky’s words:

Fascism is a particular governmental system based on the uprooting of all elements of proletarian democracy within bourgeois society… [it plans] to smash all independent and voluntary organisations, to demolish all the defensive bulwarks of the proletariat, and to uproot whatever has been achieved during three-quarters of a century by the Social Democracy and the trade unions.

Do you think that the goal of those in control of the US is to move the US as far as they can in the direction described by Trotsky? If so, would it be appropriate to sound the fascist alarm even if the US is not yet a fascist state? If this isn’t the direction in which the US is going, what would be the best term to describe the US regime–in which many US citizens are free (at least for the time being) to engage in discussions such as this, but which has stripped its citizens of such traditional protections as habeas corpus and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, has developed a significant private military force, has established secret prisons that are beyond judicial oversight, and has no qualms about starting unprovoked wars around the globe? There have obviously been many societies (not necessarily fascist) that have exhibited these characteristics. So, what would be the best term to capture the US phenomenon? “Authoritarian capitalist” may be accurate, but I’m not sure it fully captures the recent trend among US rulers to embrace openly the authoritarian policies that they formerly kept under the carpet. One could argue that the US has long (always?) been an authoritarian capitalist state, but something has been changing over the past decade, and I’m not quite sure how to describe the change.

@oldfolio. You write Do you think that the goal of those in control of the US is to move the US as far as they can in the direction described by Trotsky? If so, would it be appropriate to sound the fascist alarm even if the US is not yet a fascist state?

To be honest it is hard for me to fathom the long term goals of the Neocons. However, judging by what they have already done I would submit the following as factual observations:

1) the Neocons are the source of the current US Fascism. Others might benefit from it, but they are the prime force behind it.

2) the Neocons are pulling the USA in a direction which neither the old “Anglo” elites nor most of the population seems to approve of. Essentially they are making the USA an instrument of Likudnik policies.

3) the defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan combined with a quasi certain war against Iran is now creating a reaction (in a dialectical sense) in the non-Neocon segments in the US society which forces the Neocons to use other methods to impose their rule. Hence the gradually clear shift towards genuine Fascist methods.

Unlike Trotsky, I do *not* think that class struggle is the main force behind the Neocon’s attempt to turn the USA into a Fascist state. In fact, there are plenty of tensions *within* the US elites at this point with all the “old guard” (such as Brzezinski, Scowcroft, Baker, Papa-Bush etc.) bitterly opposed to the Neocons and their polices.

The core issue here is national: whose interest should the USA serve: American or Israeli.

The Neocons have succeeded in literally hijacking the US polity and are using it for their own purposes. Now that their policies have obviously failed (the Dubya Presidency has been, arguably, the single worst in all of US history) their only chance to remain in power (and to avoid being put on trial) is to make a US pronunciamiento. That is, I believe, what the upcoming war with Iran and the 2008 election will be all about.

Although isn’t a “pronunciamiento” declared by the military before a coup or an attack on the government?

VS
Hello again.

You bring up other issues that may well be worth bringing up in another post ie the relationship between the US neo-cons, Israel and US imperialism. Again I have to disagree that US foreign policy is “directed” by Israel. I won’t post here why as it is off topic.

Back to fascism or not.
Howard in Australia was very recently kicked out of office, with the victors being the Australian Labor Party (very Blairite).
Now Howard and his government was very much a Bushite government, all the things you point out on your blog about the US “fascist” regime, apply to Australia.
Now how and why on earth would a ‘fascist’ allow himself (it is male in this case) to not only lose the election for his party, but fail to get elected himself! Can you imagine Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, Mao (though not fascists, but certainly dictators, the last 2) letting this happen?

VS,

I hope I am not out of place by asking this but how are you so confident about the struggle between the “Anglos” and the Jews? You seem to write with a greater certitude about this than most. I think you are probably right, but you seem to have absolutely no doubt. Through all the commentary, you are unwavering that this struggle in policy is framed around ethnic interests. How are you so certain? You said you rubbed shoulders with the Anglos. Was this in the State Dept? Or DoD? Naval intelligence?

Sorry, if I am overstepping here. It is just curiosity.

VS,

Since you are the closest person I can ask who may have known men like our present leaders, I would like to ask you about their motivations. What is in it for folks like Cheney, GWB, and Rumsfeld? They are not Jewish. Are they simply thrilled by the power? The position? Do they believe that the neocon agenda actually is good for the US? I remember that Cheney was on record after the first Gulf War as being against the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Hussein because it would destabilize the region as it indeed it has. Same with Rumsfeld. So why the change in strategy?

How is it good even for Israel? Iraq was pretty much defanged after the first Gulf War so what was the point. The notion that we could bring democracy to Iraq at gun point, and the other middle east countries would then follow suit seems a little crazy, no?

I’m still struggling with trying to understand what is going on, and I feel like only little bits and pieces of the story are known. I just don’t know how they fit together, and maybe not all of them do. The grand strategy seems mysterious. Is it just to fracture Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon into powerless little statelets, as some have claimed? But if that was the strategy, then we are done now. Why can’t we go home? Are the troops there to prepare for an attack against Iran? And what about the base in Lebanon? What the heck is that for and how are we going to pay for it?????

And why the renewed animosity to Russia. I am an American but even to my biased eyes, the building of radar and ABM bases in Russia against non-existent Iranian missiles is kind of suspicious.

Is this some part of a grand scheme for a confrontation with russia?

@anonymous:
Since you are the closest person I can ask who may have known men like our present leaders, I would like to ask you about their motivations. What is in it for folks like Cheney, GWB, and Rumsfeld? They are not Jewish. Are they simply thrilled by the power? The position? Do they believe that the neocon agenda actually is good for the US?

First, thanks for calling me a closest person. In this virtual world this is actually something very nice to say. Second, I can only guess about the motivations of the people you mention. I did know some higher ups, but not the ones you mention. My guess is that Cheney and Rumsfeld “jumped ship” from the old Anglo guard to the Neocons when they sensed that this is where power now lies. As for Dubya – he is the perfect cretin, easy to manipulate and tell what to do. He did not choose them, they chose him.

How is it good even for Israel?

It is definitely not. But then, Neocons are motivated by their hateful ideology, not pragmatic considerations.

And why the renewed animosity to Russia. I am an American but even to my biased eyes, the building of radar and ABM bases in Russia against non-existent Iranian missiles is kind of suspicious. Is this some part of a grand scheme for a confrontation with russia?

Remember that Neocons are former Trotskyites. Their ideological (and sometimes biological) parents hated Russia with a passion. Trotsky was the main butcher of the Russian intelligentia. The hatred that these people feel for the Russian people is absolutely visceral. Alexander Solzhenitsyn had already pointed out how totally Russophobic people like Richard Pipes were and that never stopped. The Neocon ideology presupposes a deeply felt hatred for anything Russian and Putin, in his own ex-KGB way, still stands for a stronger and independent Russia so this is why the Neocons are trying to challenge and alienate and provoke Russia at each opportunity.

Dear Tim,

Thanks for your comments which I will try to address the best I can.

The main reason that I do not want my blog to be filtered in any way is 1) that I do not believe in censorship in any form (and God knows there are plenty of censored platforms out there – why add another one?) and 2) because having been wrong in the past I do not have the arrogance needed to presume that my ideas are correct whereas others are not. Not only that, but I see no reason to censor what some presume to be “Fascist” or “Nazi” posts and not the posts somehow reflective of other ideologies which have caused many more atrocities and victims than National-Socialism or Fascism. Please understand me right – I personally abhor both National-Socialism and Fascism, but I do not believe that they are in any way somehow ‘specially’ made or exceptional in any way. They are on par with all the other ideologies of the 20th century including Marxism (in all its flavors) or capitalism (in all its flavors). But somehow subjecting putatively Nazi/Fascists posts to some exclusionary policy I would become part to one of the worst lies ever: that these ideologies are in any way worse than the rest of the equally toxic totalitarian ideologies of our time. Its a feel-good thing, really. By clamoring that the Nazis and Fascists are ‘oh so bad’, by giving a special name to their atrocities (the ‘Holocaust’) or by pegging a one only officially acceptable figure on the number of victims of these atrocities (6 million) we totally devalue and debase the sufferings of all the other victims of atrocities of the 20th century. The slogan “never again” directly implies that something which should not happen again has (at least temprarily) stopped whereas I know that what happened during the reign of the Nazis and Fascists really began *before* them (the first concentration camps were built by the Brits to massacre the Boers) and never stopped since. In fact, it is still ver much continuing today (in the Congo for example). So while the political tide today is to somehow ‘exceptionalize’ the horrors of WWII, you cannot count on me to participate to what I consider factually baseless and morally wrong.

I do not see some victims as more deserving of sympathy than others or some butchers as less deserving from condemnation than others. All of them are equal in my eyes.

As for what would happen or not to me in a truly Fascist regime I can say that having already lived under several Fascist regimes in my life (Greece, Argentina) I am not at all under the illusion that everybody has to be terrified under such a regime. The reality is, of course, that if you fit into a specific profile you do have to be terrified, but if you don’t you are relatively safe. If you really believe that all Germans with the sole exceptions of card-carrying NSDAP members were terrified to live under Hitler you are quite mistaken (my maternal family had the dubious privilege to live under Hitler’s rule and even though they were considered as ‘subhumans’ in the Nazi ideology there were not frightened of the Nazis who mostly left alone those who did not overtly oppose them). I suggest that you have a somewhat ‘Hollywoodian’ view of life under a Fascist or Nazi state.

Anyway – from the tone of your post I very much doubt that I will persuade you of anything, but I welcome the opportunity to address some of these issues here.

The Saker

Evkharistopoly filos mou (sorry for the terrible spelling).

As best as I can judge my previous post answering Tim Malone pretty much refutes, at least from my point of view, every single argument presented in this article.

As an aside, notice the obligatory use of the special name “Holocaust” and only correct figure (6 million). These are just the main buzzwords designed to 1) obfuscate any possibility of serious discussion and 2) reinforce the myth of Jewish exclusiveness.

Nizkor (http://nizkor.org/) has, I believe, a much better way to deal with wannabe Nazis: to crush them and their lame propaganda by unmasking the fallacies and lies which it is based upon.

It is outright bizarre for me to observe that from all the ugly totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century National-Socialism is *by far* the dumbest and most easily refutable one and, paradoxically, this is also the one which is most artificially silenced either legally or by self-censorship. All this anti-Nazi censorship just gives the skinheads and inbread rednecks an aura of exotic crimethink which these sad idiots really do not deserve.
my 2cts.

Irish Eyes,
Nevermind Naomi Wolf and whatever she is (or is not). I did not post her lecture because I like her. Listen to her *arguments* which stand on their own regardless of who actually makes them (even if a Zionist Feminist crook maiired to a really horrible person says that 2+2=4 this does not invalidate this fact, now does it?)

Please – just listen to her lecture, ok? Please!! (-: can you hear that anguish, the despair in my pleading voice? :-)

In my previous post the second sentence should read “that was not the only point of my argument.”

In regards to not censoring people who advocate sex with kids – I can just see you consoling the victim of some child abuse with the wisdom that the perpetrators will be defeated in political argument on your blog!

The latest socialist worker makes some far more pertinent points about the craziness of your liberal ‘challenge’ to fascism …
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13686

The very idea that fascism is defeated by reasoned debate is a ridiculous concept and is not borne out by any analysis of history. Similarly describing the USA and the democratic/republican candidates as fascist can only lead to a complacency about the real dangers of allowing fascists a platform.

In regards to not censoring people who advocate sex with kids – I can just see you consoling the victim of some child abuse with the wisdom that the perpetrators will be defeated in political argument on your blog!

Your arguments makes the baseless assumption that child abuse advocacy somehow generates more cases of child abuse. Likewise, I have read Hitler, Goebbles, Mussolini, Nitzche, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao and even Kim Il-Sung and none of that ever gave me any desire to adhere to their political philosophy.

Tim – the real crux of the issue is that you are an opponent of free speech, that you not only believe in censoring those whom you label “Nazis”, but you want others to do likewise. You extremely far fetched arguments justifying depriving people of the fundamental human right and dignity of MAKING THEIR OWN CHOICES is something which all totalitarians share. Its a form of ‘intellectual goose-stepping’ which the Nazi ideologues, which you so much dislike, have in common with you and those who want to decide for the rest of us what is right and what is wrong.
The point of this blog is to offer a place FREE from such censorship. Nazis, as well as all others, including paedophiles, narco-terrorists, anti-Semites, racists, cult members, genocidal maniacs and other, are all sincerely and warmly welcome to post here, to express their views and to defend their point of view. I will rip their arguments into fine bruised shreds, but I will do so politely and without ever telling them to shut up or go elsewhere.
Kind regards,
The Saker