Living Under Fascism (the U.S. as fascist state)

http://www.uua.org/news/2004/voting/sermon_loehr.html

SERMON: Living Under Fascism

You may wonder why anyone would try to use the word “fascism” in a serious discussion of where America is today. It sounds like cheap name-calling, or melodramatic allusion to a slew of old war movies. But I am serious. I don’t mean it as name-calling at all. I mean to persuade you that the style of governing into which America has slid is most accurately described as fascism, and that the necessary implications of this fact are rightly regarded as terrifying. That’s what I am about here. And even if I don’t persuade you, I hope to raise the level of your thinking about who and where we are now, to add some nuance and perhaps some useful insights.

-cut-

One of the most outspoken American fascists from the 1930s was economist Lawrence Dennis. In his 1936 book, The Coming American Fascism — a coming which he anticipated and cheered — Dennis declared that defenders of “18th-century Americanism” were sure to become "the laughing stock of their own countrymen." The big stumbling block to the development of economic fascism, Dennis bemoaned, was "liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights."

So it is important for us to recognize that, as an economic system, fascism was widely accepted in the 1920s and '30s, and nearly worshiped by some powerful American industrialists. And fascism has always, and explicitly, been opposed to liberalism of all kinds.

Mussolini, who helped create modern fascism, viewed liberal ideas as the enemy. "The Fascist conception of life," he wrote, "stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual." (In 1932 Mussolini wrote, with the help of Giovanni Gentile, an entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism. You can read the whole entry at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html )

boy, that sounds very close to communism.

So I guess all these neocons are really commies at heart. :evilgrin:

exact. I think more than a few of the neocons started their political life as TROSKYITES. I am pretty sure that is documented about more than a few of them. But I don't have a link.

although being specific, I would label them Stalinist. :grr:

... in the central committee and corresponding disenfranchisement of the the original soviet-councils, at least ultimately recognized his error -- but, of course, too late, and it didn't prevent Stalin from having him murdered in his exile in Mexico.

Most of us really need a better vocabulary for discussing tyrants and would-be tyrants. With fair reliability, Americans engage in emotional name-calling as a substitute for clear-eyed analysis, resorting to a lazy use of "fascist" or "communist," without much regard for historical accuracy.

It's really uninformative to describe the neocons "Trotskyites" or "Stalinists."

<edit: clarity>

...interesting question. America fascist?
Well check out the link below from Reporters sans Frontieres re press freedom. Presumably press freedom can't thrive in a fascist environment.

http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=4116

The USA doesn't do too well, 17th out of 139 countries, but nevertheless ahead of the United Kingdom. (My country doesn't get a mention unfortunately.)

And by the way, if fascism was as you say widely accepted in the 20's and 30's as an economic system, then so too was socialism, where in most of Europe and the UK and its colonies, the state ran the whole show. Here in NZ we're only just emerging from that paralysis.

"And by the way, if fascism was as you say widely accepted in the 20's and 30's as an economic system, then so too was socialism, where in most of Europe and the UK and its colonies, the state ran the whole show."

What supporting evidence do you have that the governments, and/or economies, and/or societies of most of Europe in the 1920's and 1930's were "socialist"? I think most historians would disagree with you.

Here are some definitions of socialism:

a theory or system of social organization by which the major means of production and distribution are owned, manages, and controlled by the government, by an association or workers, or the community as a whole
www.imuna.org/manual/app_a.html

an economic system in which the means of production are controlled by the state
www.wwnorton.com/college/econ/stiglitz/glosss.htm


An economic and political system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (i.e., capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all. In Marxist ideology, socialism is considered an intermediate stage in the inevitable transformation of capitalism into communism. A socialist society is envisioned as being characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat; the existence of a high degree of cooperation and equality; and the absence of discrimination, poverty, exploitation, and war. With the non-existence of private ownership, the private profit motive is eliminated from economic life. Consequently, market forces do not play a role in organizing the process of production. Instead, large-scale government planning is employed to ensure the harmonious operation of the process of production.
www.indiana.edu/~ipe/glossry.html

A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community.
www.northland.cc.az.us/Pos221/resource/definiti.htm

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:SOCIALISM

...no I don't have a link to support it, and I've probably overstated it - at least in terms of your (very good) references.

However, the leaders of many democracies from the 30's onwards (at least here in NZ until the 70's, and at present in France) describe/d themselves as socialists. Savage (New Zealand) Atlee (UK) are the first 2 that come to mind. It's not unlikely that their influence in their own countries is/was comparable with the fascist influence alluded to initially.

OK... granted, "socialism" is an ideology with many branches. For example: Marxism, anarco-socialism, social democracy, etc etc. However, to compare western European socialist (leaning) governments to fascist regimes, is just plain incredulous.... In fact, if you do your historic research, it was actually many of the so-called "socialist" leaning political parties that fought hardest against fascist ideology.

Contemporary social democracy (esp most western European models) have pr oven to have both viable AND effective social and economic policy. Proof is in the pudding... every economic and social index out there would place many contemporary social Democratic states (Sweden, Switzerland, many more)at or near the top in terms of quality of life, social equality, and yes, even economic productivity.

Western social democracy is about as far away from fascism as possible ideologicly. Most Socialists, despite right-wing rhetoric, are not dogmatic Stalinist commies. Modern progressive parties on the left (from the 1930's onward) have always advocated a more just society, maximizing the (capitalist)economy to benefit the largest number of people possible, and ensuring greater rights for women (the vote, equal pay etc etc) Universal pensions and health care, education access, press freedom, the welfare state....the list goes on and on.

Progressive social policy is the actual result of social democratic parties in Europe, which one could hardly call fascist.

...but the point is that looking back with hindsight to the 20's and 30's and labelling regimes as fascist, is using a very broad brush.

However, the leaders of many democracies from the 30's onwards (at least here in NZ until the 70's, and at present in France) describe/d themselves as socialists.

Chirac is a gaullist. That's why he stood AGAINST the socialist candidate Jospin in the presidential election.

And you find that New Zealand is in 9th place - only just behind the 8 joint leaders - http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715 .

USA now at 22nd, and the UK at 28th. The USA placing is due to the restrictions on foreign press visas, and the arrests of journalists during demonstrations; the UK due to the intimidation of journalists in Northern Ireland by paramilitaries, and the failure to advance investigations into these.

Bosnia, a country that still needs external peacekeepers, manages to beat both the USA and UK.

His book "The Road to Serfdom" was prophetic. They laughed at him then, they aren't laughing now...

...Karl Popper too. He saw the road to serfdom (as did Hayek) coming from state socialism. And, it looks a lot more perilous to me when the state is all powerful - as in totalitarian countries worldwide - from Nth Korea to Zimbabwe, than in a liberal democracy.

:thumbsup:

He did an excellent book called 'Facts and Fascism' that, among other things, detailed all the US corporations and organizations collaborating with the German Nazi Party before the war (the book was written just after the war, IIRC). He was of the opinion that while fascism lost in Europe, it gained an unshakeable foothold here in the US.

There's nothing more authoritarian and restrictive to personal freedom than working for a large capitalist corporation. An American employee leaves all their so called freedoms at the door of their workplace.

A state worker might be surly and inefficient but they are much less pressurised or stressed and much less afraid of authority or liable to end up sleeping under a bridge as many Americans do.

What is best for an individual depends on where they are on the social scale. Socialism benefits the vast majority at the base of the pyramid, capitalism the apex.

The advantage of capitalism is that the economy is much more organic and there isn't the absolute tyranny of five year plans dreamed up by a meglomaniac. Although the hidden hand of a small oligarchy of vast wealth is always there in the background. The military industrial complex in other words.

These are extreme positions, no doubt creative solution to social/economic structures will arise over the next decades in various countries if it is allowed (by the neocon neo liberal fanatics) !!!

As human beings, we are both individuals and members of society, there is not one without the other, and individual and social interests are in productive conflict.

We can use this dialectic dichotomy as one, perhaps the most important parameter to define "socialism" and "capitalism/liberalism" while accepting that they are multidimensional fuzzy consepts.
Socialism, as the name implies, gives higher priority to communal considerations than individual, while not dismissing individual considerations. And liberalism vice versa, individual aspect somewhat more important than social. There is no clear boundary between them, both are ways to find working compromises to the fundamental conflict between individual and community.

What is most notable, that this parameter is not form a straight line, but a circle. If the either aspect is taken as absolute and the other denied all-together, what you end up with is totalitarian dictatorship, Fascism, if via state-capitalim, Stalinism, if via state-socialism.

We have become so preoccupied with the rights of the individual that we've neglected to think enough about the duties. One of which is to look out for the wellbeing of the other guy. We have become so concerned with asserting ourselves, in order to stand up to the system, we have lurched into an inadvertent form of elitist tendency which smacks of fascism.

This is not my bailiwick, so I'll shut up now, but I wish you would go on...I've got a lot to learn about this.

I was looking for my listing of 14 characteristics of a fascist state because so many of the Bush admin traits match up closely.

The real sign that the realization is spreading will be when the main media begin calling Democrats and Greens fascist parties, just like the "p" word, propaganda, wasn't used when the Iraq war was promoted like some Ben Hur super-epic on the cable channels but was bandied about when Farenheit 911 made the national news.

....with respect it seems to be stretching the point a little, when islamo-fascist countries are so conspicuous...

Excoriated 24/7 on Faux ReichsPropaganda cahnnel.

"That Lincoln, he's just a dishonest liar. Everyone knows he doesn't want to preserve the Union but just to free the Negroes in order to create a Socialist Welfare State when we deny them the ability to make a living!

"He's just a Yankee Stalinist."

Lincoln was Yankee Liberal. A distruster of corporations and capital. An expander of the Federal Government and the Hero of the Civil War who defeated Bushevikism (though it was not known by that name at that time) for 135 years and probably saved the world because everyone knows that the Confederate States of America would have either aided the Nazis (because so many of their philosophies on race and religion were and ARE similar) or stood by and made sure the LIBERAL United States of America did NOT intervene on the side of the Communists.

Thank God Lincoln did what he did, but don't delude yourself that he would be a Bushevik today.

The Party of Lincoln is now clearly the Party of Lee.

Sad and pathetic, but then, what about Imperial Amerika isn;t, these days?

They seem not to notice all of the old Dixiecrats like Zell Miller believe strongly in their ideals. Just go through the list of Southern Senators and Congressmen...they are mostly all Republican and the ones that aren't identify strongly with the ones that are.

Lincoln would be physically ill at the turn of his party. In fact, he would have switched a long time ago.