Dave Kriss' excellent post on fascism.

This is buried on a poll thread, but i think its so good it deserves its own thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1511596&mesg_id=1513012&page=

I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but I think this is a great place to discuss the new world we seem to be moving into....

I think we are not really moving toward a 20th century fascist "corporate state" as understood by the Italians, more towards a free market fundementalism, where the state enforces (possibly via repression) "economic freedom" (for the buisness community), and "corporate state" style economic coordination happens at the transnational level, via avenues like the WTO, NAFTA, the EU, G-7, etc.

uses taxes to finance corporations, insure them and to bail them out-- the famed "corporate welfare". I don't think this necessarily qualifies our system as fascist corporativism or Chinese-style state capitalism, but it does make it different than simply state-enforced laissez-faire (although I agree that is happening). I think that is more descriptive of the US pre-1930s (before FDIC, gov't business loans, grants and bailouts).

IMF, WTO
I hear these words every place I go
Who are these people? Who elected them?
And how do I replace them with some of my friends?
---Billy Bragg, NPWA


You are right when you suggest that the coordinating economic entity has not been our representative democracy (at least not directly), but instead it's been "kicked up" to the transnational level to organizations like the WTO, World Bank, and IMF. And these organizations pursue, at transnational oligarchic behest, an imperial strategy of imposing "free market" structure on developing economies to the natural advantage of the already established economies. But I think the gig is up; the rest of the world has wised up -- thus something much colder and more ruthless is taking form.

If you look at aggregate GDP of the developing world from 1960 to 1980 (while under the controls of GATT), we see that it rose by 75%; if you look at the same from 1980 to 2000 (when neo-liberal policies and organizations dominate), it rose by just 6%. Then there's the successive economic disasters of East Asia, Mexico (c1995), and Argentina (c2000). And of course the recent examples of Enron et alia. The neo-liberal "emperor" has no clothes now, and globalization will decline as the transcendent myth driving global policy -- and thus decline the long term prospects for the imperial use of the WTO, World Bank, and IMF. Things have changed.

The one area where the U.S. exercises an "industrial policy" that could be compared to Euro-fascist corporatist mobilizations is in the area of the military. Arms production, logistics services, etc. It looks like George W Bush has abandoned the pretense of neo-liberal imperialism in favor of traditional old-school military imperialism. The "War on Terror" replaces "Globalization" which replaced the "Cold War" as the transcendent myth that sets policy and organizes societal resources in the drive to maintain and enhance hegemonic advantage. The Bushistas are retreating from the twenty year neo-liberal experiment (it's use as the driver behind policy) and replacing it with the undisguised barrel of a gun.

Look closely at the National Security Strategy of the United States. We will not allow any new nation to rise to comparable (military) strength. This will take a vigilant "policing" on our part, under the guise of the "war on terror", and will structurally transform the U.S. a long way from the Enlightenment ideals upon which it is based. A Neo-Fascism is rising. And there's much more fun to come...


The illusion of freedom in America will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre.
---Frank Zappa


The USG has since WWII routinely 'sent in the Marines' (directly or by proxy) whenever a relatively defenseless nation opts out of our hegemonic arrangement to an intolerable degree. Observe any number of nations from Nicaragua, Haiti, Grenada, and Panama, to East Timor, Indonesia, the Phillipines -- the list is very long. It's not that any of these nations represented a direct threat to us; they were instead forced back into the 'family' at the barrel of a gun to keep others from defecting. And thus those at the top of the economic pyramid continue to retain advantage. At an abstract level this is not a heck of a lot different than the European colonialisms of past centuries.

Iraq is an example. Allies of ours right up to the invasion of Kuwait, we supplied Hussein with arms and support in his war against the post-Shah defection of Iran. He gets a green light (OK, a neutral light) from April Glaspie to invade, giving the U.S. the opportunity to mobilize massive military assets in the area, push Hussein out of Kuwait, and leave standing bases in Saudi Arabia. We don't go all the way to Baghdad because we recognize the nation will splinter without Hussein's iron grip, and (at that time) we don't value the ensuing chaos.

But then Hussein continues to rebel against his keepers and in 2000 switches reserves and prices oil in euros instead of dollars -- a direct threat to our economic hegemony. If the OPEC nations follow, our deficit-driven economy collapses. Add to this the growing instability within the House of Saud and the prospects of peak oil. These threats are a little more serious than land-reforms in Haiti or Panama, so things will not stand. Bush will act.

Planning to invade Iraq begins shortly after the December 12 coup. And we have the enabling event of 9-11, followed by a manufacture of consent that would make Goebbels proud. "You're either with us or with the enemy" and "Be careful what you say". What are these if not proof of fascism? What is the above if not neo-liberal imperialism?

The American people are not saved by the invasion (we are not the intended beneficiaries); instead, we saw a Patriot Act I ready days after 9-11 and rushed through Congress unread by many; we observe the curios of the Carnahan and Wellstone plane crashes; we live quietly dismayed through the poll-reversing Republican surprises of November 2002, mimicking the quiet following December 12, 2000, aided and abetted by the sudden failure and dismantling of Voter News Service exit polling and a compliant press; we watch as the nepotistic head of the FCC pushes to increase the reach of media corporations to 45% of market even though 29,000+ major media outlets are already concentrated in the hands of 6 transnational corporations. It's been affront after affront, continued class and cultural war, jingoism and death, since Bush has been in office. And his regime has been hard at work putting in the means to repress internal dissent should it get out of hand.

We live in a neo-fascist state not beholden to our shared national interests, but to the interests of a few. There's that old Confuscian curse, "May you live in interesting times". Unfortunately we do, very interesting times -- and very dangerous, too.


See you in Gitmo! Don't forget to bring suntan lotion ... and your own orange jump suits! ... Chalmers Johnson says "plan your outs now" because the window for doing so is quickly closing! Here's hoping there's nothing behind these dystopic visions except a bit of indigestion!

that it sought to impose its will on the people by coercive methods.
The American style is more subtle and, through expert propaganda,makes its subjects want repression and conformity in the name of Freedom and Democracy,all the while imbibing copious amounts of swill doled out by corporate shills posing as journalists.Noam Chomsky has expounded on these themes in great detail in his book
MANUFACTURING CONSENT.

(I borrow from the title of an old and good book by Stewart Ewen.)

>>The American style is more subtle and, through expert propaganda,makes its subjects want repression and conformity in the name of Freedom and Democracy.<<

This is so right; this is why what we see developing here in the U.S. is something new -- calling it "fascism" (as I do) is not entirely useful as it invites a too literal comparison to the Euro-fascisms preceding WWII.

I recall an interesting article by Professor Emeritus of Politics, Sheldon Wolin, of Princeton University that makes the argument that what we're witnessing today is a "kind of fascism", an "inverted totalitarianism" of just the kind you (and Chomsky) suggest (how to get this down to a few paragraphs will be a challenge -- I recommend reading the short article):


----------
A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy
by Sheldon S. Wolin


<snip>

The American system is evolving its own form: "inverted totalitarianism." This has no official doctrine of racism or extermination camps but, as described above, it displays similar contempt for restraints.

It also has an upside-down character. For instance, the Nazis focused upon mobilizing and unifying the society, maintaining a continuous state of war preparations and demanding enthusiastic participation from the populace. In contrast, inverted totalitarianism exploits political apathy and encourages divisiveness. The turnout for a Nazi plebiscite was typically 90 percent or higher; in a good election year in the United States, participation is about 50 percent.

Another example: The Nazis abolished the parliamentary system, instituted single-party rule and controlled all forms of public communication. It is possible, however, to reach a similar result without seeming to suppress. An elected legislature is retained but a system of corruption (lobbyists, campaign contributions, payoffs to powerful interests) short-circuits the connection between voters and their representatives. The system responds primarily to corporate interests; voters become cynical, resigned; and opposition seems futile.

<snip>

While Nazi control of the media meant that only the "official story" was communicated, that result is approximated by encouraging concentrated ownership of the media and thereby narrowing the range of permissible opinions.

<more>
----------

In anticipation of the freeper objection that claims the very fact that I'm still standing after making the arguments of this thread proves that I'm living in the Land of the Free, let me continue:

I bet that the perception of the ordinary American is that nothing's changed; this is still the America of their childhood civics lessons, the land of Jefferson and Madison, of the Liberty Bell and George Washington's cherry tree. Subtle means, all, subtle means achieving the same ends (Lipmann-Bernays-Goebbels-Segretti-Rove have all earned their pay)...

One's perception of "freedom" varies greatly, here, depending on what cell you occupy on this penal colony. Some cells are quite roomy and comfortable, but others, well -- one of our fastest growing industries continues to be prison construction and services. We have the highest incarceration rate in the first world (one of the highest over the entire world). If you're black, male, and live in a city, I think the chances that you spend time in prison are as high as 1 in 3. The chances that you're given the death sentence, another category we lead in, is 8 times higher than if you're white. A buddy of mine was nearly arrested for sitting on the front porch of his home late one night a while ago, a home his family has owned for 50 years. What does this say about the Land of the Free? So, depending on who you ask, you will get very different answers. Some would call this a locked-down police state, not a Jeffersonian democracy.

We still have the right to vote, of course. But though we haven't outlawed political parties, we have the same effect. I've argued for some time now that we have one party in America, the Republicrats; that there are two votes in America, the dollar vote followed by the "democratic" vote. The problem with the first is that you get to vote a lot more if you have more dollars (very un-democratic). The result is that money sets the agenda and class interest prevails. Both Republican and Democrat represent monied interest first and foremost before they differentiate along the lines of their various coalitions (though I acknowledge that the differentiation is very important). The bottom line: There is no need for Nazi-like laws outlawing competing parties -- the ends have been achieved by more subtle means.

I'm free to protest this arrangement, of course, but locked in pens known as "free speech zones" far from the pResidential rally.

Sure, I'm free to advocate. I can advocate for, say, single-payer universal healthcare, but since that item never makes it past the dollar vote it never gets on the public agenda. The result is 42 million Americans have only charitable (emergency room) access to healthcare. So what is this "freedom to advocate" worth if it is defeated in the oligarchic backrooms of power despite the public will?

I'm still free to speak, but note the difference in support between progressive and conservative voices. The money and power behind conservative media far exceed that behind progressive media and has the result of drowning out the progressive message. It's not heard over the shouting sludge slopped forward daily by the major media. So, yes, I am nominally free to speak my mind, but to what effect?

Go ahead, buy a T-Shirt that makes your anti-fascist point known. If you're a highschooler, you could be suspended and have an intimidating visit from the FBI; if you're in a shopping mall you just might get arrested.

So what do we have here, really? Yes we have nominal "freedoms" and we have deeply embraced myths about our "freedoms". But are we free? Ask Martin Luther King, Malcom X, JFK, RFK; ask Carnahan and Wellstone; ask Steve Kangas, Voxfux; ask the dead soldier in Iraq. Recall Ari Fliescher's threats after 9-11, "be careful". I hear Haliburton is rigging Gitmo to be our first death camp. What comes next, what will the neo-cons throw at us next? And will that dissolve our long-held myths?

..his book from about 20 years ago, Friendly Fascism, talked about the ability or freedom to "dissent", but that it "wouldn't matter".

And also about the devleopement & encouragement of political apathy in the public a way to remove potenital threats to the system via the avenue of electoral politics.

Bertrand Gross, Friendly Fascism, but I've never read it. Sounds like I should.

Note that the possibility of a not so friendly fascism may be nigh, too. GWB, son of a former CIA Director, has brought on Reagan/GHWB architects and stewards of our repressive Central American policies in the eighties (this period called by some the "American Holocaust"). People like John Negroponte, Elliot Abrams, Otto Riech, John Poindextor, John Bolton, and more. Why? Does GWB plan for similar success somewhere else? Like, hey, to reverse a few polls and engineer several upset Republican victories in 2002? Or to help engineer a recall election and subsequent hijacking of California ahead of the 2004 election? What are their plans for the 2004 election, these masters at creating (what the CIA calls) the "demonstration election"? Maybe we're lucky Negroponte was just named ambassador to the new Iraq, it'll get him out of our hair for a while.

Steve Kangas, a board pioneer (Liberalism Resurgent) found dead under mysterious circumstances in the offices of Richard Scaife, had this to say about standard operating procedures from the good old days...

----------
A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

By Steve Kangas

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins." Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.

The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an "American Holocaust."
----------

Given that we train the rest of the world how to control the outcome of elections, and given that we've pulled some of the operatives from the 'test labs' of Central America into prominent positions in the current regime, who can say? Maybe some of those black box skills have been put to good use to win back the Congress and will be used again to ensure Bush is reelected. The one thing Bush seems sure about when speaking extemporaneously is that he will win this fall. Awfully confident, eh?

We report, you decide!

The smell of fascism rises...

(This from a post on GD by zaj.)


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040430-15.html

Loyalty Day, 2004 by the President of the United States of America a Proclamation

As Americans, we work to preserve the freedom declared by our Founding Fathers, defended by generations, and granted to every man and woman on Earth by the Almighty. On Loyalty Day, we are reminded that we are citizens with obligations to our country, to each other, and to our great legacy of freedom and democracy.

We learn lessons of loyalty from the selfless dedication and unwavering allegiance of our men and women in uniform. We are grateful for their courage and willingness to sacrifice for our country, and we stand united behind them. Through the "On the Homefront" program, a USA Freedom Corps initiative, many Americans are writing to service members, contributing to the purchase of care packages to be sent overseas, and helping the families of those deployed with basic family needs such as home repairs, financial planning, and child care. By supporting our troops and their families, citizens are making a difference in their communities and showing loyalty to our country through their patriotism.

America's citizens are also demonstrating their loyalty to our Nation through volunteer service. In answering the call to serve something greater than self, Americans reflect the compassion and decency that make our country great. Through the USA Freedom Corps, my Administration is providing information about volunteer opportunities to Americans so they can give back to their communities and help their fellow citizens in need. The hard work and generosity of America's volunteers help build a culture of service and responsible citizenship that strengthens America and sets a positive example for future generations.

Over the past few years, America has once again witnessed the loyalty and character of our citizens. We must continue to ensure that our young people know the great cause of freedom and why it is worth defending. Our Founders believed the study of history and citizenship should be at the core of every American's education. By encouraging students to learn more about American history and values, we can help prepare the next generation of Americans to carry our heritage of freedom into the future. To further this goal, my Administration has created initiatives such as "We the People" and "Our Documents" to help bring the stories and documents central to our history into the modern classroom.

<more>


This is just a prelude to the coming Draft, too.