Robert Kennedy Jr on "fascism"

"While communism is the control of business by government, fascism is the control of government by business. My American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism as 'a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership together with belligerent nationalism.' Sound familiar?

"The rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930s offers plenty of lessons on how corporate power can undermine democracy. While the United States confronted its devastating depression by reaffirming democracy -- enacting minimum wage and Social Security laws to foster a middle class, passing income taxes and antitrustlegislation to limit the power of corporations and the wealthy, and commissioning parks and public lands and museums to create employment and safeguard the commons -- Spain, Germany, and Italy reacted to their economic crises in a very different manner. Industrialists forged unholy alliances with right-wing radicals and their charasmatic leaders to win elections in Italy and Germany, and then flooded the ministries, running them for their own profit, pouring government money into corporate coffers, and awarding lucrative contracts to prosecute wars and build infrastructure. Benito Mussalini's inside view of the process led him to complain that 'fascism should more appropriately be called "corporatism" because it is the merger of state and corporate power.'

"These elected governments used the provocation of terrorist attacks, continual wars, and invocations of patriotism and homeland security to privatize the commons, tame the press, muzzle criticism by opponents, and turn government over to corporate control. 'It is always a simple matter to drag the people along,' noted Hitler's sidekick, Herman Goering, 'whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounced the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.'

"The White House has clearly grasped the lesson. The Bush administration won't ask its industry paymasters to protect their chemical and nuclear plants, but instead has devised an alert system seemingly designed to keep Americans in a constant state of apprehension. As to the war on terror, 'It may never end,' warned Vice President Cheney in October 2001. 'At least, not in our lifetime.' "

Crimes Against Nature; Harper & Collins; 2004; 193-5

...or like a mirror-image of communism in how corporate and state power are merged.

is a pretty good commentary on the subject which was brought up and debated yesterday.

Communism would involve the dissulotion of both the state and coporations as we know them.

Communist dictatorships have consistently tried to use "socialism" without a democratic framework, the excuse being it is a necessary stage to get to the end of the rainbow.

In an essay coyly titled “Fascism Anyone?,” Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, identifies social and political agendas common to fascist regimes. His comparisons of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet yielded this list of 14 “identifying characteristics of fascism.” (The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2. Read it at http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm ) See how familiar they sound.


Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
 
Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
 
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
 
Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
 
Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
 
Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes the media are directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
 
Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
 
Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
 
Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
 
Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
 
Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
 
Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations
 
Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
 
Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and very important information. It is hard for some people to stick to the actual definition. This is often due to the blur between the fascists and the fanatics. But the distinction is real; it is in our best interests to understand every potential division in the opposition we face.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm


(where you can also download the informative trifold pamphlet of these 14 points in .pdf format )

dp

that we are headed in that direction...

or arrived?

I tend to think we are there. The fact that there is only minor domestic resistance to the sad state of affairs is the reason people may not appreciate what has happened. But we are not the nation we used to be.

we never were the nation we used to be.

So much of the national narrative has been built on revisionist HIStory, symbol, propaganda, false myth, that it is unclear what we are or were as a nation.

I guess it depends on what color glasses we use.

Very valid point, indeed.

Delivered to whom? Think about it.

Those who question the glasses are condemned. Those who take off the glasses are stunned and know they will be discarded. Those who "see" attempt to make a difference in current circumstances.

We are in interesting times.

by Thom Hartmann
snip---
".......In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace bluntly laid out in his 1944 Times article his concern about the same happening here in America:

" If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. ... They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead."
Nonetheless, at that time there were few corporate heads who had run for political office, and, in Wallace's view, most politicians still felt it was their obligation to represent We The People instead of corporate cartels. "American fascism will not be really dangerous," he added in the next paragraph, "until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information..."

Noting that, "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggest that fascism's "greatest threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States itself."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0719-15.htm

I thought this piece was pretty right on.

This movement toward fascism has got a lot of momentum. What is the Demo plan to fight this? Blogging ain't enough. I don't feel that many of the Demo's in Congress have clearly figured out whose side they are on. They enjoy the status-quo and seem afraid to rock the boat and maybe loose their gravy train. In a fascist state the rich make out. Most of the Demo's are rich. Can they truly represent the middle class? We need to send them a clear message. "George says you are either for or against him, so what are you?". Especially those that are up for re-election.
Rhett

Interesting point. And it's true that it is hard to take on the same system that has made you so very comfortable. Yet I think it is fair to ask if the congress has much power at all today? If "yes," what power?

eliminate the railroad rather than just have it run on time? :shrug:

TOO mobile, ya know? Makes things easier to CONTROL. :think:

«"While communism is the control of business by government, fascism is the control of government by business. My American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism as 'a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership together with belligerent nationalism.'»

Communism? That's what communism is? I totally disagree. What the Soviets actually did was sponsor a very large, cemented form of aggressive government controlled capitalism under the pseudo-name of "communism."

I ask people to give some thought to what communism really is.

As for fascism, helterskelter or skelterhelter, it doesn't matter whether business seems to be controlled by government or vice versa... it's still fascism, very oppressive and anti-human.

Sue

are all theories of the best manner for industrial societies to function. They all are better on paper than in practice. To the extent that the Soviet Union or China were/are not "perfect" is the exact extent by which the noble theory goes astray when applied to real live human beings.

In a communism there would be no corporations or state as we know them. Socialism is democratic state control of the economy. There are various types of undemocratic state control over the economy.

Communism involves no seperate economic and state spheres, the entire nature of production and governance is altered.

Totalitarian countries controlled by "Communist" Parties were no more communist than Hitler was a socialist.

Whereas, "socialism" is government diversification/distribution of economy/property.

Capitalism was SUPPOSED to be a "merit-driven" system for all participants based upon equal opportunity. But, it's devolved into,...well, a corporate system,...which is neither communism or socialism,...but, fascism or the good ole' aristrocracy crap that humanity has been trying to overcome ever since the proposition of "democracy".

On the side, I am always freakin' stunned by those who actually hold Hitler out as a socialist. I mean, damn,...what is the matter with these people!!!! *LOL*

Capitalism wasnt supposed to be anything. It was never planned. It is defined by private ownership of the means of production and the reinvestment of profit by capitalists.

The merit based aspect of capitalism is a myth long propagated by those whos interests are served by capitalism. The term social darwinism should come to mind.

Socialism is when the state, as an agent of the people owns the means of production and drives production and investment.

Communism involves the dissolution of the state in favor of localized cooperation based organization.

Capitalism, that is.

The "state" of socialism still involves a group of folks who are SUPPOSED to carry out and manage ownership by "the people" (which never worked out 'cause,...well,...same ole' same ole' power-mongers end up in charge).

I had no idea that "communism" was theorized as you propose. Perhaps I should do more reading because I believed that economic theory to be something quite different from what you propose. Fascinating.

There was no social ideal behind capitalism. The ideals that have been attached to it were developed after capitalism had long existed.

Socialism involves a government of the people, by the people and for the people managing production. It is no more unrealistic than the concept of a government of, by, and for the people managing anything. So I wonder if you think this is impossible, how do you feel about democracy and the US republic?

The government already manages ownership, btw and always has, it is the reason ownership exists.

You seem to be thinking of states that werent socialist as socialist and you seem to also be ignoring successful socialism around the world.

Why do you think it is called communism? It is communal ownership, not state ownership.

sure there was thought behind it. The "darwinism" you mentioned may better be applied to free enterprise.

It's interesting that all three are theories that have never actually occured! (grin) Much like "true Christianity"!

In truth, all have been attempted, with some success, some excess.

It was the result of many individual decisions, but none of those decisions were made with an eye towards creating capitalism, capitalism is the name we have given to the structure of production that developed out of political and social changes.

But it wasnt a planned economic system. People started critically analyzing it as a system after it had already formed.

entitled to that belief.

Please tell me oh wise one, who invented capitalism.

Learn it on your own; it will mean more to you. Or don't learn at all.

Which book exactly identifies the architects of capitalism, I would love to read it.

What kind of silly game is this?

You think if you keep insisting you are right it will make you right? Put up or shut up. Back up your statement or kindly stop repeating it.

I will answer you in whatever manner I decide is appropriate. It doesn't matter to me even a tiny bit if you are satisfied with my answer. It doesn't appear to me that you have even a basic grasp of the history of capitalism, socialism, or communism. Hence, you resort to silly statements like in your last post.

You then claim you dont have to prove it, because if I was educated, I would know it already.

Isnt that convenient for you, being magically right without ever having to prove yourself.

to "prove" myself to someone who doesn't understand what capitalism, socialism, or comunnism are/were.

I can see why you come to a discussion forum...

I'll tell you a good example here soon. Very soon. In fact, I asked you about it below.

or we can recognize the reality in every major country where the theory has touched earth.

That theory touched ground in every major country, so please explain to me what the reality in all those countries is?

You are buying into an obvious myth and making a generality that would still be rediculous even if it wasnt based on lies.

Yah, its ideas we need to be afraid of. Scary ideas that corrupt good people. We all know leftists are stupid and get sucked into secret trick philosophies.

Explain to my why Canada didnt go the same way as the Soviet Union, when the very same ideas touched canada too.

I cant really see how anyone with any historical knowledge at all could think that the philosophy was responsible for tyranny. To believe that one has to ignore the fact that tyrranny has existed with almost all philosophies. One also has to ignore all the countries that have been become oppressive single party states where that party didnt call itself a communist party and things played out basically the same. One also has to ignore the specific histories of the countries you lump together and overgeneralize. The communist boogeyman is a boogeyman.

if you are saying Canada is "communist," you are obviously joking. That makes me feel better. I thought you were serious at first.

Canada, like the United States, has a mixed economy.

I see you have to revert to a strawman argument and pretend I said canada was communist, of course I never said that.

You suggested that every country communist philosophy touched went bad. Communist philosophy touched Canada, the US, all of Europe, and really, especially by now, the entire world.

You are mistaking cold war propaganda from both sides for history.

in post #37. I will agree that you raised a strawman. Actually, it was too weak to be consider as such. But it belongs to you. (grin)

My sentance in post #37 is:

"Explain to my why Canada didnt go the same way as the Soviet Union, when the very same ideas touched canada too."

How is that a strawman?

And which part of it are you confused about. Communist philosophy was spread around the globe, including to Canada. Why didnt Canada follow the same path as the Soviet Union, if it was the philosophy that was the cause?

a tiny handful of people who live in a fantasy as the vanguard of the communist movement, being spread from land to land .... how noble! No. You don't get it. Go to college and take a few introductory courses, and let me know when you're up to a serious discussion.

And someone of your historical knowledge should know full well that it was only a handful of communists who started communist movements in all countries

You are just red baiting now.

I do think you are funny. Now, just for fun, tell me what was written about capitalism in 1776?

Something Adam Smith makes fairly clear. He certainly comments on the future of capitalism, but he didnt invent it or plan it.

Goes way back .... but it certainly is rooted in industry.

so how on earth could capitalism be rooted in industry?

Industry predates the industrial revolution. You make the mistake of assuming that industry implies modern factories.

The amount of time you took to answer my question made me suspicious .... so I went to google, and found how someone could come up with Adam Smith, yet not understand what he wrote about! Ha!

Read the Wealth of Nations again, if you ever read it in the first place. Adam Smith doesnt even remotely agree with you.

Look at the time stamps on the posts

You posted about 1776 at 10:12pm
You posted "im waiting" at 10:15 pm
My reply was posted at 10:15pm as well.

Where was this time exactly?

bad bad man.

appear to not only be better on paper but better in reality. We keep ignoring that democratic socialism is working and working well.

ignore it. I can think of many great examples of socialism, including but not limited to public education, community mental health services, and more, that are of great benefit to society. I am not against socialism in many, many areas. But I am able to admit that there are some difficulties in putting even the best of theories into practice.

,...by the most polished fascists in history. :shrug:

It is slowly seeping in,...but, hey,...betrayal is tough to face when your whole life has been built upon it.

God help us know the strength within ourselves to confront what is before us.

take a look at any example of fascist society. Take Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy. Do you really think that the country we live in is at that point? C'mon, it is clearly hyperbole to say that we currently live in a Fascist society.

That being said, reforms like the Patriot Act, and the possibility of the destruction of the filibuster, these things are simply a reduction of our democracy, and a step towards totalitarianism. We must, and have been, fighting to stop these anti-democratic reforms in their tracks. We must continue to do so with all our power.

Do you think that a white Christian middle class man in America lives in the same state as a young Arab- American male who believes in Islam? Do you think that middle-class Germans shared the same horrors as Jews in Hitler's Germany? Is it possible that your experience is just that -- yours -- and that for other people in the USA today, life isn't as pleasant as for those white middle class Germans?

just for starts. We aren't executing millions of American Arabs. But thats just the most extreme element that we can compare. I would say that while we still have at least two functioning political parties, an independent judiciary, and a filibuster rule in the Senate, we are not living in a Fascist society. Also, there are still left-wing and centrist newspapers/radio news sources. So, yes, I think its an exageration in every way to say that we live in a Fascist society now.

As I said before, certain recent policies and attempts to curb various individual rights, are definetly showing a disturbingly fascistic trend.

We are not executing millions of Arab-Americans. An error would be to assume that executing millions of people is part of the definition of fascism. It is not; hence, bringing that up, "just for starts" or in any other manner is meaningless to a discussion on fascism. It has no more bearing on this discussion than the US-Indian wars or slavery -- if as much.

I do agree that we have the means of avoiding going further down a dangerous road. I'm not as confident about an independant judiciary, in light of the 2000 Supreme Court selection of the president, and a couple dozen other legal decisions. However, I suspect that we would agree that the US Constitution is the best safe-guard against fascism. It's our duty to breath life into that wonderful document.

The fact that the heirs of fascism is the current regime and its allies is not allowed to be held up to comparison. The reason is partly that our nation ended up crushing the poster boys for that failed mindset, that horror show.

The dilemma is theirs not ours. We had plenty of admirers of the early successful Hitler before the war ready even to cook the national turkey the same way along our our national guidelines with hands of global corporations extended across the seas to pick each people's pockets. The Bushes in fact are the connection of everything by direct association. But they were losers and monsters our nation went ahead and destroyed, so the safe illusion for America is to pretend those losers were special, isolated and dealt with morally superior democracy.

Then we brought the Nazis and the disease home like vials of smallpox, exonerated our industrial corporatists who had betrayed us before and into the war, and ignored the homegrown threats even as we educated, built the UN and promoted democracy. Partly it was the bugbear of totalitarian communism, the remaining still standing loser and monster for which we preserved some "balance" and preserved their self-serving illusions of serving "freedom" and the "nation".

By the narrow definition we are not the same as the Germans or Italians.
The Irish Blue Shirt imitators were not the same either despite the surface emulation. Back then you didn't flee from the association.

But the label is their hiding place of denial too. Recognize it is the same type of humans and behavior, same money values and connections, same power structures, same actions, same results and ultimately all losing abominations specializing in lies. Communism may be a theoretical opposite with some different fanatical personalities but when it comes to real values the proof is in the pudding. The same whatever flavor if you have to suffer it.

Realize too that the freedoms you enjoy now are part of that strange denial and the massive, unfought conflict between America the liberated and the new would be lords. Regardless if the masses ever suffer the full potential of the bullies and monsters in our comfortable lives, the end will still be catastrophe. We will only differ in being more stupidly surprised just as we have been irresponsibly indifferent to the difficulties of being free citizens with unprecedented benefits of prosperity, freedom and education.

Realize too that the freedoms you enjoy now are part of that strange denial and the massive, unfought conflict between America the liberated and the new would be lords.

One of the biggest differences between the previous regimes and the current is that they have learned that you can control the people and the country as far as the general direction goes, but the moment you start to control details the resistence can become too strong.

So the general politics are controlled. The mass media is partially controlled especially the biggest media companies, but the control is not on a detailed level. If you censor a journalist on word or sentence level and if you check every item, you'll get a situation that the journalist will turn against you and go with the resistence movement.

The same with the general public. If you control the big line then you can get away with a lot - like illegal wars, but if you start to control things on detailed scale then they suddenly can start to resist, because then they'll notice the effect you have on their daily lives.

Therefore a lot of freedoms are still left, like the freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of information etc. Since only a small minority will use those freedoms the ultimate damage is very limited and you can always ridicule that small minority. In the meantime you have ensured that the majority is thinking what you are thinking and is acting they way you want them to act.

I wasn't referring to Fascism. You were talking about Hitler's Germany as an example. I was on a bit of a sidetrack.

nor did fascist germany for the first 8 years (the final solution started in 41 or 42, the nazis took over in 32 or so, and outright widescale legalized persecution of jews did not start until the nuremberg laws of 1935.) Overt widespread violence against jews did not start until november of 1938.

Don't be so complacent and smug. They are not stupid. They will not take the gloves off until they either have no choice or are sure of their position.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

..believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it.

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death.

kind of fascism. We're only partly there, but many of us can see where it ultimately might lead. America, be strong, wake up, smell the coffee.
Oh yeah, Bobby Kennedy Jr. ROCKS!!!

It is new, and while in a sense that seems obvious, you make a really important point. History provides a guideline, and we would be wasting our time if we spent our time looking for signs that we are entering the 1940s in Europe, or Ixtlan. Rather, as your post correctly points out, we need to be apply to recognize the warning signs, and apply the lessons of the past to today. All the signs along the highway that this country is traveling down indicate we are heading in the wrong direction.

We almost had his daughter Kathleen as our Governor. Now we are fighting our Republican Governor to keep the Slots industry from taking over Maryland. To borrow from Ms. Pearl Bailey with a twist. I've been rich and I've been free. I like freedom a whole lot better.

Fascism is based on a corporatist model of the state. Corporatism--coming from the Latin root corpus, the body. The state is conceived of as a single organism, a living body, and all segments of society are incorporated vertically into the government through state unions, state run business associations and other professional organizations. Fascism or corporatism does not mean business alone dominates the state. The fascists sought a third road between capitalism and communism. What you describe is corporate capitalism, precisely the kind of government that dominates most nations on earth. What distinguishes ours is that it is a military empire, which currently wields more power than other nations. The fascism label is trite and historically inaccurate.

American Heritage Dictionary. I suspect a good number of people will be likely to accept the dictionary's definition. But if others have differing definitions, that's okay with me. But I agree with Robert and the dictionary, in this case.

that characterizes a good many governments on the planet. It is certainly not the conception of fascism that Mussolini himself conceived of nor the one understood by most historians or political scientists. For a political model to have value, it needs to be sufficiently defined to characterize one form of government in comparison to others. Frankly I'm shocked that the best a Kennedy can do, with the kind of money that buys one access to good education, is cite dictionary definitions. That is the sort of thing one sees in a mediocre freshman level essay.

This is the entry from the American Heritage dictionary.

Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

How which governments does this not describe? It certainly characterizes all of the right wing military dictatorships in Latin America and Africa and even leftist totalitarian governments. It does not even specify the kind of economic controls enforced, whether they be in pursuit of capitalism or socialism. Since it uses the term dictatorship, it does not characterize our own country. Whether or not you or I like George W Bush, fifty odd million Americans voted for him.


Wikipeida on Fascism and corporatism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

I only have Webster's dictionaries in my house. But I am sure you are quoting accurately from yours, as I am sure Robert quotes his correctly.

Some of your points have merit. It's too bad you contaminate them with the bitterness reflected in your cheap shot at Robert.

The American Heritage dictionary. A three second Google search will produce it for you. Of all the definitions of fascism I've seen, that is undoubtedly the worst.

I have no ax to grind against Robert Kennedy. I do find it troubling how little Americans know about history or politics outside our borders, and that it is evident of someone of his privilege is all the more disturbing. I find it inconceivable that he would not have done enough reading in political theory to be able to come up with something better than a dictionary definition. There are an endless string of concerns that can be raised about the Bush administration without dredging up poorly framed historical parallels. I also fail to understand how one can look at that definition and not consider other governments that fit the pattern. Perhaps the problem is that few Americans consider politics outside our own narrow vantage point.

you would be surprised at how much good Robert does. As I'm sure you know, his area is environmental law. He is the best in the country at it. He may not have time to meet everyone's needs, and include what you may desire in his book. I think it was the best book of 2004's political season, and there were a number of very good ones.

and his work is enormously important, a great contribution to the country and the planet. My comments were not an indictment on his activism. My point was about his discussion of fascism alone.

It's evident our system in the U.S. is changing from a representative democratic republic into something else.

because it is mean and might not be 100% exactly the same as whatever it was that spain and italy and germany and chile and argentina had.

And we will continue to argue over definitions while in the camps waiting for our turn in the abattoir.

Quack/waddle/duck.

do you mean by the word "definitions"? Without having any idea, I disagree strongly. And even if I did agree, I still think you are wrong, especially if you are right.

When was Chile fascist? And when do you think Argentina was fascist? Under Peron, or one of the military dictatorships? Are all dictatorships in your view thus fascist? Would Fidel Castro count? The government of Juan Velasco Alvarado in Peru? Why even have two distinct terms, fascism and dictatorship, if they mean the same thing?

I guess it doesn't matter if history doesn't matter, if political theory doesn't matter, if education is meaningless--as evidently most Americans believe. If the point is to raise objections to the Bush administration, why not simply make them clear rather that distracting from the issue by engaging in poorly framed historical parallels? The fascist epithet has been hurled in this country since at least the 1960s. LBJ was a fascist. Nixon was a fascist. There is nothing new here. This only distracts from the issue at hand.

of chile and argentina would serve to illustrate my point. They did. We will indeed split hairs over the definition of True Fascism while on line to be shot. Thanks.

Cuba is not a totalitarian fascist dictatorship it is a totalitarian communist dictatorship. Not that I consider either form of totalitarianism to be massively different. One is rightist, the other left. Big deal.

There are degrees of fascism. Chile under Pinochet qualified, in my opinion, as a fascist dictatorship, although it certainly did not reach the levels of totalitarianism of, for example, nazi germany. Chile was not so dissimilar to Franco's Spain. Would you disqualify the fascist party regime of spain as fascist? Argentina wandered in and out of various fascist (or for your sake, quasi-fascist) state structures from the peronist era through the junta, ending in the debacle of the falkland war.

Would you be happier if we all just said that the USA is sliding towards a one party state that uses militarism, nationalism, xenophobia, and fundamentalist religious bigotry to further its corrupt corporatist-imperialist agenda? Would that make you happy? Anything except using the F word, right?

Because more thoughtful analysis enables one to better attack a problem. Bush is not Hitler. He has neither the power not charisma of a Hitler or Mussolini. He does not offer workers and peasants the kind of advantages they gained through the corporatist state. Ours is a naked capitalist empire. It gathers wealth from the many for the sake of the few.

Latin Americanists generally describe the Pinochet regime, along with Argentina (1976-83), Brazil (1964-85), and Uruguay around the same period, as Bureaucratic Authoritarian dictatorships or National Security States. They sought to run the country with a the precision of a machine and saw politics (ie. representative government) as inherently disorderly. Pinochet is often referred to as the first of the neo-liberals.

Some assert that Juan Peron of Argentina and Getulio Vargas of Brazil were similar to fascists, largely because they employed the corporatist state model, but their anti-semitism is sometimes mentioned, particularly in Argentina. Vargas even called his period of dictatorship from 1937-45 the Estado Novo, a term taken from Mussolini. These governments, while no paragons of human rights, were not nearly nearly as brutal as those that followed. They also brought significant increases in the standard of living of industrial workers. Like the fascists, they sought a third way between capitalism and communism.

This final component is what is entirely missing in our own government. I see no evidence that Bush has any concern other that ensured that multinational corporations can proceed unfettered in exploiting the population at home and abroad in order to maximize their profits. The rest, I think, is window dressing to camouflage their real intent. I don't believe for a minute Karl Rove gives a damn about God or the Christians across the American heartland. Their support ensures Republican victory. This in fact is the genius of the Republican party: they have been able to redefine politics in cultural terms and gather support from those uncomfortable with the way in which the world is changing as a way of concealing the rapacious greed that is their true goal. And most on the left have obliged them. Liberals have bought into the GOP notion of politics as defined by culture, by sex, rather than class. We argue about homosexuality, abortion, religion, when all of that is simply smoke and mirrors to keep us from paying attention to their efforts to reduce the American public to nothing more than a docile workforce. I believe the solution is to expose the fact that they care nothing about the interests of those who vote for them and that a better alternative exists. The problem is that Democrats feed from the same corporate trough and have thus abandoned economic policies that benefit the majority. They nibble around the edges with talk of rolling back tax cuts, but they don't attack the system itself. I believe it is incumbent on us to work to change the Democratic party so that it can position itself as a true representative of the people.

Very interesting. The only thing I might add is that the effort to reduce the public to a docile workforce includes creating an addiction to "consumerism."

in fact they use consumerism to justify outsourcing and the wage reductions that brings to American workers. We need Walmart to sell two dollar wrenches, even if that means many make Walmart wages.

If precision doesn't matter in talking about history or politics, why use the parallels at all?

can be a party or individual. There's really not a whole lot of difference in the way we are heading and fascism once the judiciary is under the control of those making policy.

Because Americans elected Bush, even if the results were fixed. Hundreds of elections in US history have been fraudulent, so if that's your definition of dictatorship, we have always been one. I know enough about real dictatorships--most propped up by the United States--to know that is not what we have here. Mass graves in El Salvador with 9,000 Indians killed in a single massacre. 200,000 killed by death squads in Guatemala, tens of thousands in Chile and Argentina. I despise the Bush administration as much as anyone, but I am not about to trivialize the suffering of those who have lived under true military dictatorship but pretending that we have it nearly as bad. The fact is the Bush administration encroaches on freedom and democracy because too many Americans are unwilling to to do anything about it. Politicians buckle when faced with enough pressure from constituents. That's why they've retreated on Social Security. The poor of Guatemala and El Salvador had no political voice. This country will only be fascist if we let it become that. Assuming that as a fait accompli cedes to them far too much power. If they succeed in what you believe is a foregone conclusion, they do so with the complicity of the indolent left.

While parts of your stance are very good, and worth building on, this sentence takes from it .... unless you believe that Bush would have won regardless of if the results were "fixed" in 2004. I think that having thousands of voters disenfranchised in 2000 should be cause to question if he has been elected. If a man serves two terms, without being elected, you might need to modify your definitions.

There has been no more important time for people to work to restore the damage that has been done to democracy in this country. There is indeed more good than bad in the United States. And using the correct definitions is essential.

that I don't feel qualified to answer with much authority. Obviously Bush was not elected in 2000. The Supreme Court chose him. 2004 is more difficult and I simply am not sure. I think either scenario--that the election was stolen, either deliberately or by benign neglect, or that Bush would have eked out a narrow margin anyway--could be true.

I'm not sure which definition you want me to modify? Is your assertion that a 2000 or 2004 fraudulent election means that we live under a dictatorship, while fraudulent elections in 1960 or throughout the nineteenth-century were inconsequential and still entitled us to the label of democracy?

If you're asking what I would call our current form of government, I'd call it, as I believe I have in this very thread, a capitalist empire. It is a form of representative government, but so corrupted by wealth that it greatly reduces the power of the people. Reduced influence, however, is not the same as none at all. We need to know the difference so that we take action to bring about change rather than throwing our hands in the air claiming that nothing can be done because we live under a fascist dictatorship where elections are fixed, so we might as well stay at home playing video games and watching television. That, it seems to me, is precisely the kind of defeatism that has allowed corporate interests to usurp so much power.

If a person has to use means that overturn the actual intent of the voters, he was not "elected." Bush was not "elected" in 2000. He was installed as president. If a person can be installed, despite another man being elected, we should be able to agree that person was not "elected."

The 2004 election is not as clear.

The 1960 election was not fraudulent in its outcome. You have issues with the Kennedys.

but I don't have issues with the Kennedy's. A number of historians have pointed to widespread vote fraud in the Viva Kennedy campaign in Texas and in mayor Daley's Chicago--where some precincts had around 90% turnout and Johnson historians also note that LBJ benefited from many stuffed ballot boxes. If an election was stolen, if fraud was so great it determined the outcome, is difficult to prove, whether in 2004 or 1960, but Nixon certainly believed it had been stolen. Fraud in American elections is hardly new. It in fact has been the norm for most of our nation's history.

I have never considered history or politics an exercise in hero worship. You're obviously offended that I don't consider your political heroes infallible. No one is. They are only men, and politicians at that.

Odd thing for you to say. Do you have anything to indicate JFK is my hero? Or do you just make shit up when nothing else comes to mind?

The myth of the "stolen" election in 1960 generally has focused on Daley's Chicago. Take Illinois. Give it to Nixon. Kennedy still wins. The business about Texas and LBJ benefiting from some potential stuffed ballot boxes tends to be about his early election contests. I suppose that I run the risk of having you think LBJ is my hero.

It could be coincidence that on one thread, you are able to find reason to say nasty little comments about one family, from 1960 to 2004. I'm not offended that you feel compelled to mention what you believe is Robert's wealth on this thread, though it has little to do with anything. Nor am I offended that you refer to him as a politician, though I will point out that you are in error.

The nsdp was the largest party in parliament when adolph got appointed chancellor. After the nazis outlawed the opposition they won all the rest of the elections hands down. So if 'they had elections' is your definition of democracy, we are at loggerheads. Do you think they are just going to stand up on tv and say that the republic is done?

even if the results were fixed.

In fact, I didn't mention the word democracy at all. I don't quite understand where your remarks come from since I've said nothing that you assert. Is your contention that if there are only two forms of government in the world--fascism/ dictatorship and
democracy, and that if I claim one government is not fascist, I somehow imply it's Plato's republic or some other idealized democracy? There are not simply two ideal types of government on the planet.

My discussion was limited to dictatorship and fascism. My point is only that it frustrates me to read post after post complaining about how bad we have it under our government when our privilege comes on the backs of poverty and brutal dictatorship around the world. You and I do not have to fear ending up in a mass grave when we go out every day, as the Indians in the 1980s who farmed the coffee and bananas that ended up on our breakfast tables. I can't believe that you would, with a straight face, actually assert that you have as little choice and face the same kind of brutality as those who have lived under truly brutal dictatorships when their live was under continual threat? Where, under the Argentine, Chilean, and Brazilian dictatorships, anyone who spoke out against the government was arrested, tortured, and either murdered or exiled? Where pregnant women were picked up by paramilitary forces, had their babies ripped out of their wombs to be given to some well connected family before they were murdered and dumped in the ocean? Our discomfort does not compare with the misery our government--and not just Republican administrations--have caused around the world.

None of that, however, means we can be complacent. I certainly do not intend of waiting for such a government to develop here and have it announced on television. I quite clearly said that it is our responsibility--yours and mine--to make sure that the Bush administration and those that follow do not succeed in reducing us to the kind of tyranny it promotes abroad. Talking about how we live under a fascist state, in addition to being historically imprecise, seems to me to promote a kind of defeatism: they have all the power, there is nothing we can do, etc... There is a great deal we can and must do, and if we fail to act we have only ourselves to blame.


Here is my point. Americans need to stop feeling sorry for themselves and do something to get a rid of the kind of rapacious capitalist empire that causes misery abroad and encroaches on our comfort and liberty at home. While George Bush is the current and most blatant manifestation of these problems, it did not begin under him nor will it end when he leaves power.

Yet your next sentence is clearly part of your discussion, and does not seem limited to either dictatorships or fascist states. I believe that the poster is correct in noting you mentioned elections.

You said:
"well this doesn't qualify as a dictatorship Because Americans elected Bush, even if the results were fixed"

To which statement I then responded that if running an election, even a fixed election, disqualifies a regime from being labelled a dictatorship then stalin, hitler, mao etc were not dictators.

To which your response is "I said nothing of the sort."

Which leaves me speechless. Have a nice day.

to be a dictatorship, just no voice.