What's a Fascist?

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
jrootham
What's a Fascist?

Opening Post

 

jrootham

And why does the answer matter?

To take the second point first.  Cueball, amongst others, has taken issue with not calling people fascists in the apparent impression that only fascists are bad.  That is, to assert that someone or some organization is not fascist is to assert they are supporters of democracy.  If we use this definition, we are going to call all our opponents fascists.  My claim is that this will lead to decreased credibility on our part.

So, what is the real definition?

Fascists are populist authoritarians who are fixated on the enmity of the other and are expansionist imperialists.

(OK, that was forced into one sentence).

I think that is clearly accurate for the Nazis.  Pretty clearly true of Mussolini et al.  Franco and Salazar are odd in that they were not particularly expansionist.  The Tea Party qualifies.

A characteristic of fascists that is critical for evaluating how dangerous they are is the use of street fighting as a political tactic.  If they can get away with that, they have won.  Open question in the US at the moment.

The police in Canada are not fascists.  They are institutional authoritarians, not populist authoritarians.

This makes them MORE dangerous than fascists.  If we only had to deal with people who we could legitimately call fascist we would win hands down (ref Ernst Zundel).

So, my point is that calling people or organizations fascist is self damaging and that far from minimizing the danger, pointing out authoritarian behaviour as non fascist is emphasizing the danger.

This is too short for all the things that could be said, please ask questions.

 

 

jrootham

That's not a useful definition of a fascist.

It's far too broad.

 

Fidel

A fascist is anyone who profits by or supports a system of state sponsored corporate rule. Fascists are generally [url=http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/rockefeller.html]warfiteers[/url], but they could be working to rig the capitalist system in their favor from within a number of different capitalist and state institutions. Fascists corrupt the system by bribes and influence pedaling and secret partnerships with other fascists. They sometimes work to cause the taxpaying public to help prop-up oppressive thirdworld fascist dictatorships in order to extend  their political influence and profiting by miserable conditions in third world countries , and even betray their fascist friends if it means profiting from declaring war on their deliberate 'mistakes.' And fascists often finance the political campaigns of figurehead fascist leaders in government who work to game the system on their behalf and return favors to the fascists. Their hand-picked politicos are typically not democratically minded and are easily manipulated by the fascists they owe favors to once elected by either obsolete electoral systems or by election rigging.

Fidel

Fascism is a broad topic of discussion covering decades of history and a lot of different people. It's not isolated to a guy with a Hitler mustache named Hitler, or a few brownshirts or just a few bad cops, street brawlers and Ernst Zundel types. Fascism didn't die with Hitler and Franco and Batista, Pinochet, Christiani etc etc. Fascism is very much alive and well today and spreading its tentacles around the world. Fascism is big business today.

jrootham wrote:
The police in Canada are not fascists. They are institutional authoritarians, not populist authoritarians.

This makes them MORE dangerous than fascists. If we only had to deal with people who we could legitimately call fascist we would win hands down (ref Ernst Zundel).

So it's the police we have to worry about and not would-be architects of fascism, corrupt politicians, big business types and the like?

[url=http://alexconstantine.blogspot.com/2010/01/oliver-stone-says-adolf-hitl... Stone says Adolf Hitler was 'Enabled by Western Bankers'[/url]

As they say, it takes a few fascist bankers and magalomaniacs to Tango.

Frmrsldr

Fidel wrote:

A fascist is anyone who profits by or supports a system of state sponsored corporate rule. Fascists are generally [url=http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/rockefeller.html]warfiteers[/url], but they could be working to rig the capitalist system in their favor from within a number of different capitalist and state institutions. Fascists corrupt the system by bribes and influence pedaling and secret partnerships with other fascists. They sometimes work to cause the taxpaying public to help prop-up oppressive thirdworld fascist dictatorships in order to extend  their political influence and profiting by miserable conditions in third world countries , and even betray their fascist friends if it means profiting from declaring war on their deliberate 'mistakes.' And fascists often finance the political campaigns of figurehead fascist leaders in government who work to game the system on their behalf and return favors to the fascists. Their hand-picked politicos are typically not democratically minded and are easily manipulated by the fascists they owe favors to once elected by either obsolete electoral systems or by election rigging.

Exactly.

I can see you have the American Empire in mind.

Although believed at the time (with good reason), it has since become a myth that fascism lost the Second World War.

Fidel

Frmrsldr wrote:
Although believed at the time (with good reason), it has since become a myth that fascism lost the Second World War.

Exactly. Fascism just slithered from one part of the world to another. I think it was Oliver Stone who mentioned that an Italian business person once said to John F. Kennedy that America would some day be forced to deal with fascism.

American conservatives and even Liberals down there sometimes say that FDR saved America from socialism. I think the truth is that FDR saved them from fascism. Today they are in desperate need of FDR heroics. They need a pinch hitter to go to bat for democracy. Today the umpires are all bought off and game thoroughly rigged from top to bottom. No one's on base, the legendary Casey's at bat for the 2-2 pitch, and America needs a grand slam to pull it out.

ceti ceti's picture

Fascism has many variants but they all have three things in common: 

1) Corporatism as a response or as the next stage in the crisis of Capitalism

2) Authoritarianism that supports a National Security State and/or Imperialism and Militarism

3) Jingoism that encourages and normalizes chauvinistic and ultra-nationalist impulses as a way to distract from the depredations of the Corporatist State

Nazism throws in the Völkisch concept that displaces class politics for ethnic nationalist unity. This invariably leads to majoritarianism and a strong tendency to victimize or scapegoat minorities.

One can say the tea party movement as an incipient or proto-Fascist movement, given legs by corporate donors for precisely the purpose of displacing class politics. Our own government can also be called quasi-fascist given its authoritarian behaviour, ideology, and foreign policy. Indeed, the hypocrisy of right-wing libertarianism is exposed when discussing their approach to civil liberties, the military, or the national security state. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I agree with ceti's definition.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Poster by the Syracuse Cultural Workers.

It covers most of Harper's agenda, as well as a lot of Rob Ford's priorities and values. I might not call them "fascists" but they sure are stealing a lot from the playbook.

 

thorin_bane

OK so we qualify on that chart for pretty much everything under Harpler. The only change is on nationalism. They put it out there and whip it up, but they are only nationalist to foreign(or rarther corporate) interests.

jrootham

I would suggest the critical bit missing from Ford's and Harper's politics is the extreme nationalism to the point of unlimited imperial expansion.  Authoritarian regimes missing that bit are locally dangerous but not globally dangerous.  It's the difference between Hitler and Franco.  I would expect that Harper wants to be Franco, but he's not going to say that out loud.

The point of me starting this thread is to adjust some of the rhetoric here (and respond to some of the silly things Cueball is saying about me).  Using the term fascism is a sufficiently slippery slope to Godwin's law territory that using means some people will think you are already there.  I don't think that is helpful.

 

 

Fidel

I think American fascism is unique in a number of ways and fascism is essentially redefined over the last 40 or 50 years as a result, but fascism is essentially corporations and government in bed together. American fascism has redefined this particular characteristic of fascism in the way that US corporations were given increasing rights as persons under US constitutional and other laws since the 1970s.  One of the most obvious effects of those other laws as far as Canada is concerned are CUSFTA and NAFTA. Canada's own national energy policies are dictated to Ottawa and the rest of the country from corporate board rooms in America. Canadian energy security takes a back seat to what's good for corporate America while priorities for workers and the environment are way down the list.

But even more fascinating is the way in which banking and finance have usurped industrial capitalism since 1987 or so. Not even Marx predicted this insane maneuver to hand powers of resource allocation to bankers and finance capitalists. Marx considered banking and finance as usurous appendages detrimental to the capitalist system. In Marx' view, rule by financial capitalism would necessarily lead to disastrous results as it obviously has. US economist Michael Hudson says that the foundations of western world capitalism are even weaker than Marx predicted. Capitalism is fascism with the mask on.

Fidel

The slope sliding stage of things began many years ago. Fascists have a tendency to wreck the economy deliberately in order to pave the way for hard core dictatorship down the road. Capitalism is fascism with the mask on.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

jrootham wrote:

That's not a useful definition of a fascist.

It's far too broad.

Why?

Since you started the thread, it behooves you to engage in full discussion. If time was the problem, I hope you'll come back to explain your issue with various broad definitions at the first opportunity.

You're not the only one here who regularly objects to the use of the term, but I've never received a useful explanation of why, and I'm hoping to be enlightened...

Fidel

It didn't start with 'Tea Party' fascists. They've had starve the beast conservatives for a long time and supposedly battling the old time conservatives for control of that party. It's over, and the beast is down for the count while military spending is more now than at any time during the cold war, which was just a five decades-long campaign against communism. Fascism and anti-communism go hand-in-hand as a rule, and no fascist state has opposed communism more than America since the US sent troops to Russia in 1917 along with about 25 other fascist nations in an attempt to put a Tsar back on the throne.

It started in 1947 with the National Security Act creating a militarized state controlled by corporations and shadow government. They basically copied Nazi Germany's economic model for Keynesian-militarism. The NSA doesn't spy on foreign militaries so much as they [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21295]spy on the lives of Americans.[/url]  They can't end the rape rooms and the torture and renditions, the presidential death squads or illegal military occupations of two countries. Fascists are in firm control of America today.

6079_Smith_W

Maysie wrote:

Poster by the Syracuse Cultural Workers.

It covers most of Harper's agenda, as well as a lot of Rob Ford's priorities and values. I might not call them "fascists" but they sure are stealing a lot from the playbook.

Gotta love those SCWs. I think I'll have to pull my "Citizen" t-shirt out of the drawer and wear it today.

The main area where I think people use the term mistakenly is when it comes to absence of democracy and checks and balances.

I believe that a lot of the warning signs are just that - an indicator that a society might be moving toward fascism, so I do take it seriously.

But so long as there is a democratic process (even a partially broken one like ours which keeps the power in the hands of a certain class) or a judiciary which can stop the government from doing something, that ain't fascism in my books.

What I find most fascist about Stephen Harper? Not any of his polices or actions, but the fact that he is micro-managing his entire government (right down to scripting public events) from his office. Even so, the fact that he can be stopped from doing something like shutting down the safe injection site by the courts means that we are not there yet.

Fascism includes scapegoating, corporate control, use of violence and a lot of other things, but unless you have all power in the hands of one person, I don't consider it fascism. A lot of the worst abuses and human rights violations have been done by countries which are actually democracies, and are done with the support of a plurality or majority of the electorate. It's bad, but it's not fascism.

(edit)

For instance, I don't consider the teapartyers to be fascists at all. They probably don't realize that some of their actions might be taking that country that way, but they actually come from the American tradition of deep mistrust of government authority.

 

absentia

Maysie wrote:

Poster by the Syracuse Cultural Workers.

It covers most of Harper's agenda, as well as a lot of Rob Ford's priorities and values. I might not call them "fascists" but they sure are stealing a lot from the playbook.

 

Add:

The appropriation of public media for propaganda

Subversion of education

Desensitizing (dehumanizing) youth

Intimidation of dissenters

thorin_bane

Firing of those that disagree with policy AGAIN and AGAIN

jrootham

Because I line up with Orwell on the use of language.

As I pointed out above using fascist is a shortcut to Godwin's Law territory.  I don't think we win by going that route.

My conception of this is that is is a question of the strategy and tactics of language.

Is that helpful, LTJ?

PS

I hadn't realized that Orwell wrote an essay with that title when I started this thread, although I had seen quotes from it.

 

 

Fidel

And America doesn't actually have a fasces symbol on the flag or anybody wearing little black mustaches. So therefore, it's not fascism. They're close, and things aren't looking too good, but it's not butter. We have to be careful of these agitators and misanthropes labeling everyone and their dogs fascists. It's over the top really.

6079_Smith_W

Fidel wrote:

And America doesn't actually have a fasces symbol on the flag or anybody wearing little black mustaches. So therefore, it's not fascism. They're close, and things aren't looking too good, but it's not butter. We have to be careful of these agitators and misanthropes labeling everyone and their dogs fascists. It's over the top really.

I think the original post is about the fact that words actually have meanings, and fascism is not a synonym for "bad". Sorry.

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

I agree 6079.

No soup for you!

Cueball Cueball's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Fidel wrote:

And America doesn't actually have a fasces symbol on the flag or anybody wearing little black mustaches. So therefore, it's not fascism. They're close, and things aren't looking too good, but it's not butter. We have to be careful of these agitators and misanthropes labeling everyone and their dogs fascists. It's over the top really.

I think the original post is about the fact that words actually have meanings, and fascism is not a synonym for "bad". Sorry.

The original post attempts to make the case that there is no fascist tendency in Canada because Fascism requires a populist social movement at its base. It asserts that professional police activities are exempt from being fascist because they are not ideological, but professional. Indeed, no. The assumption is that the police, and police officers are non-ideological or that they do not share populist beliefs about authority, are not often racist and do not allow their biases and beliefs to determine how they apply their authority.

I submit that the police force itself can indeed be populist fascist cults of authority.

jrootham

I do not assert that police are non ideological nor non racist.  I asserted that in arresting protesters who are out on bail they are motivated by institutional biases.  Most racism expressed by Canadian police is pointed at FNs.  If they were fascists they would have freaked out by having James Bartleman as Lieutenent Governor of Ontario.  Can you imagine the Nazi reaction to a Jew as the Chancellor of Germany?  Are you observing the reaction of the Tea Parties to a non white president?

Police are certainly supported by populist cults of authority.  The current Canadian populist cult of authority is not fascist.

You also left out the requirement that to be fascist requires expansionist imperialism.

Did you read the Orwell piece?

 

Kloch

So then the junta's in Brazil and Uruguay weren't fascist because they didn't invade anyone?

jrootham

Yup

ETA

The only point of this thread is to point out that fascist is not a synonym for bad.

There are bad people who are not fascists.

 

jrootham

What do you mean "just"?  

Well, I was a little sloppy in the last reply.  Not attacking is a sufficient but not necessary condition for not being considered fascist.  Was the attack carried out as part of a program to (re)create an empire?

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

But the Junta in El Salvador was Fascist because they attacked Honduras. Meanwhile, Franco was just an "authoritarian".

So lets see, a populist cult of authority in the police and security forces, set against the backdrop of nationalist jingoism against Muslims, and involvement in an imperial war in Asia... hhmmm.

 

Kloch

So even though Uruguay had the highest number of political prisoners per capita in the world at one point, and were ruled by a committee of Generals, they were not fascist?

jrootham

Yup.

It is entirely possible that there are non fascist authoritarians who are worse than fascists.

Unless, of course, fascist is a synonym for bad.

 

ocsi

Would you consider Juan Peron, and Peronism in general, fascist? 

jrootham

Franco's Spain is an interesting case.  The question of whether Franco was a Fascist is not entirely obvious.  

Here is Wikipedia:

Unlike other members of the Spanish right, the Falange was republican, avant-gardist and modernist (see Early History below), in a manner similar to the original spirit of Italian Fascism. Its uniform and aesthetic was similar to contemporary European fascist and national socialist movements. After the party was coopted by Francisco Franco and consolidated with the Carlists, it ceased to have a National Syndicalist character (which, like fascism, sought a revolutionary transformation of society whereas Franco was conservative), although it retained many of the external trappings of fascism.

ETA link.

6079_Smith_W

@ jrootham

I'm not sure expansionism is an essential part of it, Orwell's opinion notwithstanding. Look at Franco's Spain.

Violent, single-party rule gets more to the heart of it, IMO.

 

@ Cueball

Although I don't think it was fair that you were called out in the OP, an organization like the police is not the same as a state, and I would not go so far as to say that the OP was a denial of authoritarian inclinations in Canadian society.

(edit)

and I see I cross-posted with a bunch of you.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

jrootham wrote:

Because I line up with Orwell on the use of language.

As I pointed out above using fascist is a shortcut to Godwin's Law territory.  I don't think we win by going that route.

My conception of this is that is is a question of the strategy and tactics of language.

Is that helpful, LTJ?

Unfortunately, not. (Orwell seems to say the word is next to meaningless.)

Could you attempt to say where and when the word might be appropriate, perhaps?

Sean in Ottawa

If we consider the definition of the word as we would most words in the language we would have to admit that the word has multiple definitions. For example:

1) the name of a political party in Italy

2) generic word for a type of political movement (won't detail too many others have)

3) generic insult used against politicians and parties accused of not respecting democracy, being undemocratic

etc.

I did not put any care in these definitions so please don't pick there. My point for the moment is that tehre can be two definitions or more and one of them does nto have to be wrong-- just like many other words we use.

As well definitions evolve so the original meaning back in the 1920s-40s does not exclude the meanings of today. Some defintions may be very broad and others narrow does not mean one has to be right and the other wrong.

jrootham

@LTJ Scholars of the subject assert that it is proper to use it to describe the Tea Party.  Particularly last year when it was all about getting angry people into the streets.

@Sean Words with multiple meanings tend to be less useful.  If you throw fascist at someone as a general insult they can duck the impact by pointing out they are not like that.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Leon Trotsky: Fascism: What it is and how to fight it.

Quote:

The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large masses, with new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebian movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses; Mussolini, a former socialist, is a "self-made" man arising from this movement.

Primo de Rivera was an aristocrat. He occupied a high military and bureaucratic post and was chief governor of Catalonia. he accomplished his overthrow with the aid of state and military forces. The dictatorships of Spain and Italy are two totally different forms of dictatorship. It is necessary to distinguish between them. Mussolini had difficulty in reconciling many old military institutions with the fascist militia. This problem did not exist for Primo de Rivera.

The movement in Germany is analogous mostly to the Italian. It is a mass movement, with its leaders employing a great deal of socialist demagogy. This is necessary for the creation of the mass movement.

The genuine basis (for fascism) is the petty bourgeoisie. In italy, it has a very large base -- the petty bourgeoisie of the towns and cities, and the peasantry. In Germany, likewise, there is a large base for fascism....

It may be said, and this is true to a certain extent, that the new middle class, the functionaries of the state, the private administrators, etc., can constitute such a base. But this is a new question that must be analyzed....

Cueball Cueball's picture

Who are scholars of the subject?

I certainly don't deny that the Tea Party has fascistic tendencies, but suggesting that having a bunch of wacko's running around on the streets saying regressive and stupid and jingoistic things is an absolute requirement for fascism is plainly absurd. Indeed, evolved fascism, when it has gotten beyond the point of siezing power does everything it can to repress those kinds of social movements and enroll those forces in state institutions (usually the police) so that it can control them.

Please find me a scholar who suggests that Mussolini or Hitler encouraged ranging mobs of morons to disturb the public order after the point at which they had served their usefulness had expired? I doubt you will find any because any scholar on Fascism who is worth their salt has studied closely how Hydreich and Himmler worked to centralize authority within the SS, and remove the grass roots leadership from their movement, once they had used the "Brown Shirts" to help them take over the state.

In the end your point seems to be somehow to diminish the threat of institutionalized fascism by asserting that fascism requires mobs of civilian supporters running around and terrorizing the civilian population and the opposition, when in fact the overt object of fascism is to suppress grass roots initiative, and institute supreme authority within a state run by bureaucratic fiat by a centralized gang whose word is law above the law based in legal procedure or rights for the many.

Those mobs are colourful surely, but they are not the be all and end all of fascism. I think you are allowing yourself to get distracted from the reality by focussing too much on the cosmetics.

Why do you insist then that institutionalized fascist authority can not arrive at supreme authority without populist vigilantes aiding the regression?

NDPP

Catchfire wrote:

Leon Trotsky: Fascism: What it is and how to fight it.

Quote:

The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large masses, with new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebian movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses; Mussolini, a former socialist, is a "self-made" man arising from this movement.

NDP

"self made" maybe not. "Directed and financed by big capitalist powers" definitely.

Recruited by MI5: the name's Mussolini

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-m...

"Documents reveal Italian dictator got start in politics in 1917 with help of 100 Pounds weekly wage from MI5.."

 

Sean in Ottawa

jrootham wrote:

@Sean Words with multiple meanings tend to be less useful.  If you throw fascist at someone as a general insult they can duck the impact by pointing out they are not like that.

I am not arguing what is best.

I am arguing what is. This is the reality of the English language -- and many others. Words often have more than one meaning whether we like it or not. That is a result of history and usage.

The solution when it comes to language is to in an important conversation, define key terms. Even legislation does this-- that way you can admit the words have multiple meanings but then move on and say -- for our purposes here, this is the meaning we will choose.

That is much easier than trying to dump all the multiple meanings in a language just because they are inconvenient.

The alternative here is to have a conversation chasing its tail as one calls another wrong each pulling out the basis of their favorite meaning refusing to acknowledge the existence of others-- we could do the same with the word "to" or the word "one" or any of hundreds of common words.

jrootham

@Cueball Dave Neiwart and Sara Robinson in particular.

The point about the brown shirts is that they are necessary for fascists to achieve power.  A larval stage of fascism, if you will.

How did you manage to translate my statement that the institutional repression that we are facing is more dangerous than fascism into me diminishing the threat?

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Because not to long ago you asserted that the recent abuses of power relating to those organizers arrested as part of the police party at the G20 should not be confused with fascism of the Tea Party sort that you suggested were the real danger.

If Dale Newart and Sara Robinson are asserting that a "brown shirt" phenomena is an essential part of the functioning of a fascists state, beyond their usefulness as a tool for achieving power, then I don't think much of their scholarship. Sure, making such comparisons can be useful, but suggesting that it is necessary for achieving power, or that such vigilante gangs are fundamental to the functioning of fascism when it has achieved power is to get too caught up in the specific detail, and dare I say, glamour of a specific era,

Why use ad-hoc facsist militia street gangs, when you can simply use the police, or turn your street gangs into institutionalized forces of state terror?

As can be seen, the actual Fascist state when manifested as a state has very little use for such antics. The question is "What is a Fascist?", not "how do fascists achieve power?".

George Victor

I probably overlooked it upthread, but I'd always assumed that the courts of a fascist state marched to the leader's drumbeat, and that attempts at re-writing the law to fit draconian measures of social control (under a secretive police agency) were on the high road to a fascist hell. 

The very secretive re-writing of German law to exclude the Jewish population from any protection, early in their assumption of power (the original edicts signed by Schickelgruber under his assumed name have just been found) underline the importance of giving legal credence to monstrous acts for any fascist undertakings. It would seem that the state of "the law" is an important indicator of the concept "fascist"...

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

It is. But what is even more important is that easing of concepts of rights unleashes abuse of the system, so that in fact the adminstration is not guided by policy, procedure, or law at all, but the whims of the powerful. For example Jason Kenny interfering in the due process of the immigration department in the case of George Galloway based on political perogatives, or the Crown and the police conspiring to misconstrue Hudert's bail condition that banned him from public demonstrations, so that a "public demonstration" included sitting on a panel with Judy Rebick at a meeting held at a university.

This kind of bureaucratic overeach that tramples on basic rights and freedoms for a political end are typical of fascism, which asserts the individual perogatives of power of the leadership over the rights of indivduals, regardless of the written law.

George Victor

"This kind of bureaucratic overeach that tramples on basic rights and freedoms for a political end are typical of fascism, which asserts the individual perogatives of power of the leadership over the rights of indivduals, regardless of the written law."

Yep.

Fortunately, an Ontario judge can still say that the government was just playing politics in calling Galloway a threat. When that "freedom" of judgement is no longer seen in the courts, we will be into a quite mature level of fascist development.

Cueball Cueball's picture

This is true to a point. But for everyday people who are not high flying public personas abuse of procdure by the police department and the crown creates a kind of Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare of constant fear, revolving door arrests (a person is re-arrested for a new charge after being let go on the first) and endless financial outlay that eventually impoverishes the victim.

George Victor

Yes, that becomes the everyday experience of the marginalized, their suppression in a highly stratified capitalist society.

I have often wondered at the silence of the legal lambs both in this everyday occurrence and in the highly publicized political set-to's where democracy is seen to be clearly abused. The cost of counsel should not be out of reach if democracy is to hve any meaning at all.

Fidel

Maysie wrote:

I agree 6079.

No soup for you!

[url=http://damngoodfood.blogspot.com/2009/04/soup-nazi-mulligatawny-indian-s... (Indian) Soup recipe[/url]

jrootham

Cueball wrote:

Because not to long ago you asserted that the recent abuses of power relating to those organizers arrested as part of the police party at the G20 should not be confused with fascism of the Tea Party sort that you suggested were the real danger.

I can't parse that unambiguously, who are you asserting I claim to be the greater danger?  The Tea Party, or the cops?

In the US, the Tea Party, here, the cops etc. 

Cueball wrote:

If Dale Newart and Sara Robinson are asserting that a "brown shirt" phenomena is an essential part of the functioning of a fascists state, beyond their usefulness as a tool for achieving power, then I don't think much of their scholarship. Sure, making such comparisons can be useful, but suggesting that it is necessary for achieving power, or that such vigilante gangs are fundamental to the functioning of fascism when it has achieved power is to get too caught up in the specific detail, and dare I say, glamour of a specific era,

The are concerned with how fascists get power in order to resist them.  So not part of a mature fascist state.  The idea is to resist fascism before it gets established.

Cueball wrote:

Why use ad-hoc facsist militia street gangs, when you can simply use the police, or turn your street gangs into institutionalized forces of state terror?

As can be seen, the actual Fascist state when manifested as a state has very little use for such antics. The question is "What is a Fascist?", not "how do fascists achieve power?".

How they achieve power is part of the definition of fascism.

Here's a question;  Can you identify a repressive, non fascist state?  And explain what makes it non fascist?

 

Fidel

Jeez, I just had a vision of what could happen if the tea swillers seized power. They might threaten another oil-rich country with a  shellacking by the air force if they don't promise not to build imaginary nuclear weapons. They might not close the torture gulags at Gitmo and around the world, or not withdraw hundreds of thousands of troops from illegal foreign military occupations, and not stop spying on the lives of Americans and pointing to a false flag terrorist attack nine years ago as the reason for not not spying on the lives of Americans.

Pages

Topic locked