Fascist America: Are We There Yet?

Spector you're behaving in a fascist manner too, in ignoring legitimate concerns.

He did the same thing in a couple other threads. You're not alone.

One of the comments posted in Common Dreams under the article liked to in the OP is worth repeating here:

Quote:

What is missing in this definition of fascism is the class nature (in a Marxist sense) of what fascism is. Fascism arises when the capitalist ruling class can no longer maintain the system through the charade of "liberal democracy". When the working class sees through this charade and comes to the realization of how integral it is to capitalist class's supremacy and organizes against capitalism to the point of actually threatening its very continued existence, the capitalist class resorts to fascism. In other words, when "liberal democracy" no longer serves its purpose of maintaining class rule by the owners of production, the capitalist class abandons "bourgeois democracy" in favor of outright military dominance of the political system.

However, and sadly, there is no threat yet to the hegemony of the capitalist class in the USA. The working class is not rising up and threatening the destruction of the capitalist system. In fact, the left is very weak in the USA and the capitalist class is very successful in keeping the left weak and the working class completely subordinated.

From this analysis of what brings fascism to power, I don't see fascism anywhere close to being on the political agenda. There is simply no need for it when bourgeois "democracy" works so well in the interests of the capitalist class.

Compare the class struggle in pre-fascist times in Germany and Italy or Chile when communism actually threatened to overthrow the capitalist economic systems in those countries through the political domination of the left and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Note to "thanks": Fascism is not a manner of behaviour, but an actual form of capitalist state rule.

Maybe fascism-lite in Canada, but it is fascism nevertheless. Capitalism is fascism with the mask on.

No, it's not.  At least it's not by the standards of Sara Robinson and her colleagues.  Their definition includes particular organizational structures and processes.  Those are showing up in the US but not in Canada.

Could we please not  be sloppy with the fascist epithet?  I don't like the current government but describing it inaccurately dosn't strike me as the best tactic to get rid of it.

jrootham wrote:

No, it's not.  At least it's not by the standards of Sara Robinson and her colleagues.  Their definition includes particular organizational structures and processes.  Those are showing up in the US but not in Canada.

Is this a variation on the ad reducto Hitlerium warning? Does every instance of fascism have to be an exact duplicate of the last, as if we're talking about capitalist widgets rolling off a production line? We could drive an Exxon-Valdez oil tanker past that exclusive definition if such was the case.

We have political structures which are perfectly in-line with corporate fascism. Weve had corporate cronyism and socialism for the rich for many years. It's true Canada has some socialism in the form of universal health care, generous EI and welfare benefits at a time when fascism was on its heels somewhat politically in the early 1970's. Canada is a repository of natural wealth for corporate-fascist America to raid at will. Somebody's been on the take for a long time in Canada. And now even though the majority of Canadians are against the colder war military occupation of Afghanistan, our troops are still there and helping to prevent an outbreak of democracy

M. Spector wrote:

Note to "thanks": Fascism is not a manner of behaviour, but an actual form of capitalist state rule.

Ever heard of the "Fascist personality"? A good movie to watch is Bernardo Bertolucci's 1970 "The Conformist". Here are traits of Fascism that are often present in or attract people to Fascism:

An appeal to emotions over logic and reason. The glorification of war. Authoritarianism. A firm belief in law and order. Support for and the need of collective security at the expense of civil liberties. The need for a "strong leader". Paranoia of those who are different from "us" - hence the "War of Terror"; fear of Islam; the treatment of Omar Khadr, Abousfian Abdelrazik and others (seeing them as a threat); fear of people from other countries, cultures, religions, etc.

Take a look at Harpo, the (reforma)Tories and their supporters. You will see it all there.

M. Spector wrote:

Right. So Canada is under fascist rule today?

No Canada is a highly developed liberal democracy whereby democratically elected leaders ensure that our natural resources and energy are accessible to all and benefits shared by all as derived through free markets. And our income distribution just so happens to be skewed toward an incredibly lucky but hard-working top 10% or so of enterprising Canadians. And god bless us every one.

I find interesting Chris Hedges' notion of reverse totalitarianism. It explains how our system can dispense with jack-booted thugs.

The commondreams article is more specific to the situation in the U.S. Canada isn't there yet, though there are alarming tendencies in that direction.

The beauty of psychologist professor Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" is that although "It's about how the 'Religious Right' teamed up with amoral authoritarian leaders to push its un-democratic agenda onto the country." - a process that brought Bush into the White House. His analysis is equally applicable to Canada. It's the same process that brought (and has kept) Harper and the Conservatives in(to) power:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Fascist, authoritarian, "conformist" (see post #16) - these words are all interchangeable at some level, in my opinion.

Bob Altemeyer's work is available as a PDF download. Just google his name and "The Authoritarians". He also offers a way to reverse this trend.

The best way to get people to vote against your party is to call them racists and fascists.

At its core, fascism is "I know what's best for you, even if it means harming you".

Uncle John wrote:

The best way to get people to vote against your party is to call them racists and fascists.

Yes, you don't call them fascists. It takes some work, but to woo them away from parties with fascist tendencies, one must find common ground with them. Work with them on say, reversing environmental degredation (cleaning up the garbage) in one's community or a local stream. Find other similar areas of agreement and work with them on that. Through words and acts of encouragement and by leading by way of example, we can eventually improve our society. Inform, involve and inspire!

[url=http://www.infowars.com/gore-vidal-on-the-national-security-state/]Impor... Fascism since 1947[/url] Gore Vidal (YouTube)

[url=http://mindbodypolitic.com/2009/08/05/gore-vidal-on-the-bridge-to-fascis... Vidal On the Bridge to Fascism[/url] Gore Vidal on the bridge to somewhere bad

Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House

Since the overthrow of its own republic in 1947 the U.S. military dictatorship has waged more than 100 covert and illegal wars and overthrew dozens of democracies. The purpose of the CIA and NSA was never counterintelligence against Soviet communism or foreign militaries in general but to orchestrate the governing of its NATO allies in Europe, funding "stay behind" armies perpetrating false flag terrorism, infiltrating trade unions and fending off Europe's home-grown democracy in general. And the USSA still has nuclear weapons stationed in Europe and apparently to defend against a cold war threat that does not exist - and the only superpower remaining with nuclear-armed war ships roaming the seven seas.

There can be no legitimate purpose for nuclear weapons.

M. Spector wrote:

Fidel wrote:

There can be no legitimate purpose for nuclear weapons.

If the Soviet Union hadn't had nuclear weapons we would have had World War 3 long ago.

Yes, I think that Douglas MacArthur and the Joint Chiefs of Staff probably would have dropped nuclear weapons on North Korea in order to draw China and the Soviet Union into a nuclear war. They would have gladly committed mass murder of hundred of millions of human beings in order to destabilize Asia. And then it dawned on them that the Sovs had H bomb capability. The Sov's test blast was so large that it caused them to shit their pants in Washington and London.

They are achieving or attempting to achieve that same end with supporting and fomenting spread of militant Islam and right wing extremism in Asia, Africa, Middle East and the Eastern edge of Europe today and dating back to the 1950s. And this has occurred all the while surrounding Russia and China with military bases and some with strategically located nuclear weapons. China, Russia, Libya, Iraq and Iran etc have caught on to the fact that petro dollar imperialism has been used to finance U.S. Military buildups all around them for a long time.

Also posted [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/activism/police-state#comment-1337105]in the other police state thread[/url].