Chomsky Warns of Risk of Fascism in America

118 posts / 0 new
Last post

George Victor wrote:
But while courts and constitutional freedoms exist, while Chomsky is still allowed to publish his ideas about the nature of fascism and the possibility of America succumbing to it,  the beast has not yet fully emerged.  With so many ignorant of the possibility, and so many others happy in their ability to consume conspicuously, it could be argued that it's just a matter of time.

They've still got Guantanamo and executive death squads. Warmongering plutocrats in Warshington are still threatening other nations with military attack. They are still operating outside of international law.  And the domestic spying apparatus is far more invasive of privacy than the East German STASI ever dreamed of doing.

The USSA has been a fascist rogue superpower for a long time. Today it's a dangerous and lawless nuclear-armed superpower in decline.


jrootham wrote:

Part of the definition of Fascism is the use the monied interests make of the populist elements of the movement.

Tea baggers are bang on the definition.

The key is how to fight back.  ...


I think key to fighting back to be very clear on who really has power in our society and to be consistently adamant about this point.

Now more than ever, ambigiouity has no place. And oh yeah - stay on message, repeatedly, make it clear, plain and obvious.

George Victor

Right on, 2d


That's going to bu useful in Canada.  The US has a harder problem.  The legitimacy of the political system is in question, not least because it has been used for illegitimate purpose (id the banksters own the place).  The problem is that if it becomes truly illegitimate the Fascists win.  Hands down.  No question.  The left cannot defeat the right in the streets.

So we have to support the system.  Note:  supporting the system in this context is putting enough pressure on the individual members to get them to do the right thing, not just getting all panglossian about it.


jrootham wrote:

That's going to bu useful in Canada.  The US has a harder problem.  The legitimacy of the political system is in question, not least because it has been used for illegitimate purpose (id the banksters own the place).  The problem is that if it becomes truly illegitimate the Fascists win.  Hands down.  No question.  The left cannot defeat the right in the streets.

Their's was an illegitimate system some time ago. Americans have been ruled by Wall Street and the military for a long time.

But it's interesting what you say about the left being incapable of defeating the right in a showdown. Your position in the gun registry thread is one that favours the military and those in power now. Salvador Allende refused the revolutionary workers demands to arm workers militias who were prepared to defend the democratic election results, and in the streets if needed. Chile's military increasingly challenged the workers resolve by checking households for weapons.

Ultimately Allende refused those calls to arm workers militias in defence of democracy, and the fascists made sure there was blood in the streets and firing bullets into open crowds of protesters. Workers were rounded up, disappeared and tortured to death for a number of years afterward.


The historic example is Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.  They lost.  You think you can do better than them?



And Rosa's last words expressed belief in a new and better leadership, and most importantly, people's revolution! Rosa would have expected that socialists of the future do better, absolutely. There eventually was a united front in Germany, but it was too little too late. There's only one way to deal with fascist bullies when things get that bad. The Russian people demonstrated that for us at Stalingrad and Leningrad with the enemy at the gates and all around them. Real fascists are actually small in number. Proles outnumber fascists by far and wide, and the fascists know it. They don't want things to descend into chaos the same as Pinochet's Chile where it reached a point when the people were no longer afraid of the fascists bullets and protested openly in the streets. But I think those periods of fascism could be brought to heel by the people sooner and with less overall bloodshed if large numbers of people are armed with equalizers.

Sean in Ottawa

It is very difficult to compare the current movements to previous ones since power may act the same but it does not look the same as it used to.

Naked fear worked well in Hitler's day. Today a greater sophistication is required. With all the cultural and propaganda tools available now the process is much subtler than it used to be even if the effect is not that different i many respects.

If Hitler were here today people would not recognize him.

Someone upthread invoked Orwell for good reason-- Orwell spoke from the time of Hitler predicting the more sophisticated upside-down world we have today where the oppressor has learned not to look oppresive except when he really needs to. Much has been learned about managing dissent and making it irrelevant.

Inasmuch as the word Facist has a purpsoe, we likely need a new word to describe this-- perhaps Orwellianists-- for there is a huge distinction between the direct threat and the more insidious convincing of the masses that down is up and good is bad etc. Hitler thought he was pretty good at propaganda but he was an amateur compared with what is considered normal today.


Super-imperialism? Hyper-fascism? Global Dictatorship?  Totalitarian mind-fuck?


Turn on your TV and count the number of cop shows and military shows all based on America's police state.  Normalization of evil is more effective than its imposition by force.  People don't speak about the unspeakable like the fact that the Iraqi state prior to America's oil wars was a sophisticated secular society and no more totalitarian than any other state in the region. To the majority of the population it was fine that the only people that the government chased were people who wanted to upset the apple cart. That is what normalization does for a dictatorship it allows people to relax and say there is nothing we can do so why fight it.

I think we are entering into a phase of global feudalism.  The heads of nation states are the dukes and earls that keep the peasants in line for the benefit of the lords and kings.  And as in ancient China the real elite rulers are not even glimpsed upon by the masses.


Good one, Kropotkin. NeoFeudalism? I think that fascism has been described as an effort to destroy modern civilization and regress to a feudalistic order of things in general. Pagan Rome? I think Obama does have a vision. And it's to see that blacks and whites die in poverty together in America while the elites continue paying lip service to capitalism's false gods of prosperity.



I think we are entering into a phase of global feudalism.  The heads of nation states are the dukes and earls that keep the peasants in line for the benefit of the lords and kings.


I agree in part with this but disagree on the details.


I think we've been reverting to a form of feudalism for some time. For 30 years I've thought that Marx got his dialectic wrong: that what follows the clash of feudalism and capitalism isn't socialism, it's a synthesis of feudalism and capitalism.


Now we have rising fiefdoms called corporations undermining the sovereign states. Some of these corporate duchies are even stronger than many states.


Us? We've been peasants throughout.


Get real, Fidel.  

Authoritarian's (Fascism's supporters) are really quite common. See Altmeyer.

We are much closer to Fascism than Bolshevism.

If we are to deal with the world, we must see it clearly.



Fascism will rise because as capitalsim breaks down people will become desperate. The people with fascist tendencies will gain power.

It's a slow march over acliff really.


The fact the Chomski is openly talking about it after he supported Obama, is proof that he has become afraid.


He thought that Obama would hult the slide to the right. But the fact is, American capitalismis in full decline and can not be stopped.


Marx understood what revolts were and how they started. He understood that the leaders of the working class need to direct this anger to build a socialist society. Unfortunatly any form of militancy in the ranks have been filtered out a long time ago and the right has propagated their position well.




Armed struggle is useless.


It is far more effective to have a well thought out plan. people can understand this better and work towards it.


Ideas last forever . Guns; the other side will always build a bigger one.


For example, I can come up with a plan and have a philosophy to back it up. I then explain and teach it to my social group. You could come in and gun down 3/4s of my group but the remaining will just teach it to a new group of people.


How many religious people have been killed over the years and yet, we still have believers.


That's were Lenin and the gang fucked up. They went in with guns blazing, took over the town but didn't have a full plan to back it up. They then relied on the former gang to help them out. Cause those guys had a plan. And what do we have today?


jrootham wrote:
We are much closer to Fascism than Bolshevism.

We are. But it's still not Stalingrad under siege. Things are not the same here as what it has been for oppresssed Latin Americans living under US-backed tyranny in "the backyard." Canada and the US are not tiny, impoverished Latin American nations that they can kick hell out of without the rest of the world taking notice.

But as it was in 1930s and 40s Germany, the fascists in power still feel they have to convince German citizen equivalents in North America that the foreign threat is real. The Gleiwitz incident was about convincing German civilians as well as soldiers of the army that Poles and Jews were attacking German interests everywhere, and that an attack on Germany would be next unless pre-emptive attacks were carried out. Hitler even convinced Germans that the army was careful not to kill innocent civilians abroad, which was as much a lie then as it was for NATO in the former Yugoslavia, and in Afghanistan and Iraq today. The US has done this a number of times. Gulf of Tonkin was a lie. Veterans of the Vietnam war have said that they were lied to about why they were sent there. The doctor and the madman of the 1970s lied to Americans about their off the books bombing of Cambodia,  and their covert support for Pol Pot, the biggest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler.

And there are Americans who still believe Saddam had WMD. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are still speaking to $1000 dollar a plate gatherings and telling them that Saddam was harboring Al-Qa'eda. Americans and Canadians are lied to constantly about foreign threats to all of us that don't actually exist. Ultra right-rightists are still there in the states and running things today. Obama and the legislative branch are little more than cosmetic government.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Closing for length


Topic locked