Fascism: What exactly is it and how do you recognize it?

[compared2what?]

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. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. They are doing this even in those cases where they hope to have profitable connections with German chemical firms after the war ends. 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.

American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery.

- Henry Wallace, "The Danger of American fascism" article in NYT, 1944
http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm

I would say that in America today, you can clearly see that purposeful coalition in action.

Sure.

But Henry Wallace was calling it fascism as a matter of New-Deal era rhetorical strategy, which he explicitly admits requires him to completely re-define the term. The only reason that he doesn't explicitly state that what he means by "American fascism" is "the political position taken by opponents of the New Deal, which I, Henry Wallace, condemn in the strongest possible terms as an evil equivalent to fascism, because that's my job as Vice President in this, an election year" is that back in 1944, that already would have been clear to everybody: The country was then at war with a fascist regime. So you called your political enemies fascists. A la "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists," basically.

Although he was kicked off the ticket three months after writing that, anyway. Just as a side note.My main point is that he's using the word "fascism" rhetorically to describe a non-fascist threat because that was a politically advantageous way for him to talk about oligarchy at the time and under the circumstances.

And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, when it's applicable. But it isn't always applicable.

[JackRiddler]

I don't claim the term doesn't have its limits.

This is the country of slavery, genocide of the Indians, lynch mobs on the weekends, eugenics, Taylorism, "soft empire," the hundred-year drug war, the atomic bomb, science experiments with torture and spreading STDs, the world championship in engineered long-distance coup d'etats, more bombs on Vietnam than in all of World War II, generations of death squad "training programs," a military and war budget bigger than the rest of the world's, the biggest prison population and the biggest arms trading industry. We can seriously declare a "global war" and think we're the good guys! We don't "go fascist," we teach the fascists how to do it. We produce fascism all around the world, like we do movies. And the majority of the population need never be bothered with any of the above, much of which they don't even know about, or would think was made-up. At least so far, even at this supposedly late stage, the majority eat plenty, spend half their time consuming any damn media they please, attend any church or cult they please, vote without hindrance (in some states: as long as they're white) for any party long as it's on the ballot (which is to say, capitalist with few exceptions), make lots of money if they're in the top 20-30 percent, work hard, believe in smiles and positive thinking, drive a great deal, and have Hollywood, The Interstate, Apollo, Wall Street, Homecoming Queens, the NFL and the Internet. And these marvels are possible even when some atrociously high proportion of the people and almost half the politicians claim to think God made the world 7000 years ago. All this is so much bigger and innovative than some musty single-minded Central European rust-age dictatorship (the Nazis excepted; they were innovative). We're not fascist, we only have Burson-Marstellar and Hill and Knowlton to advise them. This place is grandiose. It's the country that killed Martin Luther King and gave him a national holiday without an intervening system change.

.

[semper occultus]

^ ...to paraphrase Steven Wright..."I don't suffer from fascism...but I think I'm a carrier..."

..some other historical tidbits germane to the inevitably rather Amero-centric discussion :

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

Smedley Butler 1935

"The chief business of the American people is business."

But, for Coolidge, business was more than business; it was a religion; and to it he committed all the passion of his arid nature. "The man who builds a factory," he wrote, "builds a temple. The man who works there worships there." He (Coolidge) felt these things with a fierce intensity.

www.calvin-coolidge.org

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

[dada]

I think it's safe to say that we've established that there is a distinct brand of American fascism at work on planet Earth today.

Good for us.

[brekin]

This guy has culled some great definitions:
http://www.anesi.com/Fascism-TheUltimateDefinition.htm

Handy chart.

[lupercal]

^ Interesting, and I hasten to add, very germane to the actual thread topic . But I think "fascism" might be the wrong word to describe the current configuration, mainly because it leaves out the stealth strategy, which is what makes it so dangerous. So:

I think it's safe to say that we've established that there is a distinct brand of American fascism at work on planet Earth today.

Good for us.

Yes, except I'd call it Anglo-American so as not to exclude our friends across the pond. And now to give it a local habitation and a name. Difficult. Wallace and Ike both captured it but "fascism" doesn't come close to describing it because Italian fascism was ideological, nationalistic and overt, and this is none of those. "MIC-ism" would cover Ike's description, but he left out the stealth takeover of all information channels -- Wallace's "deliberate poisoners of public information" -- and made it sound like it a necessary evil, which it certainly is not: "We recognize the imperative need for this development." There's nothing imperative about sheer naked atavistic duplicitous depraved greed. Even "hyper-capitalism" is putting it too kindly.

So I vote "Orwellism" until somebody comes up with something better, which I imagine will be very soon.

[compared2what?]

I think it's safe to say that we've established that there is a distinct brand of American fascism at work on planet Earth today.

Good for us.

If you mean "as defined by Henry Wallace," then opposing the aggressively interventionist economic policies of the federal government is its key feature. So how do you suggest we deploy the term for a better future?

[compared2what?]

"Don't audit the fed," maybe?

[brekin]

lupercal wrote:

Interesting. But I think problem here is that "fascism" might simply be the wrong word to describe the current configuration, mainly because it leaves out the stealth strategy, which is what makes it so dangerous.

I agree. Italy was fairly united and Fascism had broad popular support initially. U.S. is pretty polarized but many camps are united in the belief that there is stealth agendas which have nothing to do with national unity.

[compared2what?]

I don't claim the term doesn't have its limits.

This is the country of slavery, genocide of the Indians, lynch mobs on the weekends, eugenics, Taylorism, "soft empire," the hundred-year drug war, the atomic bomb, science experiments with torture and spreading STDs, the world championship in engineered long-distance coup d'etats, more bombs on Vietnam than in all of World War II, generations of death squad "training programs," a military and war budget bigger than the rest of the world's, the biggest prison population and the biggest arms trading industry. We can seriously declare a "global war" and think we're the good guys! We don't "go fascist," we teach the fascists how to do it. We produce fascism all around the world, like we do movies. And the majority of the population need never be bothered with any of the above, much of which they don't even know about, or would think was made-up. At least so far, even at this supposedly late stage, the majority eat plenty, spend half their time consuming any damn media they please, attend any church or cult they please, vote without hindrance (in some states: as long as they're white) for any party long as it's on the ballot (which is to say, capitalist with few exceptions), make lots of money if they're in the top 20-30 percent, work hard, believe in smiles and positive thinking, drive a great deal, and have Hollywood, The Interstate, Apollo, Wall Street, Homecoming Queens, the NFL and the Internet. And these marvels are possible even when some atrociously high proportion of the people and almost half the politicians claim to think God made the world 7000 years ago. All this is so much bigger and innovative than some musty single-minded Central European rust-age dictatorship (the Nazis excepted; they were innovative). We're not fascist, we only have Burson-Marstellar and Hill and Knowlton to advise them. This place is grandiose. It's the country that killed Martin Luther King and gave him a national holiday without an intervening system change.

.

That's all true. But see what you did there?

I don't know why you're arguing in favor of putting it less well.

[lupercal]

lupercal wrote:

Interesting. But I think problem here is that "fascism" might simply be the wrong word to describe the current configuration, mainly because it leaves out the stealth strategy, which is what makes it so dangerous.

I agree. Italy was fairly united and Fascism had broad popular support initially. U.S. is pretty polarized but many camps are united in the belief that there is stealth agendas which have nothing to do with national unity.

Absolutely. This current business is transnational and lacks any ideology except the personal enrichment of individuals and their organizations, e.g. Halliburton, Shell and Exxon, to get down to brass tacks. There are others too I'm sure.

[lupercal]

"Don't audit the fed," maybe?

How about "splinter the cia into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds"?

[82_28]

Perhaps it's not fascism. Perhaps it is to come eventually. We only sense it in the many forms it takes as it comes in like a rising tide around a hilly beach. What's being done is a hollowing out and people (including me) are too stupid to see it. Like a squirrel who's eyesight and instincts never evolved to avoid a car going at a high speed, it darts back and forth until it gets splatted. All you sense is the incipient danger and never being able to put a finger on it.

Which, I say, is why fascism is so possible. It is designed this way. The people who lead it, know it is wrong. Yet they go for it anyway. Why? Because they can and for the same reason down here on Earth we get "mass shooting fatigue". I still think it is best to keep up mental vigilance, even though, in the end, there's probably not a whole lot we're going to be able to do about it.

[JackRiddler]

I don't know why you're arguing in favor of putting it less well.

I don't, but it's complicated and my description touches upon many US contexts in which the f-word is appropriate. Given this country's preeminence as a modern-day producer of fascism internationally for profit, geostrategy and ideological solidarity, I don't react well to stuff like, "it's not fascist because _____ is not present or Country XYZ is worse." Especially given how often Country XYZ has been a US client state.

But we've come close to exhausting this aspect of the subject, haven't we?

.

[barracuda]

Yeah. We should wrap it up.