Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Scientists Confirm: Arctic Sea Ice 'Collapse' at Our Door
- Worse Than Obama's Kill List? American Support for It
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
- Genetically Engineered Meat, Coming Soon to a Supermarket Near You
- Nearly 50 Climate Activists Arrested Outside Obama's White House
- Quinoa: To Buy or Not to Buy... Is This the Right Question?
- Watch a City-Sized Glacier Collapse
- DOJ Kill List Memo Forces Many Dems Out of the Closet as Overtly Unprincipled Hacks
- A Presidential Decision That Could Change the World: The Strategic Importance of Keystone XL
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is Fascism Lurking?
Fascism
is one of those words that sounds like it belongs in the past,
conjuring up, as it does, marching jack boots in the streets,
charismatic demagogues like Italy's Mussolini or Spain's Franco
and armed crackdowns on dissent and freedom of expression.
It is a term we are used to reading in histories about World War II--not in news stories from present day America.
And yet the word, and the dark reality behind it, is creeping into popular contemporary usage.
Radical activists on the left have never been hesitant to label their opponents with this "F word" whenever governments support laws that limit opposition or overdo national security or abuse human rights. Government paranoia turns critics paranoid.
One example: writer Naomi Wolf forecast fascism creeping into America during the Bush years accelerated by the erosion of democracy, writing:
"It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable - as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here."
Wolf feared Americans couldn't see the warning signs:
"Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government - the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors - we scarcely recognize the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of "homeland" security - remember who else was keen on the word "homeland" - didn't raise the alarm bells it might have."
Now, those bells are now being rung by John Hall, an outgoing Democratic Congressman from upstate New York. His fear of fascism has less to do with repressive laws and militarism than the influx of corporate money into politics, swamping it with special interests that buy influence for right wing policies and politicians.
"I learned when I was in social studies class in school that corporate ownership or corporate control of government is called Fascism," he told the New York Observer. "So that's really the question-- is that the destination if this court decision goes unchecked?"
Reports New York's Observer, "The court decision he is referring to is Citizens United, the controversial Supreme Court ruling that led to greater corporate spending in the midterm elections, much of it anonymous. In the wake of the decision, Democrats tried to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would have mandated that corporate donors identify themselves in their advertising, but the measure failed amid GOP opposition. Ads from groups with anonymous donors were particularly prone to misleading or false claims."
Hall said the influx of corporate money in the wake of Citizens United handed the House of Representatives to Republicans. "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
Many in mainstream politics who understand that big money can dominate elections although not in every case share Hall's fears. In California, two well-known female candidates from the corporate world raised millions but still went down in defeat.
So money alone is not the be all and end all of a shift towards a red white and blue brand of fascism. Other ingredients are needed and some may be on the way-like an economic collapse, defeat in foreign wars, rise in domestic terrorism and the emergence of a right-wing populist movement that puts order before justice and wants to crush its opponents
Some argue we have just such a movement in the Tea Party although other critics focus on the rise of the Christian right that promotes fundamentalist politics in the name of God.
The Tea Party is not just after Democrats; it has started a campaign against the liberal Methodist Church. It is not internally democratic either with no elected officers or set of by by-laws. It seems to be managed and manipulated by shadowy political operatives and PR firms, financed by a few billionaires who support populism to defang it.
Already militias are forming because of fears of immigration, and there is also concern that if unemployment remains high there is likely to be more violence with police forces understaffed because of government cutbacks. Gun sales went up after the recent violent incidents in Arizona.
The erosion of economic stability with the rise of foreclosures and the shredding of social services is already turning a financial crisis into a social one.
We already have sharp partisan divide and inflation of hateful rhetoric with vicious putdowns of the President and condemnations by members of Congress calling him corrupt, even a traitor.
According to set of the characteristics of fascist nations, there is "a 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.
"In place of human rights enemies are turned into 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." This process is already far along in the USA.
Among the classical characteristics of fascism is a shutting down of debate and a focus on the state--which in our country is controlled by lobbyists and private interests. Wall Street and the military-industrial complex have far more clout than elected officials.
In the past, during the depression, there was a plot to overthrow Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was exposed and neutered. Could something like that happen again?
Maybe it doesn't have to, what with hawks already in control of Congress, major media outlets, the military and poised to slash the power of unions and curb progressive social programs including public education.
Several writers believe that if and when fascism comes to America it will be packaged in a friendly form tied to beneficial advertising slogans and public interest messaging. It will be sold, 1984-style as being unavoidable, even cool, and in our best interest.
Louisiana Senator Huey Long, a mesmerizing agitator, once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

267 Comments so far
Show AllCould you even say 31 years? From what I read, stuff started to get real bad around 1980, but I wasn't born until 1983 so I feel like I might not be able to comment based only on things I have read.
I would say Iran Contra was the end of Democracy in the USA.
The CIA importing cocaine, causing a crack epidemic in LA, to finance a terrorist war expressly forbidden by Congress.
Reagan sending missiles, again violating a Congressional prohibition, to Iran as payment for Iranians holding the hostages as long as they did ( the only way to defeat Carter) and to help finance the Congressionally prohibited Contra terrorists.
With barely a legal reprocussion.
Nixon had his wire tapping and Cointell and Police riots(and Heroin from Nam) but there was still resistance and pushback.
But since Reagans impunity there has been no impediment to the rapidly accelerating fascism, which his holiness OilyBomber has put into hyperdrive.
NPR reported " shortly after "OIlyBombers" visit Giffords opened her eyes"
OMG Heil Chairman OilyBomber!
[I would say Iran Contra was the end of Democracy in the USA.]
I still think that Watergate and the aftermath marked the end of Democracy and the Rule of Law in the states. Not the actual spying, breaking in, or the assassinations that Nixon engaged it; that stuff has been going on for decades before that. It was the open admission that there were laws which could be broken with impunity. Once it was acceptable not to bring criminal charges against that crook, who could really complain about the other well connected crooks and cons getting away with any other crimes?
I still think the first hallmark of building a fascist state isn't the rise of hate, or the demonization of the opponents. (although that helps) It's the initial repeal of the idea that there isn't anyone who is above being prosecuted. Once Ford pardoned Nixon, the later presidencies of Reagan and Bush the lesser were assured.
I will give the neo-fascists credit for not using the same front man for more than 8 years. I think that the next few front men for US fascism are going to be 4 year terms. Obama will get 4 years (unless the fascists need to ramp up the racial hatred by impeaching him for whatever 'crime' they can come up with. Said 'crime' will NOT be bombing civies, or waging war, or torture...).
Beyond that, I really have no idea. I'm not sure where these fascists actually want to go. Taking over the world seems so pointless to me, but I guess that's why I'm not posting on free republic.
[I would say Iran Contra was the end of Democracy in the USA.]
Maybe 1963, when the Powers that Be killed JFK.
It may be JFK, CIA, Houston OIL and Mafia
This would be the covert
Nixon was threatened with impeachment
Reagan is a Hero
I'd go back to Lincoln demonizing the South. rigtht before the War of Northern Aggresion! So much for States Rights do it the federialst/fashists way or no way.
So say 1860
>^^<
Bigotry and hatred toward immigrants? Check.
Bigotry and hatred toward Native people? Check.
Antisemitism? Check.
Misogyny? Check.
Sympathy with the Confederacy? Check.
Thanks for saving me the trouble, amitola.
I haven't caught up on the comments yet-- just pulling over here on the way "down". I'm sure arguments can be made for establishing antecedents of Amerikan fascism even prior to 1963.
But to me, the triumph of the overclass military/security-state nexus in 1963's presidential assassination is the watershed moment.
Perhaps that's a difference in our ages. I was born after JFK and don't see why so many older folk make such a fuss of him. I'm aware of the arguments of what he may have wanted to do, but the thing is... He didn't do them, nor did he speak to those ideas in public.
A bit like the old question; if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound if there's no one there to hear it...
Of course the real roots of fascism in the USA predate both of the dates you and I chose as watershed moments. As another poster pointed out below, the fascists of today did and have learned from the mistakes made by their ancestors. There was a very good chance that a 'true' fascist state could have formed in the USA during the 1930s. For a number of reasons it didn't, and the people who wanted that sort of government were just a bit patient and found another way to make it happen.
The fascist (for want of a better word) movement has some origins in the labour strife at the start of the last century, other origins in the corporate culture of the various religious groups and guilds that were formed in the Middle Ages.
I'm not even sure where they think they're going. They want power, absolute power obviously, but I'm not really sure they would actually know what to do with power should they get absolute power.
hey, karl!
you say:
I was born after JFK and don't see why so many older folk make such a fuss of him.
and this:
There was a very good chance that a 'true' fascist state could have formed in the USA during the 1930s. For a number of reasons it didn't, and the people who wanted that sort of government were just a bit patient and found another way to make it happen.
are you aware of Prescott Bush's activities during the 30's?
are you aware his son, George, was in Dallas the day JFK was killed, and the head of the CIA before becoming president of this country?
are you aware his grandson, George, Jr. was president of this country when 911 occurred, killing thousands of Americans, and that those demolished buildings housed many things, including records regarding federal investigations into, among other things, the JFK murder?
history is not always so distant...
George H.W, Bush was not only in Dallas, he was contacted by Hoover about the assassination.He held no government position then.
Isn't there a suspicious phone call placed by Pappa Bush? at a small airport outside Dallas?
That was also recorded in a FBI memo as a call from Tyler Texas, not far from Dallas, by Bush regarding the Hit.
This was how the CIA got away with it since World War Three with Russia was on red alert, Hoover and Bush needed to find out if the CIA forces planning to invade CUba again, would do it.
LBJ did not want a war with Russia, I will say that good thing about him but the CIA/Mob gang who hated JFK knew that would give them absolute cover.
Of course all of this was avoided in the Warren Report since LBJ knew about the hit beforehand too like a lot of people, some of them I met in Texas and New Orleans. I was being set up, like Oswald.
I am going to read the new Book that blows the lid off the Coup and Cover-up Called "Lee and Me" by Oswald's lover, Judyth Vary Baker. http://meandlee.com/
Hoover's memo was to "George Bush of the CIA". regarding the Assassination which was a coup.
Of course this had to be denied to cover up the coup and being a CIA asset or whatever even an informant is a government position.
I would say Hamiltons Whiskey Tax is the epitome of Fascism, where the State purposely Bankrupt small trans-Appalacian grain farmers who traded in whiskey because it was possible to carry trans-Appalacian by Mule and make a profit in East Coast markets.
The Tax fell more heavily on the small farmer than the industial seaboard Distilleries.
The Farmers rebelled, were snitched on and routed, by Federal Forces.
The Bankrupt small farmers also provided an unavailable before industrial labor force.
This is the origin of your rebellous Moonshiner!
Very true, but for most history only goes back to the invention of TV. Big Corporations have been trying to take over from governments from the start.
>^^<
Richard, great line, "for most history only goes back to the invention of TV."
I'll be using that a few times.
absolutely...that event cannot be overemphasized...
the president was killed in a coordinated effort...
we are still living the consequences of that moment...
what a signal to the entire world, current and future, that was...
In Sept. 2001, they made sure that everyone was watching.
Global Powerplay Declaration
How many coincidences does it take to stop being coincidence?
How many lies does it take to make a liar?
yes...both events were highly visible...shock and awe isn't just a phrase...
I have always wondered if Lyndon Johnson, after the JFK killing, felt weak and jittery inside...how often do any sitting politicians consider the JFK murder when determining a course of action? I would...
crosshairs, indeed...
I don't know if I agree with this. From what I have read there were far worse violation of people's and group's constitutional rights under Nixon, than what happened at Watergate to the Democrats. It is just that the people whose rights were violated were not part of one of the establishment parties. Nixon was fine as long as he didn't go after the real centers of power it seems. Chomsky was the first I read mentioning this, here's what he said:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19730920.htm
"The general reaction to the Watergate affair exhibits the same moral flaw. We read lofty sermons on Nixon's move to undermine the two-party system, the foundations of American democracy. But plainly what CREEP was doing to the Democrats is insignificant in comparison with the bipartisan attack on the Communist Party in the postwar period or, to take a less familiar case, the campaign against the Socialist Workers Party, which in the post-Watergate climate has filed suit to restrain government agencies from their perpetual harassment, intimidation, surveillance, and worse. Serious civil rights or antiwar groups have regularly discovered government provocateurs among their most militant members. Judicial and other harassment of dissidents and their organizations has been common practice, whoever happens to be in office. So deeply engrained are the habits of the state agencies of repression that even in the glare of Watergate the government could not refrain from infiltrating an informer into the defense team in the Gainesville VVAW trial; while the special prosecutor swore under oath that the informer, since revealed, was not a government agent."
What Nixon did at Watergate was horrible but what the FBI did to, for example, Fred Hampton or what Cointelpro did to radicals was far worse. If you have time, read up on what Cointelpro did to the Black Panthers. People might not like the Black Panthers, maybe they do, but trying to get them to kill each other off, with government money (our tax dollars) is far worse.
This argument can go on forever though. Wherever it started, it is clear that this slide has been gradual, piece by piece. I think one of the early seeds was an executive at GM shortly after WWII, Charles E. Wilson, calling for a "permanent war economy". He was later made Secretary of Defense under Eisenhower and got his wish. Eisenhower warned of the MIC but Wilson, his choice for Secretary of Defense, was influential in bringing us to that point. We have the most violent foreign policy in the world since WWII, have killed millions of people, economically rely on war and violence and are far and away the most violent country in the West within our borders. I think, in many ways, we've been fascist for decades, the fascism is just now coming home more and more.
[I don't know if I agree with this. From what I have read there were far worse violation of people's and group's constitutional rights under Nixon, than what happened at Watergate to the Democrats]
Sorry, I wasn't clear. It's not that the democrats suffered more, nor was it that the other violations mattered less. (they were part of the impeachment hearings if I remember right), it was the fact that Nixon wasn't charged with any of it at all. The crook got a pardon for everything he ever did. That's what I mean by the end of the idea of 'Rule of Law'; for what that concept had been worth anyhow...
Really that's the 'formal' start of the rise of what we'd call classical fascism in the states. Along with the criminal getting away with all of his crimes, he took you off the gold standard so you'd not have to pay for the Vietnam war in 'real' money.
But, yah, we're trying to decide when the government was more evil than it now is. Really it's been evil for quite some centuries, longer than any modern government has been around.
I once tried to argue in a history paper that the government was first formed to counter the threat that was created by the formations of other governments who organized their peoples to steal from each other more efficiently than the ad hoc groups that wandered about long before writing came about. The prof agreed with what I said, but countered that history was about what was written, and I'd gone to far.
I hear what you're saying. I don;t disagree entirely. It seems though that the government violated the rights of people, many times on the left, in far worse ways before Watergate. No one says much of anything because it wasn't done to those in power. Those in power control our dialogue. Even here or other leftists sights, a lot of what we talk about is created by the corporate media. Even if we exist to correct and fight them, they usually set the agenda.
This horrible shooting in AZ is an example of this. There has been right wing violence now for the last few decades, but it has been against largely faceless, "regular" people. I gave a list of right wing killers in just the last few years, nothing equivalent coming from the left in decades (for outright violence you'd have to go back to the anarchists in the early 20th century). The media didn't connect the dots, bring this systematic violence to the attention of people. Now, something horrible happens to someone important and the media notices but now draws false equivalences and STILL doesn't mention the right wing, politically motivated violence that has exploded in recent years. I don't know if he was on the right, although there are some signs he might be. It at least gives us an opportunity to not only talk about rhetoric but politically motivated violence, and the right has a monopoly on that now. They just notice when horrible things happen to important people. I'm not minimizing what happened, it is horrible and sad, I'm just pointing this out.
Abbie Hoffman had an interesting comment anyway regarding these matters: "You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." Look at what the police in St. Paul did to peaceful activists during the Republican convention, infiltration, unlawful arrest, the violation of people's rights. Look to Canada too, what the government did to non violent activists during the G20 meetings last year.
To all you shrinks can a heavily schizophrenic person maintain a single location on the political spectrum.
Anybody see the MIA "John Ellis"?
John if your still out there please get some pyschological intervention. For your own good.
Of course they had to avoid the Watergate trials at all costs! Can you imagine if it came out in 1972 that the Dem's and Rethugs were truly one party and nobody was really hurt in the intermural dustup Frat Prank that the breakins were!
My GODS people might have turned away from the whole petty Corporate party! They might have started a real Second party. DEMOCRACY might have broken out!
Can't have that......... Can we?
>^^<
WILBER: Excellent posts. You add much to the discourse. Thank you.
I appreciate the discussion posters are having about dates if the first signs of fascism. I think that you can go further back - even to the 1880's (collusion of corporate and government power to violently suppress the labor movement of that time). At a certain point this exercise becomes an answer looking for a question. So much of what people think of as fascism is just straight-ahead capitalism. Fascism is not distinct from capitalism; it is a subset of capitalism - not the other way around. It is paradoxical to me that people are willing to put history under a microscope looking for signs of fascism, while ignoring the inherent violence and repression of everyday capitalism. Recall that a holocaust preceding the Holocaust, the systemic genocide of millions of people(s) was not a product of Nazi Germany, but was a product of the early capitalism of the US: the extermination of Native Americans. Obviously there are differences between the two, but my point is that capitalism is more than capable of that kind of violence. The focus on fascism to the exclusion of capitalism is misguided.
Great post.
"The focus on fascism to the exclusion of capitalism is misguided."
Yes. People focus on this - "is it fascism yet?" - whatever that might mean to them, and it is never clear what they do mean - because they see fascism as some sort of Capitalism-gone-wrong aberration. They refuse to believe that there could be anything wrong with Capitalism itself, and that these various manifestations they analyze - such as fascism - are all unavoidable and inevitable outcomes of Capitalism.
I think what people mean by fascism is a threat to the Capitalism that allows them to have secure and comfortable positions as "house slaves," while the oppression and killing goes on elsewhere to other people and they can maintain their "middle class" and "American democracy" delusions.
Forget CoIntelPro...check out Project MK Ultra
When did democracy ever exist here? I don't see it.
Democracy in the united states ended with the assassinations of two Kennedys and a King. The CIA and the Corporatocracy won and have been slowly but steadily consolidating their gains ever since. The article below was published on 28 May, 2003.
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottoes, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 and letters is openly attacked.
12. 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 forgo civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. 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.
14. 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.
Also you might want to read
http://steveosborn.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-fascism-really.html
and
http://steveosborn.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-happened-to-my-country.html
for a little more enlightenment on the above subject.
Yes, 1980 is when it first started to get bad. Reagan. The devil's child.
Yeah, no shit.
Like a cat raised in a NY apartment, Schechter peers out at the world in timid wonder--
To be honest, I'm glad more people are finally noticing, but I still want to slap them for being obtuse and opaque...and taking so goddamn long.
I have to believe that the author of this article intended it to be irony in the past tense. Not sure, but Mr Schechter obviously has his eyes wide open and sees what America has become.
One paragraph in the article describes 2011 America exactly: "According to set of the characteristics of fascist nations, there is "a 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."
This is our country today put in place by Cheney, Bush, Rumsfield, Ashcroft/Gonzales, Powell, Rice et al after "Made in America 9/11" and continued, without missing a lockstep, by Obama, Biden, Holder, Gates, Panetta, Clinton et al.
These US spinmeisters continue to lull the masses by using "a friendly form (of Fascism) tied to beneficial advertising slogans and public interest messaging. This insidious messaging is certainly working because "all the little frogs in the pot of nice warm water are unaware of the inevitable outcome."
Fascism HAS come to America in the name of anti-fascism, 1984-style. Don't look to Washington for any help. It's too late.
Right now we're a corporatist state, not a fascist one, although we still have a significant contingent of fascists vying for supremacy. The difference between the two is important, and routinely ignored or overlooked.
Fascism is a nationalist phenomenon. Corporate power serves the glory of the state. In corporatism, the nation is instrumental, its glory is irrelevant. It is a global structure now. Governments exist to serve private interests.
The distinction can be vital for resisters because the base of the power is very different and the methods for defeat will be significantly different.
Both are right wing orientations, obviously. I personally think corporatism is even worse than fascism.
In a sense, I guess fascism is lurking. But corporatism is already here and in charge, and we need to be focusing on beating what is turning out to be a global effort at elite domination instead of worrying about the rhetorical use of fascism to achieve corporatist ends.
While fascists will subjugate their own people, their nation state is an object of almost holy reference. For corporatists, the nation state is at best a legal obstacle. An instrument to be played or put down as needed. For those of us tied to land, this is a much bigger threat to our well-being.
"turn in your guns and prevent people from owning them -- the liberal and progressive solution. It will make you safer."
That is just an outright lie! repeat it enough and it will become truth is the only thing your side is good at. NRA is a lobbying organization that has almost the same power of corporatism and military industrial complex working together in the interest of ruling elite top 1% of the world and of course we have to include the corporate media NBC,ABC,CBS, CNN, Faux News, et al for perpetuating this misinformation/lies.
Liberal/progressive might want assault weapons off the streets and out of the hands of citizens, they might want registration and regulations and a process in order to obtain gun ownership which will make us safer.
Dennab is a gun nut troll. He pontificates all the time.
A smart thug or desperate person will cap you in the back of head from ambush so how's a carry permit gonna help ya?
Ain't no pistol-packing mommas 'round here---MD
[And simply put: up yours. You're a lost cause and aren't about to change the world for the better, not ever.]
Well, have fun going back to the echo chambers on the right. I'm sure they'll love your tales of how you went off to do battle with the vast left wing hoard. Of course you might find the censorship of the comments on sites like freerepublic are far more draconian than the flagging wars that happen here. You'll also find the insults are much more frequent and the level of thinking a few orders of magnitude lower. (they really love potty humour tho... and guns, boy oh boy do they love guns.)
Of course when your 'new' side triumphs over the will of us 'lefties' I'm sure you'll enjoy the brave new world even more than those who will experience a life with a boot stamping on our face.
I'd actually recommend you go to a right wing website then. If only to know what, and how they argue.
I'm not clueless, thanks, just pissed off and a bit more angry than I probably should be. And have been hitting the submit key a bit too quickly to care about giving any offense.
If it helps any, I'm not bashing you in particular. I don't know you at all, and am only commenting on your ideas. Ideas which I think are those of a ... (maybe I'd better let you put those words onto my post. I'm sure you could be far more insulted by what you can come up with than what I'd be willing to write.)
Calm down. Don't let these guys get your panties in a bunch. Sometimes they get on an awful roll, but mostly they're good people.
Tempers can flare, even just posting. I know I've often felt like you - and you sound pretty normal to me the rest of the time (and would sound normal to most of my friends). Don't give up. Liberals and 'progressives' don't seem to have much direction - and I wonder about how much experience some of them have in the real world. I gave up on Danny Schecter's site too, largely for the same reasons you're so digusted today. It's been a tough week - just take a break. But please don't leave - just skip the guys on the circular firing squad.
Wow, you sound so intelligent grouping all progressives and liberals into one category. Maybe you should learn how to create a proper argument instead of just coming here and "whining" about all of us ""whinies"" (sp?).
Thanks for the comedy, though, I needed a good laugh today.
You guys need to understand the difference between leftists and "progressives" or whatever nice sounding label you want to give yourselves these days.
Leftists are anarchists, socialists, and communists. And many of them are gun owners, not because they love the Right, but because they aren't afraid of guns, and recognize that there is value in owning them, for many many reasons, not just political ones.
Liberal echo chambers, which I don't think common dreams has become yet, can be incredibly annoying because they don't understand anything about US History and the role radical unionists and revolutionaries played in preserving the rights we take for granted today.
If it wasn't for the lynching of judges who were foreclosing on homes in the 30's, it's likely the New Deal would have never passed. We need a real left opposition in this country, not some timid liberals who naively believe that voting will save us from fascism.
I recommend you listen to this interview from yesterday:
http://kpfa.org/archive/id/66776
True.
Errico Malatesta was an Italian revolutionary anarchist that believed in social revolution. He died in 1932 before the Spanish Civil War, but was very much a part of the time period that built up that moment of consciousness.
From Wikipedia:
"Malatesta was a principled anarchist– he would always adhere to anarchist principles no matter what the situation. He always rejected party politics and political revolution, preferring social revolution; he was even suspicious of the use of revolutionary trade unions, as anarcho-syndicalists advocate.
His constant work as an organizer and speaker embodied his ideals of free association: for Malatesta, it was useful to join an organization only for the purpose of doing something with that group of people. There was no sense in belonging to a group simply to belong."
That's right and flooding the streets with guns really plays right into our hands. This massive circular firing squad we are living under is benefiting whom? You take up the tools of the authoritarian pigs and you'll see what you become. Ask Trotsky. Wasn't he supreme commander of military at the end of the story?
Hi Jason,
It was a reply to Malatesta. It's actually quite easy to follow a thread. You use the indentation of the post to determine who is replying to who. If your web browser isn't displaying the indentations, I'll be happy to provide you to a link to one that does. No charge for it either.
I haven't called for anyone to docilely disarm. Feel free to storm DC with your pitch forks and long guns. You can corner Obama on the White House roof like Edward Scissorhands.
If you think it actually comes down to .50 cal machine gun fire, I don't see how a Glock is going to do you any good anyway. There are about 10 things I can think off of the top of my head that I could do in defense that are far more effective than a lousy pistol. In the meantime, you have the gun industry dumping millions of handguns on this society and the results are fatal. Like I said, who is really benefiting from this circular firing squad?
As an aside, check out the stuff drone is writing on this thread. Beyond top notch.
Agreed.
Although you have been programmed properly, and seem to support the division of the populace, which is a necessary prerequisite to fascism, I doubt that you are under some kind of umbrella and will be shielded from the effects of fascism. Sorry to say, but we are in this together, hate-filled ignoramuses and compassionates alike.
.