Daily Kos

[NeoCons] Robert Kennedy Jr Implies (directly) Bush a Fascist

Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 12:58:51 AM PDT

I went to a lecture by Robert Kennedy Jr. tonight. As he got started, I realized something. Perhaps is it not me who is moving to the mainstream - perhaps the mainstream is moving to me. I realized this as Robert Kennedy Jr. said the "F" word, the "M" word and the "H" word - all in the context of Bush, corporate power and American democracy.

Fascism. Mussolini. Hitler. Bush.

Kennedy did not say: Bush is a fascist. Instead he said (in sequence):

  1. Fascists are corporate plunderers of the commons
  2. Mussolini and Hitler were from the fringe radical right, and were irrelevant until corporations bolstered them
  3. Bush is a corporate plunderer of the the commons

Read between the lines. The implication can't be mistaken. Kennedy called Bush a fascist, and the progressive Seattle audience clapped and roared approval. There were Congressmembers in the audience - it was a mainstream crowd that had paid money to hear Kennedy speak.

Kennedy sounded like man speaking at a radical rally. He talked of the extreme, radical, anti-democratic corporate powers that are destroying our nation - in economic, political and spiritual terms.

This is what we call a backlash. Vice President Gore says "police state" in a speech. Robert Kennedy Jr. implies Bush is a fascist, and I and other radicals are calling ourselves Democrats. Times have changed - and this was impossible to miss tonight. I felt at home, listening to a fiery speech about the defense of the republic in a mainstream setting, with a mainstream speaker, amongst a mainstream audience. Sure, we were progressives - but the words were radical. And lately more and more of the "sold-out Liberals" that I have been at odds with as a radical have been making sense to me.

Here is something in Salon on Kennedy's talk of fascism in America (emphasis added):

This week Kennedy declares war on this new "enemy within" -- the term his father applied to the Mafia lords who were subverting American politics, business and labor -- with a passionate, sweeping indictment of the Bush-sanctioned rape of our environment in the latest issue of Rolling Stone. Kennedy lays out in legal-brief detail how, under Bush, the federal agencies supposed to be guarding our air, water and natural resources have been systematically turned over to the industry foxes that are ravaging them. But the tone of his lengthy essay is far from lawyerly. Kennedy's original subtitle was "Corporate Fascism and the End of Nature."

Another source on Kennedy calling Bush fascist (commondreams.org):

In the book, Kennedy implies that we live in a fascist country and that the Bush White House has learned key lessons from the Nazis.

"While communism is the control of business by government, fascism is the control of government by business," he writes. "My American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism as 'a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership together with belligerent nationalism.' Sound familiar?"

He quotes Hitler's propaganda chief Herman Goerring: "It is always simply a matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Kennedy then adds: "The White House has clearly grasped the lesson."

Kennedy also quotes Benito Mussolini's insight that "fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

"The biggest threat to American democracy is corporate power," Kennedy told us. "There is vogue in the White House to talk about the threat of big government. But since the beginning of our national history, our most visionary political leaders have warned the American public against the domination of government by corporate power. That warning is missing in the national debate right now. Because so much corporate money is going into politics, the Democratic Party itself has dropped the ball. They just quash discussion about the corrosive impact of excessive corporate power on American democracy."

Democracy is worth fighting for. It is a wonderful concept, and the American republic is worth keeping around for the next generations. I'm in - are you? TomKertes.com

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 257 comments

  •  the tea is in the harbor! (3.88 / 9)

    I've always loved a good political rebellion ;-)
  •  Kennedy is pretty direct about this (3.88 / 9)

    Here is an excerpt from The National Review - July 27 2004
    "You have to understand the difference between free-market capitalism... and the kind of corporate crony capitalism where you have large corporations running our government," Kennedy said. "There's a name for that, and the name is fascism."

    The overwhelmingly left-leaning crowd, many of whom had come to Boston for the Democratic National Convention, began to cheer loudly. Kennedy finished his point by citing the American Heritage Dictionary, which he said "defines 'fascism' as the control of government by large corporations with right-wing ideology, driven by bellicose nationalism." That, Kennedy said, is the situation America is in today under the Bush administration. The crowd broke into even louder cheers - the most enthusiastic of the event.

    Also see Tomtech's latest weekly summary on fascism with lot of links
    This Week in Fascism

    And my recent diary that talks about the link between fascism/corporatism and Bush's social security plan.  It also describes how we've been down this road before.
    Just another brick in the wall. SS and Fascism

      •  Bing (none / 1)

        I and other radicals are calling ourselves Democrats.

        I found this very interesting, because I and the other very mainstream and often a-political white collar non-radicals in my workplace are also calling ourselves Democrats.

        In New York City, at least, there is a bourgeois revolution against the current administration, much as I would guess that the far left is reaching toward the center to find new allies as times become increasingly difficult to live in.  I wonder how similar this is to the experience of people nationwide.

        Every so often, the "rational Republican" set pokes their head up here.  I wish I knew where to find more of them as well and help them into the party.

        "Truck Stop Women," a New Film By Phil Gramm and John McCain.

        by bink on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:51:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  NYC Bourgeouis Revolution (3.50 / 2)

          I live and work in Manhattan.  I work at a large law firm and must admit that this Bourgeouis Revolution has not hit us yet.  While there is no question that there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, the firm is apolitical and I have had maybe one conversation about politics in the five and a half years I have been here.
          •  Hmm! (3.50 / 2)

            That is interesting to hear ...

            I work in a technology company with about 600 employees globally.  Most of the people in the office are suburban and generally moderate politically.  But during this election cycle, you could not break away from the Bush-bashing.  A woman in my office even brought in a portable radio to listen to Air America.

            A colleague mentioned the other day that he talked about Bush in a bad light in our Dallas office and nearly started a riot.

            "Truck Stop Women," a New Film By Phil Gramm and John McCain.

            by bink on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:28:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It would be a horrible distraction... (none / 0)

            to garnering as many billable hours as possible and mandated by the firm. Nose to the jurisprudence grindstone does not leave whole lot of time for idle political bull sessions, would be my guess.

            Almost as bad as an clock-in, clock-out assembly line worker in River Rouge, MI, bolting together yet another piece of metal and plastic destined for the lost highways of this country. Another slave to the grind.

            I am sorry as to your current plight and pray for your eternal soul. Hang up your own shingle and join the new "ownership society".

            People in Eurasia on the brink of oppression: I hope it's gonna be alright... Pet Shop Boys: Introspective

            by rgilly on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:10:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Except I just checked (4.00 / 20)

      the American Heritage Dictionary, and here's what it now says under "fascism":

      1: a benevolent system of government in which a man of godly faith clears the world of the brush of tyranny. 2: hard work.

      Now when did that happen?

    •  Definition (none / 0)

      www.dictionary.com defines fascism as:
       1.  A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
         2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

        This has some relationship to the current state of affairs but not as clearly as the definition Kennedy was using.

    •  RFK, Jr. has been preaching this since DemCon '04 (none / 0)

      That was a C-Span pre-Convention panel.  The man never looked so engaged or forceful, although the National Review probably inflated the impact of the cheering.

      Maybe RFK, Jr. has finally found his niche and is going to do one better than his daddy, who must definitely was on the same track.  Bobby probably figured before his death that it wasn't just going take his efforts as prez to redistribute wealth and (re)enfranchise the citizenry.

      Note:  Maine is fucking BEAUTIFUL.  It's gonna be hard to leave this writing residency in a month.

      An untypical Negro...since 1954.

      by blksista on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:33:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him? (none / 1)

      There's a REAL Republican for ya...pro-environment, anti-monopoly.

      "The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg

      by grannyhelen on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 02:25:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Roosevelt... (none / 1)

        Taft came after Roosevelt, and if you remember, Taft was so despised by Roosevelt that he quit his republican membership and started the Bull Moose party.  I would think its better to not sully Teddy by calling him a republican, he was a proud Bull Moose.

        Dr. Dean...Paging Dr. Dean...he's not on-call you say...then get me DR. MATT!! STAT!!!

        by doctormatt06 on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:49:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Like my Daddy always said: (4.00 / 2)

    Call a spade a spade and a shovel a goddamned shovel!

    "...And bunnies would dance in the streets, and we would find life on Mars." -Peter Singer, Brookings Institution

    by zentiger on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 02:20:29 AM PDT

  •  Before we get (4.00 / 6)

    too self congratulatory here, this passage is critical

    the Democratic Party itself has dropped the ball. They just quash discussion about the corrosive impact of excessive corporate power on American democracy."

    The leadership in the Democratic Party, for the most part, fears defying the corporate powers that be.

    We are going to have to light a fire under there asses before they even publicly acknowledge there is a problem, let alone taking steps to deal with it.

    --
    Gimme back my broken night
    my mirrored room, my secret life
    --Leonard Cohen, The Future

    by Tenuous Leemployed on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 02:56:30 AM PDT

    •  Even more explicitly (4.00 / 5)

      Early in the campaign, Kennedy endorsed Senator John Kerry for President, but last month he expressed disappointment in Kerry's campaign and in the Democratic Party.

      "The Republicans are 95 percent corrupt and the Democrats are 75 percent corrupt," Kennedy. "They are accepting money from the same corporations. And of course, that is going to corrupt you."

      And he's quite right, of course.

      (also from Commondreams.org.)

      Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

      by Scarce on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 03:54:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (none / 0)

        The neocons will be discredited and disgraced in due course.

        That is happening even as we speak.

        Our true goal, however, is defeating the corporatocracy.

        This issue needs more front page exposure on this site.

        --
        Gimme back my broken night
        my mirrored room, my secret life
        --Leonard Cohen, The Future

        by Tenuous Leemployed on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:39:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They already have been discredited (4.00 / 2)

          over and over and over and what has been the result? Greater power. The Bushes have created an American monarachy. I'm convinced that they have no intention of giving up power and will do whatever it takes to maintain their corporate hegemony over America. There will be no revolution in America, not for at least a decade. People need to be starving before they take that kind of risk.

          Preserve democracy, cancel your cable

          by The past is over on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:06:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It has to come before then. (4.00 / 2)

            When people are starving -- really starving -- they have no energy for any fight but getting a bit of food. They have no hope that they can change the system.

            On the other hand, the US is a long, long way from that point yet. Most revolutions come from people who are not right at the edge of survival. They have either only just improved their lot sufficiently to be able to look around and see someone to blame for their previous and continuing sufferings... or, they are still relatively well off, but see poverty threatening.

            In the US today, I think a revolution, if it happens, will come from the latter group.

            Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

            by Canadian Reader on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:25:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The beast is notoriously (4.00 / 3)

              slow to rouse, and just generally frustrating as hell.  We need the persistence of flowing water, which eventually wears everything down.  

              Remember.  We know Bush is incapable of bending, and THAT is a weakness.

            •  Revolution (4.00 / 2)

              You say you want a revolution
              Well, you know
              We all want to change the world.
              To tell me that it's revolution,
              Well, you know
              We all want to change the world.
              But when you talk about destruction,
              Don't you know that you can count me out.
              Don't you know it's going to be alright,
              Alright, alright.
              You say you got a real solution
              Well, you know
              We'd all love to see the plan.
              You ask me for a contribution,
              Well, you know
              We're doing what we can.
              Ut if you want money for people with minds that hate,
              All I can tell you is brother you have to wait.
              Don't you know it's going to be alright,
              Alright, alright.
              You say you'll change a constitution
              Well, you know
              We all want ot change your head.
              You tell me it's the institution,
              Well, you know
              You better free your mind instead.
              But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao,
              You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.
              Don't you know it's going to be alright,
              Alright, alright.
              •  John Lennon (none / 0)

                had everything right in that song except the coup de grace:  He was dead that "its gonna be alright".  It was not going to be alright, and its still not.  Hence the need to heed closer those want a revolution.

                "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."- Franz Kafka, "Before the Law"

                by normal family on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:49:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Oh No, I don't beleive it... (none / 0)

                You say that you think you know
                The meaning of love
                You say love is all we need
                You say
                With your love you can change
                All of the fools
                All of the hate
                I think you're probably
                Out to lunch

                Oh no
                I don't believe it
                You say that you think you know
                The meaning of love
                Do you really think it can be told?
                You say that you really know
                I think
                You should check it again
                How can you say
                What you believe
                Will be the key to a
                World of love?

                All your love -
                Will it save me?
                All your love -
                Will it save the world
                From what we can't understand
                Oh no
                I don't believe it

                Zappa was American, Lennon (like Bernard Lewis) failed to understand American policital dynamics.

                Might and Right are always fighting In our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning. Might can hardly keep from grinning. -Clarence D

                by Myrkury on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:10:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  This will... (none / 0)

          continue to be difficult as long as they own the media. Most people still get their news the traditional ways. I feel like I am beating a dead horse...we need to buy back the radio stations, publishers and TV and cable stations.

          Will the elite be happy living behind gated communities in the potential meltdown? Peace now. -7.00, -2.92

          by mattes on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 12:25:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not Buy Them--Settle Them, Civilize Them (4.00 / 2)

            If you're still reading,

            The media don't equate to anything in our Constitutional system. They're new types of spaces where we've relocated our entire society and culture.

            Yet they're private property where only the owners have any rights. Even in the dark ages when the lords owned the economy and the church owned high culture, the people at least still lived their own society, they had their stories and music and dances and so on.

            We don't have a theory or even a hypotthesis of society or governance relative to the media.

            At least we need to grasp this point.

            We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

            by Gooserock on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:05:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  the corrupt leadership of the Dems (none / 0)

      are not the Dem Party - and there are non-corrupt leaders as well.  First, we clean house.  We purge the party of corpracrats and then we fight to restore traditional liberalism and the American republic.

      We are the Dem Party - and we have failed to hold onto our party and our nation.  But that does not mean that we cannot turn the tide and take back the republic.

      •  What is traditional liberalism? (4.00 / 2)

        exactly? What does it mean you take back "The American Republic"? Imagining you were in the White House and had absolute majority in both Houses and Supreme Court Justices, what would you do to retake "the republic"?
        •  Back Up Several Steps (none / 0)

          These are all 18th century concepts.

          The left today can't even identify modern forces and capabilities, risks, ... anything.

          The right, that is the voting right, can't identify any long term implications.

          This society has been girdled. It's dead as it stands.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:10:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  definition (none / 0)

    I'm not sure that the definition of fascism as the merger of business interests with a powerful state (plus, of course, nationalism) is an all-encompassing one. I think that religion can fill the role played by corporations, as in Franco's time.  This can happen in a top-down manner (the religious hierarchy) or bottom up (religious values melding with nationalism).  Bush seems to have the popular angles of fascism down as well as the governmental ones - bottom-up religion, nationalism, and especially a fear and hatred of the Other, French or otherwise.

    But then his freedom and democracy rhetoric has been called decidedly Trotskyist.   We hate 'em, but we love 'em.

    •  fascism, problematic word (none / 1)

      We need to be thinking a lot more about right wing precedents like Father Coughlin, or Eisenhower's warnings about the military Industrial complex, or Jackson's Indian wars.  Words like McCarthism, nativism, English puritanism, Military Industrial Corporatists...all come out of US history.

      Sure the charge of fascism here has some truth to it, but there are so many ways in which the comparison is weak, and there are so many more relevant historical precedents for what's occuring now. Plus, it obscures the meaning of fascism too.

      •  I would say it not a metaphor (4.00 / 2)

        not a comparision - but a fact

        But we don't point to Hitler, when Italian fascism serves as a less loaded example, and we can also soften the word by calling it corporate fascism when needed

        if we don't start calling this what it is - and calling it in direct opposition to republicanism and traditional liberalism - we can't defeat it

        better to be direct - or no one will know what we're up against

        •  hmmm (4.00 / 2)

          So, we see propaganda, militarism, attacks on civil liberties, etc., but this would describe MOST right wing politics throughout world history, not just fascists. More recently, it would also describe Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, and others. Moreover, unlike the fascists, Bush is an uncharismatic leader, who comes from the elite, and whose rise to power follows on the heels of the greatest prosperity in US history.

          And what we're seeing today is arguable a lot more similar to Andrew Jackson's indian wars, to take just one example. So why not make that comparison instead?

          If the point of historical comparisons is to shed light on something rather than just rhetoric, then better question is this:  what's new about the Bushies? The basis for GOP rule today is an alliance between far right religion and old-time wealth. This does not describe Nixon. But it tells us something about the rise of the GOP, starting in the late 1970s.

          The reason people want to make the comparison is for rhetorical impact, sort of like the right, which thinks it's cute to compare feminists and liberals to Nazis. In that case, there's zero basis for that comparison, of course, but they do so anyway. Whatever your political persuasion, there's reason to be skeptical when you hear this sort of thing.

          •  Closer to Nazis than Andrew Jackson. (none / 1)

            The basis for GOP rule today is an alliance between far right religion and old-time wealth.

            But that's close to describing what was accomplished by the Nazis.  (Whereas Andrew Jackson, for example, was hated by most of the rich.)

            The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

            by lysias on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 12:28:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What? (none / 0)

              Nazi Germany was NOT based on "far right religion" (what is that supposed anyway) and old-time wealth. You could say Hitler came out of "the hoods" in today terms of being poor, radical, lonely and estranged. There is no "old-time wealth" involved in the beginning.  

              May be I do misunderstand what you said.

              •  Um... (none / 0)

                I sure hope that was a joke. Hitler played the Christian identity card for all it was worth.

                "[the government] will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

                - Adolph Hitler

                THE Nazi slogan for women, who by the way, were required to give up their jobs and go back to being housewives, was "Kinder, Kuchen, Kirche": Children, kitchen, church. Good Christian Nazi women were expected to spend their time having and raising LOTS of good Cristian Nazi babies.

                Incentives were created to encourage large families (but only for non-Jews) and special brothels were set up for young Nazi women to spend quality time with Nazi soldiers for the good of the Reich.

                •  yes, but... (none / 0)

                  All right wing governments (actually you could argue most governments in world history) have used religion, with some marriage of convenience between religion and wealth.   Including fascists.  

                  But today's GOP was forged in the evangelical movement that started to catch fire in late 1970s, a watershed moment for the Republican party.  As I said earlier, the same cannot be said for Nixon (who arguably exhibited MANY of the same traits that people here are claiming equals fascism).

                •  what do you conclude from the quote you gave? (none / 0)

                  yes he "played the christian card", certainly, he needed the Catholic and Protestant vote. Between 1930 to 1932 both churches didn't know what to make out of the national-socialistic world view and ideology, were confused, doubtful and critical.

                  There was a debate between the NSDAP's leadership and the churches about what the nationalsocialist movement stood for. The churches were neither sure about what it was, nor were the churches without criticism as late as 1932. Hitler was very much aware of it and so a debate developed within many of the Nazi leading members and it was concluded that their world view was not in opposition to views of German Christians about societal problems of the German nation.

                  Hitler appealed to national unity, which also meant he promised to promote unity between both churches in a nation under Nazi ideology. The churches could relate to that as a serious good intention from the side of Hitler and started to trust and support him. They believed in his words.

                  There were other Christians who had a critical view about the clearly paganist views of the Nazi ideology. Hitler needed to play "the Christian card" to pull the churches over to get their vote. That doesn't at all mean, that the Nazi ideology "was based on right-wing Christianity", IMO. What is right-wing Christianity anyway? Racist Christianity? That's an oxymoron, racism is not a Christian value.

                  The churches were seduced through well targetted propaganda towards both Church'es leadership to get their support. That's all. And it worked too.

                  Nazi ideology was very little compatible to, nor based on, or originally risen out of christian values. Hitler realized that many would-be 100 percent followers of the Nazi ideology needed to get their "conscious" cleared with regards to their own learned "christian" values. Nazism's Christianity was nothing more than the front side of a "good Rove'ian framing and propaganda move" that worked well, because the churches started to support him shortly before March 1933.

                  Also, I don't agree how you interpret the way Hitler tried to win the German women hearts and minds and triggered their support on an emotional level, specifically appealing to their role as mothers.  

                  He didn't address "the Christian woman", he did address "the German (Aryan)woman", i.e. potentially any woman. They were not asked to get a lot of kids, because they were bible-based good Catholic women, who get the children when they happen to be received, but they were asked to "be productive for the German (Aryan) nation and give birth to a child FOR THE FUERHER. Nothing christian about that either, IMO.

                  Hitler got the women vote, because those women "loved" Hitler, because he "took notice of their role as mothers, they felt they played a role all of the sudden, an important one too, a role in the Nazi ideology as the source and producer of the future aryan race.

                  Giving a child to the Fuehrer was "an honor" and a sign "patriotic nationalism to the German (Aryan) nation", they got medals and public recognition. It doesn't get better than that, right? At least that's what I learned, read and heard. And it obviously worked well, too.

                  Hitler played the statesman in 1932 to win the conservative nationalists and the churches for the Nazi movement. But Nazism was not based on Christianity (right wing or not), Nazism used the churches by smooth-talking them.

                  The German Christians, each one on his own, decided to become follower or not and the Church leadership didn't tell them to not become followers, which they should have. It was painfully clear shortly after 1933 that nothing was christian about Nazi ideology.

                  There was a small opposition in the Protestant Church against Nazi ideology. They were so prosecuted that the SS stood in the back of the churches, while they gave their sermon, and youngsters, who were up for their rite of confirmation to become members of the protestant lutheran church at the age of 14, they were afraid to chose those pastors for the ceremonies of their confirmation, because they were afraid the Nazi would put pressure on their parents for doing so. Why did the parents allowed their children to go "to that radical pastor". I know that for a fact, because my parents became both witness and victims of having listened to and followed the protestant Pastor Niemoeller in Berlin in 1934.

                  Also, you can't say that the women were asked "to return" to their homes and leave "their jobs". Not many women had jobs they could have left for the good of the Church or Nazi ideology to begin with. All of them were to become mothers one day and almost all of them didn't work outside the home. So, the choice was not between working outside the home or staying at home, the choices were to become a mother with recognition or without recognition. Guess what, many women were VERY happy to get honored for being mothers and they didn't get the honor from their churches pastors or priests, but from their Fuehrer.

                  I will certainly read the book you suggested and am curious about what kind of material the author found. Thanks for the link.

              •  The Holy Reich (none / 0)

                Read Richard Steigmann-Gall's recent The Holy Reich : Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945.  At least in its public pronouncements, Nazism turns out to have been much more pro- than anti-Christian.

                As for the rich, Nazism came to power largely because the elites -- economic, military, social -- decided to allow it to come to power, for their various reasons.  As a whole, "the rich" in Germany were much more supportive of than opposed to Nazism, or at least Nazi rule.  Read, for example, the opening pages of another recent book, Ben Shepherd's War in the Wild East : The German Army and Soviet Partisans.

                The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                by lysias on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 05:23:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Jackson (none / 1)

              Here's Andrew Jackson speaking about his own Indian removal policies:


              It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the states; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community. These consequences, some of them so certain and the rest so probable, make the complete execution of the plan sanctioned by Congress at their last session an object of much solicitude.
          •  As repulsive as you and I find Smirky (none / 0)

            I would not call him uncharismatic. You and I see through it, but many many many people LOVE the guy. Whether it's his phony folksiness or his phonier "godliness", there is a definite cult of personality with this President. It is really sickening to observe. It is like half of America is brainwashed. That takes charisma.

            And those who have met him on a personal level say he is very charming. A charming puppet, but charming none the less.

            The problem with calling this administration fascists is that the word has been misused so often that the general population doesn't know what it means in a political context. For most people, a fascist is just a tyrant who says you must believe and do exactly what you are told or else (like the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld). We still have far too much freedom (as illustrated by the existence of this blog) for anyone to believe we have a fascist government.

            I do agree that using an American antecedent might be more effective... and the more recent or more well known the better. That is why we compare the Iraq War to Vietnam, even though the Philippine-American  War (1899-1902) is just as apt a comparison. I also think we need to show how un-Republican this administration is by pulling examples of great Republicans from the past. Especially salient are Teddy "The Great Trust Buster" Roosevelt, and Eisenhower, who warned about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. These neo-cons are NOT Republicans.

            •  well (none / 0)

              This isn't such an important disagreement to the overall point here, but I disagree.  Bush is no charismatic leader, or even a "great communicator" like Reagan was. Of course the far right loves him, but that's not saying much...they would cheer on a chimpanzee that represented them. It's more like the right-wing evangelical movement+ the fox news rah-rah squad is propping him up, rather than the other way around.    
  •  That isn't the whole story (3.00 / 5)

    1. Fascists are corporate plunderers of the commons
    Facism dictates that wealth gained from the plundering revert back to state control

    2. Mussolini and Hitler were from the fringe radical right, and were irrelevant until corporations bolstered them

    Mussolini was already in power when he converted to facist economic ideals. Hitler came to power by
    predicting the depression. He was backed by coporations because they believed that he knew what he was doing.

    3. Bush is a corporate plunderer of the the commons

    Bush is advocating private use of public lands, but not the the benefit of the state

    The U.S. economy does practice  facist economic policies, as do most other countries, Farm subsidization and centalized banking are two examples. The first introduction of facism into the U.S. economy came in 1933 with FDR's National Recovery Act, and to a lesser degree with the New Deal. All so called liberal democracies practice facist economic policies, that's not a bad thing, or elese we would return to the days of laissiez-fair free trade with no governtment regulation. In fact one principle of facism is widely sought by most that visit dailykos, Autarchy, which is the self reliance peratianing to resources of a nation. The most popular case here is alternate energy.  One could argue that Bush is attempting autarchy by seizing control of the oil fields in Iraq.

    What we, and other governments, practice is a watered down version of facism molded to fit with capitalism.Kenedy was right in calling our economic policies fascist, he just wasn't telling the whole story.

    "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

    by bluestateLIBertarian on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 03:52:29 AM PDT

    •  well, could you elaborate on that? (4.00 / 2)

      I really feel it's very strange to accuse FDR's recovery act and New Deal for introducing facism into thd US economy.

      I hope other people will challenge your comment.

      •  it's not a slight on FDR at all (none / 1)

        The problem with the word fascism is that it is so closely related to Hitler and Mussolini, that people associate facism with dictatorship. The same could be said about socialism, mention socialsim at freeperland and the wingnuts start calling you a commie, same kind of stigma. Fascism was thought of as a third way, something in between socialism (communism) and completely free markets (robber barrons).  

        This is pre WWII. The italian economy at the time was out performing ours. Fascism is a centalizing of business affairs for the good of the state. The National Recovery Act gave the president powers to regulate trade and set codes. This step was necessary because of the sorry state of the economy.  The New Deal employed facist principles with most if not all of the programs sponsered, CWA, CCC, PWA, WPA, all creating jobs paid for by the government. These same principals flourished in Germany, the building of the autoban is one example. Now I'm not comparing FDR to Hitler, just similarity of the job programs.

        Like I said in my original post, finding a renewable source of enrgy to replace our dependence on foreign oil is a fascist principle, autarchy. Again, as I said above, a strong argument can be made that Bush is trying to solve this problem by seizing Iraqi oil. Kennedy in his speech, and in his book it seems, is making the accusation that Bush is a facist by linking him to economic practice and Mussolini and Hitler. That's accurate to a point, and Bush's fervent nationalism makes the case easier on its face.

        "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

        by bluestateLIBertarian on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:56:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (none / 1)

          but the autobahn was built to help test Volkswagens and to move the military rapidly around the country.

          Not the reason Eisenhower built the interstates, or FDR had the WPA fix up the parks.

          Social Democrats find jobs that will repair infrastructure across the nation and give the poor some jobs that pay a living wage.

          National Socialists take undesirables and work them to death as slaves to help give an overall bolster to the economy and to select corporations.

          Bush is allied with Wal-Mart, Fox News, and Halliburton.  Any questions?
          You're right about one thing ... Bush isn't Hitler ... Hitler gave the Wehrmacht decent supplies, and didn't make them pay for their own food.

          •  The Interstates (none / 1)

            The national defense highways had first a military objective, based on Eisenhower in ca 1940 trying to take a truck convoy across the country without them, and seeing them in existence in Germany in 1945.  The defense notion was that if we were invaded, our forces could redeploy by road at 60 miles an hour.  Also, segments of the highways were designed (straight, no obstacles, side pads) to be usable as local tactical air airfields, in reinforcement of the large number of local airfields that already existed.

            The Roosevelt 'let the government run the economy' ideas were the ones struck by the Supreme Court, the historical phrase being 'the chicken farmer from Jersey'.  It is inapparent that the items in question above, as distinct from other Roosevelt programs, played a positive role in ending the depression.

        •  well, as an uneducated reader in terms (4.00 / 3)

          of terminology and meaning of -isms, I wonder how many average citizens would understand the meaning of fascism within the context of a concept that considers any regulatory action of a government to guide distribution of wealth into a more fair, civilized, humane and equalizing manner a "fascist principle". I don't think I would follow that.

          If, as you say, the New Deal employed facist principles with most if not all of the programs sponsered, CWA, CCC, PWA, WPA, all creating jobs paid for by the government (BTW it would have been nice you could have spelled out all the abreviations - I don't know what PWA and WPA stand for) - then I could fall in love with fascism very easily. But matter of factly I hate fascism the way I understand it.

          Wouldn't it make sense to get away from the word "fascism", because as you said above, most of us associate with it something else?

          As Ptolemy said, I would instinctively associate with fascism a combination of two things:


          1. "National Socialism (Fascism", where everyone's cows are taken away, given to five friends of THE LEADER, and the poor or slaves are made to milk them.  Milk is distributed preferentially among the powerful.  It's a redistribution of opportunity

          2. THE LEADER being a radical fundamentalist either with regards to racial/ethical or religious discrimination/abuse/oppression for  the purpose of gaining and keeping absolute power of a political leader and his government.

          The "fascist principles" you talk about in context of FDR's programs, which need to be seen in the social, economic and political context of what the US has been the last five decades before FDR introduced those programs, are IMO miles away from what any ordinary man would consider to be "fascist".

          I agree quite with what Robert Kennedy, Jr. seems to talk about according to the little I have heard and read so far, I just regret that people cling to the word "fascism". It doesn't help to get his message through.

          Couldn't you find a new term that better describes the mechanism, which Kennedy mentioned in his Seattle speech, ie:


          1. Fascists are corporate plunderers of the commons
          2. Mussolini and Hitler were from the fringe radical right, and were irrelevant until corporations bolstered them
          3. Bush is a corporate plunderer of the the commons
           
          Reading between Kennedy's lines, which leads you to call Bush and his policies fascist, distracts the average reader from the actual mechanism of corporate power exploiting and undermining governmental power in ways that can (but must not) be incompatible with civil, fair, humane and democratic principles.

          I think Kennedy might have avoided to call Bush a fascist dircetly on purpose and with a reason. He might know he just wouldn't be understood the way he wants be understood.

          I disagree a little bit with Kennedy's notion  that Hitler was really irrelevant until and before corporate powers bolstered him. I don't think that's right. Hitler did not simply came from "the radical right", he came actually from the radical, undereducated and poor underclass.

          I think what helped Hitler to power was his relentless racist propaganda attacks in combination with constant violent disruption of civic order at public events, where his SA and later SS groups showed up and scared ordinary citizens with their violent and hostile threats (BTW, supported significanlty by students at the universities) against the liberal (Jewish) elites among others.

          Read this and the role of propaganda. I think it summarizes it well.


          "Hitler ... demanded the radical restructuring of society. He called for the destruction of existing political and social structures and the élites which supported them. He disdained civic order, liberal and Marxist ideas and launched into a virulent attack on middle class values, capitalism, the professionals, intellectuals and upper classes. There was a consistently barbaric anti-Semitism throughout.

          Hitler was quite aware of how effective propaganda works:

          Effective propaganda has to be

          1. aimed at the masses
          2. aimed at the emotions, no the intellect set at the intellectual level of the most limited in the audience
          3. designed so that the bigger the audience, the lower its intellectual level
          4. The intellectual capacity of the broad masses is only very limited, their understanding small, their forgetfulness on the other hand great.

          As a result of these three facts every effective propaganda has to be limited to only a very few points and to repeat these slogans until every last person is able to picture what is intended by a particular word. As soon as this basic principle is sacrificed for the sake of comprehensiveness, the effect will be dissipated, as the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered to them.

          Sounds familiar? Can you see how corporate TV media these days enable and facilitate in the distribution of propaganda according exactly to the principles Hitler formulated and used?

          I would say that the corporate support of Hitler was not the deciding factor to bring him to power. I believe though that corporate support  enabled him to conduct a "fascist" war of massive proportions later on.

          Also, Hitler exploited perfectly well Germany's emotional need to blame someone and to get order in their personal lives. Hitler's followers gathered rapidly behind him, because they all agreed to violently blame "the enemy - the Jewish" - and they longed for the "perfect group think" feeling of being meaningful citizens or in today's words "to be someone". Hitler's youth organizations were masterfully crafted places, where "group think" gave the kids a "high".

          Sounds familiar?  

          •  you're right about associations (none / 0)

            People do instinctivly link fascism with Dictatorships, the same way the do with communism. Fascism, capitalism, and communism are economic structures. Unfortunately, people also use them as slurs. I'm sure you've heard of the capitalist pig,   and commie pinko. What people are really reacting to is the governments applying the principle, an extreme nationalist view stating; our way is moraly superior. Socialism, fascism, and capitalism all play a part in our economy.

            On your other points. I think FDR and Hitler came consolidated their power in the same way. they provided jobs and stabilized the country. The difference being FDR was a decent man and used the carrot to stay in power, where Hitler was a monster and used the stick. FDR spoike on freedon from fear, Hitler used fear as a weapon. This ties in with you points about propoganda and I agree with you, and it is a little sacary.Directly after 9/11 Bush had it right, he preached a return to normalcy, and wanted us to carry on unafraid despite the threat. That message was unifying, and
            very much in the tradition of FDR. Since then he has chosen the unwise path of division and fear, very much like FDR's nemesis.

            "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

            by bluestateLIBertarian on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 01:05:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  May it's more than an association (none / 0)

              "Fascism, capitalism, and communism are economic structures."  hmm ... may be, but they are more than that. In that regard every - ism represents an "economic structure" I guess. All of the above three in their extreme form end up in absolute power of a few - a leader, the corporate billionaires buying the governemnt, the communist party members - over the masses and that makes them dictatorship-like.
      •  Depends on what you mean by fascism (none / 0)

        If by fascism we mean torture states, paramilitary armed bands roaming the streets, and a collapse of the democratic process, then the New Deal is completely antithetical to fascism.

        If by fascism, however, we mean a state-centered approach to mediating social conflict between the working class and the owners of capital, then I think the poster is right that we can find antecedents for some New Deal economic policies in Mussolini's Italy.

        I haven't studied it closely, but from what I know of the New Deal and Fascist Italy, the comparison is certainly not absurd.

        •  Well, what does the general population think (none / 0)

          fascism is?

          "If by fascism, however, we mean a state-centered approach to mediating social conflict between the working class and the owners of capital, then I think the poster is right."

          I don't know who defined fascism as "state-centered approach to mediating social conflict between the working class and the owners of capital", but that in itself can't be the definition of fascism.

          I expect my representatives, which I hopefully democratically voted for in a fair election, with proportional representation and equal weight for each vote, to mediate social conflict between the haves and the have nots, respecting basic human and civil rights and equality before the law.

          Definitely I do expect that and I don't understand why this kind of "mediation" is fascist. I guess that mediation includes your representatives write laws that mediate conflicts between people, who feel they all need equal rights and equal opportunities.

          Is that definition of "fascism" some definition by a theoretical political science junkie and radical ideologist, or some guy in history, who had made such statements in the context of other economic times.

        •  Mussolini's thoughts on fascism (none / 0)

          Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

          I think Kennedy was trying to wake us up to the fact that corporatism is taking hold in our country.

          If we're not comfortable calling the Necons, the administration, or the GOP fascists it's for good reason; they're not Nazis. Most people associate fascisim with Hitler and Mussolini.

          They are however, corporatists.

          If we can't see the economic dimension to their agenda then maybe we're not poor enough yet.

          It honestly baffles me that so many at dkos (not you, litho) and elsewhere around the blogoshpere dwell on the GOP's assault on social issues and extreme foreign policy while seeming so oblivious to the fact that the redistribution of wealth, from the bottom to the top, has been going on for well over twenty years.

          •  Misunderstanding of "corporation" (none / 0)

            I think you're right about Mussolini's definition of fascism. I don't think he was talking about the same thing Bobby Jr. was in his speech.

            I wrote a comment on this in a fascism diary months ago, which I would link to except that it seems have to disappeared into the dKos oblivion. So I'll try to recreate as much of the argument here as I can.

            When Mussolini, or most European political theorists of the early 20th century, used the word "corporation," he didn't mean the same thing as we do today in the United States. For us, a corporation is pretty narrowly understood as a joint-stock company, a fictive entity created to protect the economic interests of stockholders. For him, a corporation was a sector of society that shared broad fundamental interests. If that sector had some kind of autonomous governing structure, so much the better.

            Some examples of "corporation" in this European political theory sense could be lawyers, farmers, manufacturers, bankers, the military, etc. The major groups that a corporatist state sought to involve, however, were really three: farmers, capitalists, and workers. Corporatist political theory accepted the Marxist premise that social classes had starkly different economic interests, and that these differences in the worst instance could lead to a revolution. In order to avoid revolution, corporatists proposed that the state intervene directly in economic relationships in order to mediate them.

            Mediation implies actual representation by the affected groups within the structure of the state itself. Corporatists, therefore, would establish Ministries of Labor and Agriculture, and invite representatives of both labor unions and manufacturers into the former and both farmers unions and bankers into the latter. The ministries would then become a site where these diametrically opposed interests could work out a common ground, under the mediation of "neutral" observers from the state bureaucracy, and thereby avoid violent confrontations.

            My understanding is that all of Europe's mid-twentieth century corporatist regimes -- certainly Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece, though I'm not too sure about Germany -- established mediating mechanisms of this type. I'm certain that many Latin American followers of the corporatist model -- in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and elsewhere -- did so.

            I don't really know the literature on Europe that well. I learned this stuff by reading about those Latin American countries referenced above. A really good introduction to corporatist philosophy, if you ask me, is John French's The Brazilian Workers ABC.

            Now, I'm not trying to say that fascism created some kind of utopia. Rather, fascist rhetoric highlighted the common interests of everyone within the nation, and fascist governments did take some steps to make their political systems agree with the rhetoric. In practice, however, all fascist regimes tilted the scale in favor of business interests, and workers and farmers -- rhetorically included in society and government -- found themselves as bad off, if not worse, than ever.

            Although I've never seen a rigorous comparative analysis of the New Deal with corporatism, there are clearly parts of FDR's program that bear at least a superficial resemblance with corporatist philosophy. What was missing in the US, however, was the hypernationalist mass mobilization that accompanied all of the European, and most of the Latin American, fascist governments.

      •  I agree (none / 0)

           But I chose to ignore those comments as well as the ones about autarchy being widely sought here at dKos. I didn't get them.  

        Bush - the New Hoover. He really sucks.

        by slick riddles on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:55:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, you're wrong (4.00 / 5)

      Fascism had profits turn back to the state, but not in full.  The state's programs supported a select few corporations who had backed THE LEADER.
      THE LEADER was the state.  To speak against THE LEADER was to speak against the state.

      Socialism is where you can sell your milk, but the poor are guaranteed a glass.  It's a redistribution of wealth.

      Communism is where the cow is no longer yours, but you and three other new guys milk it for everyone.  It's a redistribution of the means of production.

      National Socialism (Fascism) is where everyone's cows are taken away, given to five friends of THE LEADER, and the poor or slaves are made to milk them.  Milk is distributed preferentially among the powerful.  It's a redistribution of opportunity.

      Capitalism can slowly become communism through socialism, but it requires broader strokes from the state than creeping fascism.  Fascism can come into being by violent or underhanded trickery, but it only really requires corrupt collusion between a few corporations and the state.

      I actually disagree with Kennedy a little too.  He's too broad.  The Democrats don't give the corporations the same kinds of perks that Bush now gives his corporate donors.  That's why Buy Blue makes some sense.  Many of those companies have very different policies than the majority of Red corporations, in terms of worker support and interaction with the public.  They also lobby for support of business in America much more than the self-aggrandizement and power grabbing that Red corporations tend to do.  It's not so clear cut, but it's also clear that only a select few Red corporations get exactly what they want from THE LEADER.

      •  you're making a mistake (none / 0)

        Stalin wasn't exaclty a great practioner of communism, and Hitler wasn't a great practioner of facism. You are right in the way Hitler used facism, but that isn't what the system was designed to do.

        My small town brush with facism came in the middle 80's. There was a small airfield that people used for their private single engine planes. The borough made the cliam for that land for an industrial park. They took it for the good of the public. Now there are three factories there servicing the entire community. That's a benevolent use of facsist principle, I do disagree with it though. Hitler didn't do anything with his facist policies that didn't directly benefit him.

        "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

        by bluestateLIBertarian on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:08:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think we're arguing over minute details (none / 0)

          I think the difference is that I'm a Liberal Libertarian, and you're a little more Libertarian that that.

          I don't agree with the confiscation of private land for corporate purpose either, nor do I particularly endorse massive public underwriting of corporate structures.  I don't like my Mayor's stadium boondoggle, for example.
          And, that is a form of fascism.

          But the fact that the corporations benefit the people in your town is incidental and an exception to the rule UNLESS ...

          They are mandated to do so in some way.  I don't like most corporate welfare, and I guess the Democrats are now practicing a smaller form of fascism by the strict definition we've hammered out.
          That said, Mitchell-Lama, in which developers got loans to build buildings from the city and state but had to ensure that a certain number of units were low-to-middle income for 25 years ... that's socialism.  I endorse that.

          The simplest way to think of it is this ...
          Socialism aids capitalism by making sure that the marketplace doesn't have massive aggolmerations of power ... like a fire under a fatty broth.
          Regulation and activist lawsuits are the spoon banging the side of the cauldron, for much the same purpose.
          Fascism burns the spoon in the fire and walks away from the cauldron.
          Communism keeps skimming fat off the top of the broth until there isn't any broth left.

        •  Did any owners of the planes... (none / 0)

          hangared at the municipal airport have ownership in the businesses that were placed on the airport land? A serious question/scenario that should be posited.

          If so, then it really was a tranferrence of state property, a common, to the private interests of the owners, stakeholders, and shareholders of the three businesses that now occupy the industrial park, private property.

          You seem to be only interested in the jobs generated by these businesses, the "scraps" in sense, thrown to the community, by the loss of a "common".

          Whats to say that a better offer does not come up (tax abatements from a town down the road, another country) and these businesses shutter and relocate.

          You are now out of jobs to the community, the tax base suffers, and a "common", the airport, will almost never be rebuilt. Businesses that could have thrived and been built out as part of having a "commons", the airport, will never be realized.

          Are you an owner/stakeholder/shareholder in any of the businesses at the industrial park. If so you, in your own words, would be part and parcel of a fascist enterprise. Did you vote and support the candidates in the borough government that approved the transfer of a "common" to be rezoned and converted into commercial space? If so, you supported the fascistic decision that was made to convert a common into a private.

          One man's benevolence is another man's poison.

          You said:

          They took it for the good of the public.

          Which public? The one of which you approve? I'm sure the guy who had his plane hagared at this airport for years would think otherwise. Unless he was the owners of a business that took over the airport. In which case he probably could buy a bigger or better plane. Have it at a better airport closer to his homestead.

          Things are never quite so simple, are they?

          People in Eurasia on the brink of oppression: I hope it's gonna be alright... Pet Shop Boys: Introspective

          by rgilly on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:00:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no (none / 0)

            A group of private citizens owned the land, it was not a municipal airport. It was a small airstrip used by hobbyists. I did not support the seizure, nor do I hold a stake any of the businesse. It was a legal battle. The states right of imminent domain trumped the rights of the individual according to the court. In hindsight benevolent may have been a poor choice of words.

            "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

            by bluestateLIBertarian on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 12:35:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Hobbes gone wrong (3.50 / 4)

      I think you are mixing up any government oversight with fascism.  Socialist policies such as subsidies are not fascist at all.  Facism has to do with who hold the reigns of power, who influences power, and above all the 'style' of power.  It is really about the degrees of power rather than kind.  In a true fascist state individuals give up way more of thier sovreignity than they ever did to FDR in the USA.  (he still had to campaign and run for office all four times and he could have lost and if he did he would have walked away)

      As a Libertarian I assume you lean more towards anarcho-communist models of governance( think Kropotkin).  I am partial to such ideas but I also see that to redistribute wealth and protect minorities we need managament and oversigt.   These requires some level of exchanging rights for security.  We need to make these kinds of social contracsts, but they are not automatically fascists.

      Prandium gratis non est.

      by l dog on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:43:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Without the fascist ideology and tactics (none / 0)

      it ain't fascism. That's like saying that all hair is a moustache, regardless of whether it's on your head or between your legs.

      It serves no purpose to throw around inappropriate labels for some shock value, and it demeans any point you were trying to make.

      -8.38, -4.97 "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

      by thingamabob on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:18:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  a couple of questions (none / 0)

        Do you think communism gets a bad rap from Stalin and Mao? North Korea is a communist stae, do you think Kim follows the principles of communism?

        People don't hate Hitler and Mussolin because they were  fascisst, they are hated becuase of their tyranous rule and wars of aggression. Mussolini was a respected leader until he went into Ethiopia, and lost all support in Europe by backing Franco in Spain. Originaly, Mussolini was aiding the Austrians in opposing Hitler. It was Mussolini's desire for military conquest that turned europe against him, not his fascist economic policies.  

        "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

        by bluestateLIBertarian on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 12:24:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "You can't trust a libertarian" (none / 0)

          It's a motto I've been cagey about following. But your bold and indiscriminate lumping together of disparate elements to prove a fallacious premise, that certain policies of our liberal democracy are "fascist" policies, is proof that it deserves some respect.

          I thought my analogy was pretty clear. You can't have "fascist" policies within the context of a liberal democracy, because what makes a policy "fascist" is it's being part of a political structure based on the consolidation of corporate power and government subservience to that power.

          If Mussolini enacted a policy promoting eating of well-balanced diets low in sodium and sugar, and my vegan commune enacts the same policy tell me this:

          Are the vegans enacting fascist policies?

          Or

          Are the fascists really vegans?

          You think this is nonsensical? It's your argument. If you recognize the incoherence I suggest you suck it up and re-think. No offence intended.

          -8.38, -4.97 "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

          by thingamabob on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 02:43:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no it's not (none / 0)

            No more than programs like social security make our government socialist. Maybe you have missed the fact that Mussolini stated a more accurate term for fascism is corporatism.

            "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

            by bluestateLIBertarian on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:33:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Now you're simply trying to win (none / 0)

              The argument is about whether calling a policy "fascist" (or "socialist", "or "neanderthal", or "Japanese", or "Martian" for that matter) has any meaning when the policy in question is part of a working democracy (or a close approximation).

              The fact that it is susceptible to being so labeled doesn't make it a useful fact. Do you have brown hair? That's a Hitlerian trait, you know.

              You don't need to acknowledge the spuriousness of your use of language, it is apparent. I was trying to provide you with some constructive criticism. I had no idea you would get so defensive.

              Wittgenstein is a good read every now and then. And he was right: "meaning is use" (