A repeated screech coming from Farrightistan, Lower Wingnuttia, and The American Union of Right-Wing Talk Radio (AKA the nation of Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh) about our current President and the goals of his Administration is that he, and it, are fascist, communist, socialist and Marxist. The theme of "they're coming to Get You!" is strong with these groups. And the more they screech, the more it becomes clear that these folks have no idea what these words mean except "they aren't what we want."
It appears that in the wingnut mind, fascism, communism, socialism and Marxism are all the same thing. Come with me over the jump so we can talk about how, in the words of Sesame Street, one of these things is not like the others.
Marxism is a political and economic philosophy, created (of course) by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels during the Industrial Revolution. Marx was agonized about the exploitation of the workers by the owners of factories and other manufacturing businesses. He saw the slum conditions that most factory workers lived in; the general disregard for their health, safety and well-being both in the factories and outside them; the general disregard for human rights. His and Engels' documentation of the conditions in the Manchester, England of 1848 reads like a description of something out of a Dickens novel - two classes, the haves and the have-nots, with the haves backed by the power of government as well as their wealth and power, and having little to no interest in the welfare of their workers, who live in slums with open-pit sewers in the courtyards of their "apartment" buildings.
Marxism called for a change to all that. Marx and Engels, in The Communist Manifesto and other works, called for a worker uprising across the globe, to overthrow the upper class and its stranglehold on health, wealth, and equality. While Marx was passionate in his ideals, however, he failed to realize that most human beings - being conservative, as we are - are afraid to risk all for the possibility of more. Most of us are too frightened of losing what little we have, no matter how worthless it is, to risk it all. Capitalists, on the other hand, are the minority of human beings who love to risk all in order to possibly gain more. For them, it's all just a game anyway, and other people are the game pieces.
Marxism, in a nutshell, calls for the means of production (factories, etc.) to be held in common by all people, not owned by a few wealthy while the rest of us slave inside them without having any share in the proceeds. Obviously, this is incredibly threatening to corporate owners - but why are the common people so afraid of it? The answer is in Marx's observation that "religion is the opium of the people" - an observation, which when repeated endlessly and angrily, allows corporations (and conservative churches) to paint Marx as a dangerous atheist (one of the characteristics of fascism that we'll get to is the marriage of government to religion - but more on that later) - a dangerous atheist who is coming to strip away all belief in God or any other higher power, and therefore, not trustworthy. The irony, of course, is that both Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus, arguably the two most influential people in the New Testament, repeatedly call for exactly what Marx is calling for - for all people to live in common, share everything, sell off things they don't actually need, live simply, etc. But most of these folks who are scared green of Marxism aren't aware that both Jesus and Paul were what Marx would have easily identified as Communist, and they would be horrified to discover it. (Check out Acts 4:32-35, for example.)
Communism is the political and economic goal of Marxist thought - the idea that everyone shares everything in common, takes only what they need to survive, and looks out for one another. A true Communist state as envisioned by Marx and Engels would have no government - only, at most, minimal administration to ensure that goods and services got to where they were needed. Once again, however, Marx and Engels were idealists. They truly thought that human beings were good at heart, not selfish, and that once the logic of communism became clear, people would just naturally follow it. Marx and Engels missed one of the most important motivators that humans (and other animals) have: protection of the self and the ingroup above all else. Until that fear of Not Having Enough is ameliorated, the Revolution will never happen.
As a social scientist, I've challenged my Marxist colleagues to explain to me how we are going to get from a socialist state (where all major social needs - food, shelter, health care - are addressed and/or provided by the state, and there's still a bureaucratic administration to run things) to a communist state, where everyone holds everything in common and everyone looks out for everyone else, and the best they've been able to offer is "It will happen. It HAS to." Unfortunately, this is a Pollyanna view at best, and outright fantasy at worst. Until we address the very natural human fear of loss and tendency to envy those who are perceived to have an advantage over us, true communism on a large scale, such as our nation, will remain both elusive and unachievable.
Socialism,, as described above, is where the state provides or addresses most or all major social needs: welfare to ensure a decent standard of living, low-income housing that isn't a slum, medical care, job creation, retirement benefits, etc. This doesn't mean, however, that everyone in the society lives off the government. It means that government policy is organized around compassion - making sure that those in need are provided for.
This is the antithesis of what corporations and conservatively religious people want in this country. Conservative religion in America is rooted in Puritanism and Calvinism. Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, so is capitalism. One of the major early sociological theorists, Max Weber, made a strong argument in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism that the Calvinist work ethic was a major driver in the creation of modern industrial capitalism, and I can't see how he's wrong.
Here's how it works: The Calvinist ethos, originally, was that nobody knew who was saved because it was all predestined; God had already decided before you were born whether you were destined for salvation or damnation. But everyone wants to know if they're going to be saved, right? So Calvinists decided that one clue to God's favor might be that you were financially successful - because a good Christian is expected to help those who are in need, á la Matthew 25. Obviously those favored by God with unusual financial success were expected to reinvest the excess not in themselves but in those who were in need - widows, orphans, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, the homeless. And for a while, that's how it worked... until the Industrial Revolution.
How did this ethic become the foundation of modern capitalism? Well, the drive to figure out if you were saved or not - if you were one of the Elect - led to modern bookkeeping. It led to record-keeping on a scale that hadn't been seen before. And the drive to amass more and more and more became separated from the other half of the ethic - use that more and more and more to help those who had, progressively, less and less and less. Somehow that part of the work ethic disappeared, most likely because not everyone in America was Calvinist, but everyone in America started doing this kind of record-keeping and bookkeeping, and found that it worked. (Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but in this case, it was also a way to maximize both efficiency and income.) And since humans (like other animals) are naturally selfish and prone to hoarding scarce resources, the "taking care of other people" part simply fell away and the "amass lots of wealth" part remained. (This is part of what's led to what's known today as "prosperity theology," which is somewhat outside the scope of this diary, but which I may come back to later on in another one.)
As we can see, communism, socialism and Marxism all share common philosophical and theoretical roots. However, what Beck et al. probably mean when they say "Communism" is what occurred in Soviet Russia and most of Eastern Europe during the Cold War - which was not Communism but totalitarianism. It was Communism in name only; what it really was was exploitation of the masses by the elites - definitely not what Marx was after when he proposed Communism as a viable way of handling economic issues.
But how do we get from "Communism" and "socialism" and "Marxism," all of which advocate sharing, caring for the less fortunate, and compassion, to fascism? Do these folks even understand what fascism is? Well, let's get to that, now.
One of the most enduring examples of fascism in recent history is Mussolini's government of Italy leading up to and during the Second World War. While most people think of Hitler and the Nazis when the word "fascism" comes up, Mussolini is actually a more pertinent example, because Hitler was a totalitarian, not merely a fascist (although the two are certainly related, and fascism is certainly a major stop on the road to a totalitarian state).
Fascism is when the government and corporations get married and share their power to control the nation. Let's be clear about this - it is not government takeover of the economy (which we might term "socialism"); it is economic takeover of the government. It is when the government and the corporations are in cahoots with each other: politicians pass laws to benefit corporations, while corporations fund the individual politicians who are the keys to passing those favorable laws. It's when politicians cease to be representatives of the people and start being the pocket pets of the rich corporate owners who want to keep their status quo just the way it is, thankyouverymuchindeed. And it should be obvious that laws that promote what corporations want - a healthy profit and bottom line - have the general effect of silencing dissent, preventing protection of workers and basic human rights, stopping social movements, and violating Constitutional rights left and right.
Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, published an article called "The 14 Characteristics of Fascism" in the Spring 2003 edition of Free Inquiry Magazine. Here's the list of characteristics:
Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
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.
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.
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.
Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
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.
Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
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.
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.
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.
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 is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
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 forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
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.
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.
What we have here in America today, then, is clearly not fascism. What we had under BushCo most likely was. I can't see a single thing on that list of 14 characteristics that doesn't look like America under Bush.
But my point is that fascism is not communism. It's actually the opposite. Socialist/communist governments might have their share of cronyism, because government always has that, but not at the level of joined-at-the-hip that fascism displays. Anyone who wants to tell me that the 2008 election was fraudulent is going to get laughed at - but I think a strong case could be made for the elections of 2000 and 2004 being fraudulent. And so on. Each of these points existed during the Bush regime; none of them exist in the same way or in the same strength today with the Obama administration. At best, I could say that the powerful and continuing nationalism, and the intertwining of religion and government, are still very much with us - but I do not hear Obama acting as a chickenhawk and advocating militarism, or disdaining intellectuals and the arts, or suppressing labor power. Do you?
So how do we get this message across? Do we put up a big billboard saying "FASCISM IS WHEN CORPORATIONS CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT" in every city? Anyone have any ideas? I'm at a loss.