Fascism

[Zar]

Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, wrote an article about
fascism which appeared in Free Inquiry magazine -- a journal of
humanist thought. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of Hitler
(Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and
Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and
he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The article
is "Fascism Anyone?," Lawrence Britt, Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page
20.

The 14 characteristics are:

1. 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.


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. Opposition to abortion is high, as is
homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.


6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to 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 is openly attacked, and
governments often refuse to fund the arts.


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 forego 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.

Good old USA!

[Lupin]

wouldnt be the 15th point, that the state-system was never a democracy? afaik.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Lupin

wouldnt be the 15th point, that the state-system was never a democracy? afaik.

to be honest that's kind of a given, much as it would be for 'defining points of despotism'.

However. All 14 points to apply to Dubya and the US, but there's a magical thing called 'context' that is missing. If a country is run by a corrupt but religious person with no particular belief in the principles of the system to guide him, this is what happens. Thatcher certainly obeyed the first 12 points and wasn't clean of the last two, but nobody could really honestly say that Eighties Britain was a fascist state.

[Dante Hicks]

Actually plenty of people did call Thatcher's Britain a fascist state.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Actually plenty of people did call Thatcher's Britain a fascist state.

People who haven't showered in a month don't count.

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by Phang

to be honest that's kind of a given, much as it would be for 'defining points of despotism'.

yes?

anyways, i wouldnt describe the USA as a fascist state and especially wouldnt compare them to totalistic/despotic (dont know how you call them) states, as they are a democratic state.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Actually plenty of people did call Thatcher's Britain a fascist state.

yes, and plenty of people are reactionary idiots. However, right-wing and authoritarian government is not automatically fascist, just as libertarian, left-wing government is not neccessarily communist or anarchist (i know i'm going a tad political compass there but hey). Or if it is, someone better tell Sweden.

Okay, that point got a little lost. But just because
1)Something is similar to something in some ways
2)Some people cannot distinguish between the two as a result
does not mean the two things actually ARE alike. Thatcher was shit, Dubya is shit, but they aren't fascist. Even Blair hits a lot of those buttons and ZAR SHUT UP nobody in their right minds would pin that tail on that donkey.

[Sandsnake]

Just about every world leader ever will hit most of those points actually. It's all a matter of perspective and twisting things till they fit.

[G.K Zhukov]

15. Trying to create an image that "We are all in the same boat", cooperativism.

16. Tend to attack other countries.

[Vermillion]

The guy is retarded. He missed two or three of the basic defining charictaristics of fascism. Is he actually a professor or just some guy trying to seem clever on the web?

[Vaio]

who, Zar or..... ?

~Vaio~

[queball]

http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/
Clearly a scholarly and important publication.

Edit: it should be "Laurence W Britt": http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...britt_23_2.htm
Not that it matters since this is just a ****ing chain mail (send this to five people within the next 24 hours and everyone will think you're clever!) posted around because it tickled some people's anti-Bush sentiments for five seconds even though it's probably just internet marketing for this guy's book.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

yes, and plenty of people are reactionary idiots.

I'm well aware that Thatcher (or Reagan, or Bush) wasn't a fascist state. I was merely responding to your "nobody could honestly say" point. I was being pedantic, sorry.

However this label game is meaningless. Let's say we could "prove" Bush was a fascist, using some kind of agreed criteria set by all the political scientists in the world. Would that make him any worse? Better? It's not like his policies are going to change based on the label people give him.

[IncubusGod]

Sounds like Italy at the moment. Sounds like a lot of countries at the moment.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm well aware that Thatcher (or Reagan, or Bush) wasn't a fascist state. I was merely responding to your "nobody could honestly say" point. I was being pedantic, sorry.

However this label game is meaningless. Let's say we could "prove" Bush was a fascist, using some kind of agreed criteria set by all the political scientists in the world. Would that make him any worse? Better? It's not like his policies are going to change based on the label people give him.

The trouble is how do you prove someone is a fascist? Take a random person (it could be anyone) someone could have views which some would say make him a communist or that make him a fascist, but how many of these strong views would make someone a fascist or communist? Its a fine line between someone having a stance on a issue and including them as any stereotypical model of what you perceive as a "fascist" or a "communist" or whatever you are stereotyping too.

[Dante Hicks]

My point was that it doesn't actually matter though.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm well aware that Thatcher (or Reagan, or Bush) wasn't a fascist state. I was merely responding to your "nobody could honestly say" point. I was being pedantic, sorry.

However this label game is meaningless. Let's say we could "prove" Bush was a fascist, using some kind of agreed criteria set by all the political scientists in the world. Would that make him any worse? Better? It's not like his policies are going to change based on the label people give him.

Ah but you see these bush loving nutjobs are a bunch of monkeys anyway. Imagine solid proof from a respected source (by the right wing) came out and said that Bush was a communist. More than half of Americans don't even know what Communism is about, however they have been bred to be be against it regardless.

Apply the same for Fasiscm, and there is a glimmer of hope for that those who are not quite sure but at the same time suspicious, hopefully swing in the right (not literally) direction

[queball]

"In the ideology of materialist Marxist totalitarianism, it was widely accepted that ideas are just a "superstructure," a "legitimating ideology" whose sole purpose is to advance the power of one group or class over another. The seizure of political power, in this view, is the only truly important goal--and the marshalling of ideas and arguments is to be judged only by how it serves raw power politics." -- Dr. Robert Tracinski, professor of Philosophy and Theoretical Physics at ten top universities.

[LHC]

Fascists also resemble apes

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

the marshalling of ideas and arguments is to be judged only by how it serves raw power politics."

As opposed to what? How beautiful they are?

[queball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

As opposed to what? How beautiful they are?

Sure, elegance. Correspondence to reality is a good one too.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Zar

Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of Hitler
(Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and
Pinochet (Chile).

Why did he define the latter three as Fascist regimes? I wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Zar

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

The man does not deserve to be called a political scientist if he can be either so willfully stupid or ignorant as to include this utter twadle as a "defining" charecteristic of Fascism. Both Fascist ideology and, in many cases, practise, resulted in intense anti-religion; Germany and the 'church struggle' being the peak example of that.

Fascist governments generally were nowhere near as militantly anti-church as, say, Soviet-style Communist regimes, but let us be under no illusion that Fascism had any especial love for religion in particular.

Certainly, no Fascist government, as far as I understand the term, has been some sort of semi-theocracy, as the phrasing of that point seems to suggest.

Originally Posted by Zar

The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the
government leaders into power,

This is ambiguous. Certainly the phrasing of this statement leads to it being a nonsense.

Originally Posted by Zar

Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government,

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Good joke.

Originally Posted by Zar

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to
promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia.

Not really. The classic types - Germany and Italy - were exceedingly fond of the promotion of 'culture', just so long as it was the sort of culture that they found politically palatable. Indeed, the Nazis had a large membership base in academia.


The whole thing is quite an innacurate and stupid compression of Fascism, even within the context of attempting such a thing within a mere fifteen bullet points. It makes amateurish mistakes, and totally omits other points entirely which one would believe to be obvious - the governmental and ideological centrality of the leader, etc. Dr. Britt (God knows where he got his doctorate from, if indeed he truely has one.) should read a book on the subject sometime.

Oh, and The US isn't Fascist. Not by a long way.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by queball

"In the ideology of materialist Marxist totalitarianism, it was widely accepted that ideas are just a "superstructure," a "legitimating ideology" whose sole purpose is to advance the power of one group or class over another. The seizure of political power, in this view, is the only truly important goal

This appears to make a logical leap which it cannot sustain.

In Leninist thinking, and I daresay, in a lot of generic Marxist thinking, other ideologies are classed (No pun intended.) as legitimising ideologies, as false thinking that upholds the position of the rulling class and elite. However, Dr Tracinski seems to conclude - at least this is how he seems to phrase it - that Leninists thought this about themselves, which is false. They thought themselves to have an accurate and true understanding of the materialist forces at work, etc. Obviously, there were still ideological arguments to be had within Marxism, and arguments to defeat legitmising ideologies. So his statement is a little misleading, if not downright false.

If Leninism was trying to prostitute itself out as an efficient ideology of raw power and control, then it didn't do it very well.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

Correspondence to reality is a good one too.

Correspondence to reality is pretty much always connected to the potential effects on power. Ideas which are just "elegant" with no other redeeming features are generally curiousities at best.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Correspondence to reality is pretty much always connected to the potential effects on power. Ideas which are just "elegant" with no other redeeming features are generally curiousities at best.

What do you mean connected to? Any argument is judged basically by truth. Ok, I suppose it isn't, but it's divisive to explicitly go around power-seeking, if that matters. Well... anything trying to be scientific, like the original article seems to be, needs a bit of objectivity. Unless it's just trying to look scholarly but is just trying to influence people, which I suppose is what Zar is doing, oh well. Maybe I just mean like with bushorchimp, if something is stupid it doesn't matter about power, it's not going to convince anyway (or it has the reverse effect).

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

What do you mean connected to?

I mean when something is "true" it'll have some sort of impact on the real-world. If I say my drug can cure cancer and that's true, that's important because it can help do something. Power is a wider term than just "domination of others" basically.

Maybe I just mean like with bushorchimp

Bush or Chimp is crap precisely because it'll convince no-one. It doesn't even matter if it's "true" or not.

[Boogster]

Um, forgive me, but that sounds like a description of the manifestations of communism also. Bush must be the first Texan 'commie' president.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

that sounds like a description of the manifestations of communism

Originally Posted by Zar

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

9. Corporate Power is Protected

Um, lol?

(Obviously the rest aren't Communist either, but those two are particularly stupid)

[queball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I mean when something is "true" it'll have some sort of impact on the real-world. If I say my drug can cure cancer and that's true, that's important because it can help do something. Power is a wider term than just "domination of others" basically.

That the drug can help people is important, but the idea that the drug can help people isn't so important. Saying "the drug can help people" might help people, but it wouldn't be justifiable to say the drug can help people when it doesn't, or that the drug can't help people when it can. Zar's piece sounds like it's meant to describe reality.

[Nodrog]

1) applies to the USA. 2)-6) dont (it would be lunacy to claim the US government controls the media to anywhere near the degree that the german or italian government did). 7) maybe applies, but not as much as it did a few years ago. 8) describes pretty much every Western country in existence - the US is still far more secular than Britain for instance. 9) applies, 10) and 11) dont (the conservative verbal attack on what they see as Marxist bias in academia does not constitute "professors being censored or even arrested, and free expression in the arts being attacked and/or outlawed". Afaik, America is one of the few countries in the world that still has a tenure system, and funds 'the arts' excessively (ie at all)). 12) and 14) dont apply, and 13) covers pretty much every single country that has existed in the last 500 years.

Posting in a zar thread lol.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Um, lol?

(Obviously the rest aren't Communist either, but those two are particularly stupid)

OK, OK; so I didn't read it.

But come on. What I meant to imply is that facism is such a grey area, and this guy's (the prof) drivel so general, that any accusations made concerning Bush's political alignment are void. Besides, I thought Bush was just a monkey. Monkeys aren't facist - they help to groom each other! They're positively liberal.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

the US is still far more secular than Britain for instance.

On what possible level could this be true? Socially or politically speaking, the above statement is false.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

On what possible level could this be true? Socially or politically speaking, the above statement is false.

I think he's explicitly talking about the structure of government (or formal links between a church and the state/government). In which case he's right. Obviously if you're talking about religious beliefs influencing policy then the US is far more religious.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think he's explicitly talking about the structure of government (or formal links between a church and the state/government).

But this totally misses out your second point, which is how society, political parties, and every single agency who uses said framework is influenced by religion, or not. Simply judging a political system on it's framework of governance, and ignoring the practise involved within it - which is apparently what Nod is doing here - would have lead you to conclude that The USSR was a democracy.

In any case, even if you were judging based simply on the framework of the thing, then you would still conclude that in terms of laws, The US was more or equally religious than Britain - just examine the statute book of many states until recently on things such as homosexuality, etc.

In fact, the only real way that Britain is "more" religious than The US is in a very vague, and almost totally irrelevant constitututional sense, namely, The Monarch as the head of The C of E, etc. And to base your whole argument that Britain is more religious than The US on this single morsel is so foolish it beggars belief.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

On what possible level could this be true? Socially or politically speaking, the above statement is false.

Goverment funded religious schools? 'Offiicial' state religion? Are you joking?

[Nadval]

This deciding whether a state is fascist or not is a little misleading. Fascism is the word to describe centralisation of power. An extremely fascist state would have complete centralisation of power to a small minority of people (e.g. a dictatorship). But this means that you can't describe states as 'fascist' or 'not fascist', it has to be measured on a scale. The question isn't 'is the political system fascist?' it's 'how fascist is the political system?'. With a suitable set of questions you could determine how fascist a country is. Indeed most countries in the world have fascist values of some sorts or other, some more than other - I would personally say the US bears quite a few resemblances to fascism, especially regarding the previous elections in 2000.

I agree that there's a lot missing to those points though and too much ambiguity.

Nodrog - some of those you said don't apply actualy do, I'll go through them when I can be bothered

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Nadval

This deciding whether a state is fascist or not is a little misleading. Fascism is the word to describe centralisation of power. An extremely fascist state would have complete centralisation of power to a small minority of people (e.g. a dictatorship). But this means that you can't describe states as 'fascist' or 'not fascist', it has to be measured on a scale. The question isn't 'is the political system fascist?' it's 'how fascist is the political system?'. With a suitable set of questions you could determine how fascist a country is. Indeed most countries in the world have fascist values of some sorts or other, some more than other - I would personally say the US bears quite a few resemblances to fascism, especially regarding the previous elections in 2000.

I agree that there's a lot missing to those points though and too much ambiguity.

Nodrog - some of those you said don't apply actualy do, I'll go through them when I can be bothered

i'd provide a more fleshed out response, but 'what' says everything that needs to be said

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Goverment funded religious schools?

I don't see that as a particular determinant of a nation's religiousity, for wont of a better term. The general thinking behind religious schools is that they are useful as an educational tool as they create a community environment, etc, hence should recieve funding, not that they should enjoy special status simply by virtue of being religious schools.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

'Offiicial' state religion?

The effect of this is not quantified, though, which makes it rather a meaningless statement. If we were talking about 18th century France, then the official religion of the day had a far differing position than contemporary Britain's official religion has.

The only real practical implications of the C of E's position today are a largely ceremonial constitutional position as the state religion, and the lords spiritual. Hardly a decisive benefit in terms of religion's position. In fact, some members of The C of E favour disestablishment based on a simple cost-benefit analysis. So there is hardly a belief that the present position is especially advantageous.

You must drop this fixation with the idea that legal and constitutional positions are the sole determinants of power; it clutters your argument.

Whereas in the US, religion has no special legal position. However, religion has a much more increased social following and position. By any measure whatsoever, Americans are more "god-fearing" than Britons, as every survey done on the subject bears out. Simply, religion is much more strongly adheered to there than here.

Equally, religion has far more political influence than it does here. There is no British equivalent to the "religious right"; a synthesis of politics and religion enjoying influence, occasionally upon government and often upon the Republican Party. (Especially it's grass roots.)

Equally, issues such as abortion are only sustained as issues by virtue of the unique social and political position of religion within the US. Abortion continues to be a fairly medium-ranking issue in American politics, whereas the debate on abortion is largely non-existant in Britain. So religion plays an active role in determining political debate. Again, it has no such position in Britain.

So no, I don't see how one could class Britain as more religious than The US. In fact, I think it's ridiculous to even contemplate it. Obviously, if you were talking about the state or official position that religion enjoys, then it's a different matter altogether, but that is not we are discussing - we are dicussing it's position of power as a whole, politically and socially.

[Smudge]

wow

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Phang

i'd provide a more fleshed out response, but 'what' says everything that needs to be said

I'd provide a more fleshed out response, but '*sigh* nm' says everything that needs to be said

[Smudge]

*sigh*

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Fascism is the word to describe centralisation of power.

Not by any standard I know. If you measured Fascism solely in centralisation terms, then you would conclude that The Byzantine Empire was Fascist. Or that medieval Britain was Fascist. Which voids the term, thus making it meaningless.

Centralisation of power (and deliberate, ideological centralisation of power at that.) is a core feature of Fascist thought. But it is not the only one.

Originally Posted by Nadval

An extremely fascist state would have complete centralisation of power to a small minority of people (e.g. a dictatorship).

How does dictatorship = Fascism, which is what I presume you are saying here?

There have been dictatorships which have been anti-Fascist just as much as they were anti-Communist.

Originally Posted by Nadval

I would personally say the US bears quite a few resemblances to fascism,

Like what?

[Smudge]

MM, you seemed cool at J3, but that post was huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Smudge

MM, you seemed cool at J3,

I was ill, mostly.

Originally Posted by Smudge

but that post was huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge

"Inevitable "So is my penis." response."

Actually that one was fairly medium-sized, I'd say, for a post that I actually gave time to.