What is Fascism?

HAHAHA!! Nice! Of course not because we care more about our freedom than our safety, right? "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." -Benjamin Franklin

Du hast es sicher. Die Nazis hat die familie meines mutter gestorben (sp?). Ich sehe vielen Nazis heute, hier in Amerika.

Spelling? Grammer? If you took German 101, you get the idea.

People holding such views are routinely in power here. The difference is the real checks and balances we have which pit one set of the power hungry against another, until relatively recently our non-professional army, and the fact that our top politicians are not allowed to stay in office too long. Still we must watch for the little steps in that direction.

Dan, the thing that startled me is that Prof Kohn could have been describing the Bush/Cheny administration. LITTLE steps in that direction?

This is not only disturbing but, actually, quite frightening. Thank you for posting.

My posting may have been a little ambiguous. I think people don't realize how quickly a society can degenerate into dog eat dog. My mother grew up in Nazi Germany. Despite being Jewish, she was the daughter of the head of Wurzburg's furniture guild and for whatever reason the dogs passed her over (though not her relatives). Say, where are the apologists in this conversation (or do they just comment on their own posts . . . )?

Excellent post. I've alway's wondered what Fascism was also ... but never got around to researching it. I think many throw the word around a little out of context ... bravo for looking up the exact meaning for us.

OK, this "apologist" will bite. No, America under Bush/Cheney is not an incrementally fascist state. It does a real disservice to the victims of that horrible ideology to even suggest it. It does a further disservice to your own country, a country that lost hundreds of thousands of young men to fight that ideology, to beg the comparison. I find the allusion being made to be, frankly, disgusting.

First of all, Bush and Cheney didn't come to power by violence. They do not maintain their power by violence. Our government is a legitimately sovereign one, duly elected, ultimately answerable to the people.

You also seem to miss the point that fascism is an essentially leftist one in regards to economic policy. It regards all business and people as assets ultimately of the state. It loathes individuality. This does not describe the America I live in--and the comparison is loathsome.

Frankly, people who compare America to a fascist state, or compare any American politicain to a member of a fascist regime, should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Shame, shame, shame.

Oh, by the way, let me add as a footnote: fascism as an ideology isn't dead in modern times. There are two regimes that embraced fascist ideology in recent times: one was recently just thrown out of power, and one was forced to give up its Mediterranean colony.

Yes, I'm talking about Syria and Saddam's now deposed regime in Iraq. They both embraced the Ba'athist ideology which was patterned after the Nazi party--right down to the hate for the Jews.

It is inherently difficult to determine who is or isn't a fascist because the word can be defined narrowly to include only Mussolini or broadly to include every dictator. One thing that can be said is that it has historically been supported by big and small business, land owners and nationalists; and it supports one group of people over all of the rest - similar to Hitlerand the Aryans.
Mussolini defined fascism as being a right wing ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. The Ba'ath Party was founded on the basis of unity, freedom and socialism with the intent of promoting pan-arab socialism. It was definitely not patterned after Nazism or Fascism.
As far as a link between Bush/Cheney and fascism, I think that theoretically one could make that argument; but, when one observes the actions of people that we associate with Fascism (Franco, Hitler and Mussolini) that comparison is impossible. So, as much as I dislike that SOB im the White House, I cannot refer to him as a fascist.

My comment was just a test to see who, if anyone out there, would consider themselves apologists.

I'm not so sure I said Bush or Cheney are fascists, and if I ever have I meant it as an insult, not a judgment on the depth of their convictions. Rather I said there *are* many fascists here in America. They tend to cluster out west where I grew up. They wear hip-high leather boots and arm bands and carry around copies of Mein Kampf.

If you say Saddam was a fascist, it doesn't say much for his sponsors in his struggle against Iran and the Kurds (among whom I think we can count one Donald Rumsfeld).

Shouting me down ain't gonna fly.

Seth, on the wise counsel of my wife I am entering one last comment on what has happened here. I am new to this online exchange-of-ideas business, and I was not at all prepared to have the memory of World War II veterans invoked against me, with the claim that I had dishonored them. I am a patriot, and I have something to say in their defense.

My first brush with being demonized has left me - I have no more suitable word than enraged. For all I know you are some sort of political scholar, but you do not know the hearts and minds of the men who went to war in 1939. They were a mixed bunch, and you may find among them some who would clap you on the back, however they as a group, we as a nation, lived though a time when America learned the value of camaraderie – that we are all in this together. I leave it to you to guess how many liberals emerged from 1930s America and took those ideals with them to the battlefield, and to their graves. Fascism is a liberal ideology, indeed (insert punctuation for irony here). I dare say they would give you an earful for suggesting I should be made ashamed for speaking my mind.

For my health and sanity's sake I will read no more of your comments or posts, Seth. If attacked by you I will not respond. Have a nice day.

Although this discussion is supposed to be about fascism, I can't resist reminding Seth that Bush/Cheney did not necessarily come into power legitimately. The jury is still out on that and only history will reveal the truth.

Actually Ron, I didn't think you were comparing the US to a facist state, I certainly didn't read your comment that way. I did read the original post that way, however.

I stand by my statement that comparing any American poloitician to a fascist is loathsome--unless they are, in fact, an actual fascist. People throw around the terms "Nazi" and and "fascist" all too lightly, and I find it shameful that they invoke the memory of that tragedy to demonize their political opponents when their ideas don't hold up.

So again Ron, sorry if you thought that was directed at you, it wasn't.

Diana--how do you figure that the jury is still out on Bush's election?

Paul, thank you for pointing out that it's probably misuse (and weirdo co-opting) of the term that gets us in trouble. What I know of "fascism" is what I heard from the half dozen neo-nazis I knew back in Colorado. They were racist, anti-women, anti-liberty, anti-government, pro-violence guys. Everything I saw or heard regarding our domestic terrorists Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh fit that profile. It might in fact be a compliment to call them fascists, and I think I need a different word to describe them.

Interesting Terrance, I have some questions about some of your points:

1)When did the President (I presume you mean Bush) ever claim to be the Constitution?

2)I'll punt on #2, I don't disagree that there are problems with big money in politics. You and I may (or may not) disagree as to the extent and exact implications of this, but let's not muddy the waters.

3)How is Bush's belief in the bias of the media a step towards fascism? I don't see the connection.

4)Can you be more specific?

5)(I'll presume you mean the NSA controversy/Patriot Act)Do you believe that in the face of an extraodinary threat, extraordinary measures must be taken?

6)Do you believe there is ever a valid reason to launch military actions against another country? Was Iraq a valid action? Was Afganistan? Kosovo/Bosnia? Somolia?

7)Do you believe that a nation maintains it's sovereignty in the face of international institutions? How is the refusal to give up sovereignty to an international organization with unelected representation indicative of a slide twords fascism?

8)I'm going to punt on this also, although I have to say that I disagree with the apparent absoluteness of that statement. I also disagree with your statement vis-a-vis Vietnam.

9)How is the "[b]lurring of the line between church and state in matters of public policy" that you (apparently) feel is happening indicative of a slide twords fascism?

10&11)Are you basing this upon #1?

Terence, I don't have as much to say, but I do have a particular loathing for certain of Hitler's policies. Among his early roundups were homosexuals, who are especially easy to demonize and inspire in some perverse desires of the punishment and hell type. In his speeches he drove home the role of women in his ideal society: "Kierchen, Kochen und Kindern". That's "Church, Cooking and Children." He outlawed abortion, but this may not have been on "spiritual" grounds. He had plans for "Lebensraum", which translates roughly as "More room to live in", and he knew the fighting to win these new territories would require a high birth rate (to compensate for German deaths in battle). My father, an American soldier, brought back a belt buckle emblazoned with "Gott Mit Uns" (God is with us). I'm only presenting this as a few facts about Hitler, and how effective religion can be in motivating an otherwise decent society to do unspeakable things. If, as some say, there is no separation of church and state in America, we should be working to put such safeguards in place.

Terence, first let me say it's nice to hear someone who is well spoken on the issues, even when I cannot entirely agree. Let me go give you my reaction to some of your points:

1, 10 & 11) [I see these as boiling down to, essentially, the same issue--correct me if I'm wrong] The President's position isn't an unreasonable one: that there has been a national emergency--in fact, and act of war, and he has power--indeed an obligation-- under the Constitution to deal with the emergency. You have to consider that Congress may not pass any laws that abridge the power of the President under the Constitution, that's one of the checks on the power of the legislature. In turn, the Supreme Court has the power to determine what is and isn't Constitutional, that being one of the checks on the President's power. It's reasonable to worry about the civil liberties implications, but calling it creeping fascism is hyperbole (in my opinion). It's also a highly partisan issue, and should not be--this sort of civil liberties issue didn't start with Bush, it's been going on for some time.

2) Yep. Big problems with big money. It could be solved if the elctorate were more concerned about it.

3) I'm not overly concerned with the government paying for, well let's be honest, propaganda. I would be more concerned if it turned out to untrue information that was being spread. I understand how people can disagree with my position. Again, this is something that is a partisan issue that should not be a partisan issue. I'm much more concerned by the selectivity of the outrage on issues like this.

4)Well, I won't pretend to know who he speaks to or not. I presume he does keep some council, and probably more than people think. True, he's done a lousy job of consulting with even the Republicans in Congress, but to say he's isolated I think is going a bit far. The job of President is too big and complex for him to truly be in a vacuum. As for the stage-managing, that didn't start with Bush either--it's the reality of politics nowadays. When you have hyperpartisan people on both sides of the aisle who go to events just to shout someone down or (litterally) throw pies, can you really blame any politician for wanting to stage manage an event? The political atmosphere is just too charged.

5)This really hinges on whether the President has power under the Constitution to do as he did (which seems to be his defense), or not. Ultimately, it may well be a question for the courts.

6)I have argued many times that I believed Iraq to be a necessary war for a variety of reasons. It is also the Administration's position that it was necessary...if it was necessary (or at least believed to be), can we rightfully call it a signifier of creeping fascism). Let's agree to disagree, at least for now, on this. [If you're interested, I outline my position in several posts on this site.]

7) I believe there needs to be a concept of legitimate sovereignty (you can read my thoughts on that in the essay "The Right to Rule" on this site), and that--for a variety of reasons--the UN isn't possessed of legitimate sovereignty. Therefore, the ideals the UN claims to live up to often get sold out to entrenced power elites who do not hold those values. We, as a nation, cannot afford to have our sovereignty and freedom of action held hostage to an order that is not legitimate. I'm not wholly against international organizations, I'm against the order we have now.

8)Let me leave aside this issue for now, for I could go on at great length about it. I'll only say that this is a bipartisan problem, not owned by one side.

9)That politicization isn't owned by Bush, Republicans, or even the right alone. It is a problem that cuts to both sides of the political spectrum in America. I still am deeply uncomfortable with calling it fascism.

The bottom line for me is this: flinging labels like "fascist", "Nazi", "coward", "racist", "bigot" and so on is usually a way of demonizing one's opposition, and I believe it betrays a poverty of ideas. This lack of comity is polarizing America and is owned by both sides of the political spectrum. You're right when you say that the term "fascist" is a charged word--witness my, perhaps overly strident, post above which Ron took umberage to (and now, apparently, is enough reason to dismiss anything I have to say out of hand--a rather unfortunate position to take).

Terence, it's not that America could never slouch into fascism--I don't doubt it could were we not vigilant. The problem is that I beleive we are not so close as people claim, and the constant flinging of emotionally charged labels is more of a danger to us at this point in time than a government that has forgotten its way. It's time to start remembering what we have in common, and why it's worth preserving--the forgetting is the true danger we face.

"were we not vigilant"

You've got that part right and vigilance is exactly what we are pursuing by espousing similarities of our present administration to "fascist" governments in this forum.

As for your earlier question regarding the legitimacy of the presidency, for any number of votes (electoral or popular) you can cite for Mr. Bush, an equal or greater number of votes can be cited on behalf of Mr. Gore. There is no doubt who our president is, but I challenge you to take a person-by-person poll across the country and come up with a majority who are 100% unequivocally certain that the election of 2000 (and perhaps, that of 2004) was conducted with complete austerity, absolute accuracy and with no "margin of error".

Seth:
It was precisely that flinging of the term that caused me to reserarch "fascism". One only has to substitute "intimidation" for "violence" to find disturbing parallels with the Bush/Cheny method of political persuasion. Anyone who disagrees with a pet position is first ignored. If that doesn't work, then the people espousing the disagreement are attacked by branding with one of those emotionally charged labels you so dislike - labels like "unpatriotic", "aiding the terrorists", "blame America first". Seldom do any of the GOP leaders engage in defending their position with logic or admitting that their opponent's position has any validity. Instead, they fling labels. The border between extreme patriotism and fascism is not distinct, and unless we maintain vigilence by debating issues and raising alarms when we see that which disturbs us, we risk "slouching into fascism". In such emotionally charged times as these we risk being there before enough of us recognize the danger.

If you're concerned about intimidation or violence, then address the intimidation or violence. When people fling the label of "fascist" as casually as they do, it shuts down discourse--which, sadly, I think is often the intent.

Fascism is a complete political and economic ideology--not just an incidence of violence, or one particular political position that a minority of the population happens to not embrace. The use of that term to shut down discourse has really got to stop.

Thanks to Mr. Gentry who, through his bringing our attention to the term "fascism", has sparked an interesting discourse here.

It is nice to see people die hard in their beliefs on topics, in either direction. At least people are a little more informed now than, let's say, 25 years ago as far as politics go. However, whatever form of government a nation chooses, and supports is their decision. Speaking to soliders from Iraq, the Iraqis were better off under Sadaam, and whether or not we agree, that was their home. In addition, I have noticed a trend. There is a difference between being patriotic and being a lap dog for the government, and many so-called patriots condem anyone for disagreeing with Bush or Cheney. Two quotes sum this up.
"A lie told often enough becomes truth."
-Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov)
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ---Teddy Roosevelt.