| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2004/7/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:32242 Activity:very high |
7/12 Facism, anyone? http://csua.org/u/85n -- The 14 common characteristics of fascist regimes -- ring any bells? \_ The Council for Secular Humanism? This is way worse than WorldNetDaily. \_ Well, the obvious point of this piece is to say that Bush = Fascist, but it does a pretty poor job of substatiating that claim. Many of the points it tries to make don't apply to Bush at all. Some don't even apply to Fascism. (The one about religion is a pretty obvious secular humanists swipe at religion, but has little to do with what was actually done in fascist governments.) The ones that are refelcted with Bush are often a big stretch. A few fascist like tendencies are shown to be in the Bush-like, but I don't think it's any more than you would see between Hitler and say, FDR. \_ But FDR is a facist with a socialist bend. \_ how true, it was said FDR envied Stalin because he was such an effective collectivist. Would explain their friendship. \_ "it was said"? By whom? Freepers? \_ FDR = fascist is just as patently absurd as Bush = fascist. FDR defeated fascism. I don't think any of you or the people in the URL really understand the word "fascism." \_ Thank you. Can anyone here actually define fascism for me? I had a roommate who hated Regan because he was a "fascist" but he could never point to any specific instances, or even tell me what that meant. \_ fascism : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism). Its really not that complicated. Perfectly describes the result of the policies of the New Deal and the left today. \_ The URL above is a paraphrase of a very common 14 point definition. Its workable but I think the comparison to Bush falls down (I dislike Bush as much as the next guy but calling him Hitler is hyberbole). There was a recent book on this subject that got favorable reviews, but the name escapes me at the moment. \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism is as good a definition of fascism as you are going to find anywhere. \_ it's not something just a one-sentence little blurb could sufficiently describe. mussolini wrote an essay defining it: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html As that site mentions, the term comes from "fasces" which were held by Roman officials as symbols of the authority of their office. Basically it's authoritarian nationalism, the idea that only strong authority can lead a nation to greatness and vitality, the State being more important than individuals. being more important than individuals. There's also the notion that this national struggle is the only thing with meaning, with the wars and all, making your place in history; that otherwise you might as well be dead. Which helps explain how Hitler could just roll the dice with millions of lives in the balance. \__ Actually, most fascist governments do form an alliance with organized religion. See Italy, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Chile and Indonesia for examples. A few did not. \_ yes the Dems like Schumer, Hillary the witch and WJC. \_ Bush is a Fascist! Bush is a Fascist! Saying it enough times makes it true! \_ You should watch Starship Troopers. \_ I did one better, I read the book. \_ Watch the movie again. Movies work. \_ Work for what? BTW, have YOU read the book? \_ Movies work in the ways that books don't. I have not read the book, but now you mention it, I will. I can understand why you would not want to see the movie (again) if you've read the book. \_ Don't bother. The difference is that Heinlein basically advocated fascism - particularly in ST. The movie was, by contrast, a satire on the book's enthusiasm for fascism. MANY people did not figure this out, though. -- ulysses \_ I guess I'm one of them then -- IIRC, positions in government were decided by a popular vote. I honestly don't see how that's fascist. \_ If you are a liberal, please don't use the term fascist to describe the Bush administration. It's become an epithet. \_ Saying that it has become an epithet is also saying that it once wasn't one. \_ In Italy, it's quite common for people to still identify themselves as communists or fascists. --studied there \_ "Fascist" as applied to Mussolini and Hitler's regimes is accurate. \_ Accurate for what? You mean it's an accurate description of Bush's policies? Only if "Communist" is an accurate description of Clinton's policy. Maybe you should re-read the definition of fascim linked to above. \_ "Fascist" is accurate, low on the epithet meter, and acceptable in academic publications when applied to Mussolini and Hitler's regimes. And I *just* said, please don't use the term fascist to describe the Bush administration. \_ If you are a conservative, please don't use the terms communist, terrorist, America-hater, etc. etc. to describe liberals. Can we all just get along?!?! \_ The word you are looking for is "socialist". Conservatives : fascist :: Liberals : socialist \_ The Bush Administration certainly has fascist tendencies. But they are also certainly not fascist. At least not as long as we continue to have elections and free speech. \_ Right. No one is suggesting Bush is a fascist. However, his adminstration does appear to be pulling this country more towards that direction. \- is it not obvious that "fascist" when used to describe BUSH CO is indended as an epithet rather than a term from political science, just as when BUSH is described as an idiot or moron it is also an epithet and not a allegation that his tested iq fals into a particular band. same for john ashcroft is a nazi etc. trying to find precision where it isnt intended is ... dumb --psb |
| 5/24 |
|
| csua.org/u/85n -> www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. And fascisms principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The clich that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities. Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances. For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Francos Spain, Salazars Portugal, Papadopouloss Greece, Pinochets Chile, and Suhartos Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible. Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the peoples attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choicerelentless propaganda and disinformationwere usually effective. Often the regimes would incite spontaneous acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and terrorists. Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes excesses. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting national security, and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elites behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the godless. A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of have-not citizens. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. Normal and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or traitors was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well u... |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Benito Mussolini, fascism is described as a system in which "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad. For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative." culture to the ends of the greatest possible prosperity for them at the expense of all else. In contrast, Mussolini's fascism held to the ideology that all of these factors existed to serve the state and that it wasn't necessarily in the state's interest to serve or engineer any of these particulars within its sphere as any priority. statism that existed by virtue and as an ends in and of itself. The Nazi movement spoke of class based society as the enemy and wanted to unify the racial element above established classes, whereas the Fascist movement sought to preserve the class system and uphold it as the foundation of established and progressive culture. This underlying theorem made the contemporary Fascists and Nazis see themselves and their respective political labels as at least partially exclusive to one another. Today however this difference is not made often in terminology, even when used historically. That is due mostly because both politics have ceased to be a society driven ideology of their own anywhere in the world today. Outside of their internal reasoning their own opposing ideas have no part to play and could even be said to be arbitrarily alien to the liberal states currently dealing in defining political concerns. As a political science, the philosophical pretext to the literal fascism of the historical Italian type believes the state's nature is superior to that of the sum of the individual's comprising it, and that they exist for the state rather than the state existing to serve them. The resources individuals provide from participating in the community are conceived as a productive duty of individual progress serving an entity greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore all individual's business is the state's business, the state's existence is the sole duty of the individual. Corporativist model of totalitarian but private management the various functions of the state were trades conceived as individualized entities making that state, and that it is in the state's interest to oversee them for that reason, but not direct them or make them public by the rationale that such functioning in government hands undermines the development of what the state is. Private activity is in a sense contracted to the state so that the state may suspend the infrastructure of any entity in accord to their usefulness and direction, or health to the state. The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats and the middle classes. Today, very few groups proclaim themselves as fascist, and the term almost universally is used for groups for whom the speaker has little regard, often with minimal understanding of what the term actually means. The term "fascist" or "Nazi" is often ascribed to individuals or groups who are perceived to behave in an authoritarian manner; by silencing opposition, judging personal behavior, or otherwise attempting to concentrate power. far-right or neo-far-right, or the far left activists as a description of any political or cultural influences perceived as "non-progressive," or merely not sufficiently progressive. Bergson rejected the scientism, mechanical evolution and materialism of Marxist ideology. Also, Bergson promoted an elan vital as an evolutionary process. Mussolini states that fascism negates the doctrine of scientific and Marxian socialism and the doctrine of historic materialism. Industrial Revolution and other changes in society that had occurred during the nineteenth century. The document criticized capitalism, complaining of the exploitation of the masses in industry. nationalism as a way of preserving traditional morality, customs, and folkways. In doing so, Rerum Novarum proposed a kind of corporatism, the organization of political societies along industrial lines that resembled mediaeval guilds. Syndicalism had an influence on fascism as well particularly as some syndicalists intersected with D'Annunzio's ideas. Before the First World War, syndicalism had stood for a militant doctrine of working-class revolution. Some moderates began to advocate "mixed syndicates" of workers and employers. In this practice, they absorbed the teachings of Catholic theorists and expanded them to greater power of the state and diverted them by the influence of D'Annunzio to nationalist ends. progressive taxation for inherited wealth and development of co-operatives. Mussolini's fascist state was established nearly a decade before Hitler's rise to power. positivism and the general fatalism of postwar Europe should be of concern. Fascism was, to an extent, a product of a general feeling of anxiety and fear among the middle class of postwar Italy arising because of a convergence of interrelated economic, political, and cultural pressures. anti-Communism in a state designed to bind all classes together under a capitalist system, but a new capitalist system in which the state seized control of the organization of vital industries. Under the banners of nationalism and state power, Fascism seemed to synthesize the glorious Roman past with a futuristic utopia. The appeal of this movement, the promise of a more orderly capitalism during an era of interwar depression, however, was not isolated to Italy, or even Europe. Great Depression led to a sharp economic downturn of the Brazilian economy, a sort of quasi-fascism would emerge there that would react to Brazil's own socio-economic problems and nationalistic consciousness of its peripheral status in the global economy. materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... "The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans." "If classical liberalism spells individualism," Mussolini continued, "Fascism spells government." htm l) While certain types of socialism may superficially appear to be similar to fascism, it should be noted that the two ideologies clash violently on many issues. Stalinism) are more superficial than actual, since those self-proclaimed "socialist" governments did not live up to their claims of serving the people and respecting democratic principles. After his turn to the right, Mussolini continued to employ much of the rhetoric of socialism, but substituting the nation for social class as the basis of political loyalty. Giovanni Gentile): "Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State." dictatorship of the proletariat alluded to by Von Mises is not the same as the dictatorship concept employed by fascists. Dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to mean workers democracy or dictatorship by the working class rather than dictatorship by the capitalist class. General Secretary over the party and the working class but that means tha... |
| www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html Back to Modern History SourceBook Modern History Sourcebook: Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932 Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome . Mussolini came to power after the "March on Rome" in 1922, and was appointed Prime Minister by King Victor Emmanuel. In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism. Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death.... The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after... Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.... conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress.... For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State.... The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State.... The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook. |