Dear Carlos and All:
If you think about it for a moment, fascism, not Islamic militance, is
what most accurately defines the Iraq insurgency, as well as Saddam's
regime and that of Syria (and others). Most fascist states emerge in lands
without much tradition in democracy, where the leaders have a tenuous hold
on power and public support, and where religion, nationalism and militarism
are combined in a volatile stew. Mobs of idealistic young men are mobilized
to crush attempts at democratization, often in the name of national,
ethnic, or religious purity.
It's OK to say the U.S. government is leaning toward fascism -- with
lowered standards for civil and human rights, cronyism, and militarism --
because after all, a mob of young Republicans tried to stop the Florida
recount and another mob banged on the windows of a Minnesota newspaper for
daring to public poll results showing Kerry ahead. But to say the U.S.
government meets all of the definitions of fascism is more of an emotional
statement than a reasoned one.
Yours,
Jim
"carlos flores"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
m> cc:
Subject: non-lute message
01/27/2005 12:19
PM
" Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it
is a merger of State and corporate power.". Benito Mussolini
It is the sixtieth year anniversarry of the liberation of Auschwitz.
People were exterminated there in the name of "purity", in the
name of "order", in the name of "cleaning". These concepts of
purity, order and cleanness were injected into the masses brains
through ideologies of suepriority, self-importance and "security".
I feel it is our duty to be ever cautious about such mental conditionig
repeating itself. For that purpose, for whatever it is worth, here are
the basic characteristics of fasism:
"...For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following
regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal,
Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s 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.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. 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.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. 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.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most
significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating
as
a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift
blame
for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The
methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were 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.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. 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.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the
national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women
as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also
homophobic. 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.
6. A controlled mass media. 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.
7. Obsession with national security. 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.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. 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 elite’s
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.
9. Power of corporations protected. 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.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. 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.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. 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. Universities were
tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated.
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.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. 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.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to
the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This
corruption worked both ways; 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
understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public
opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates
were
held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired
result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election
machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying
or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary
beholden to the power elite.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is
America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a
free
press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on
guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises
in
verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
Note
1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or imitating
Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.
References
Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980.
Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963.
Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001.
Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999.
de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York:
Holmes
& Meier, 1976.
Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999.
Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford,
1996.
Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven
Stories. 2001.
Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.
Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables,
Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001.
Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
