Left, Right, Center and Fascist. Let's consider a few things.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How does the transition occur?

Most scholars hold that fascism as a social movement employs elements from the political left, but many conclude that fascism eventually allies with the political right, especially after attaining state power.

Mandatory public service is a socialist idea -- it does concentrate additional power with the state, but how is that power then used to create a fascist state? I believe most of the countries that currently require some form of service (generally military with the option to do public service) are more socialist than fascist. I get that socialism in practice shares aspects with fascism, but I don't see how one has to evolve into the other. Granted it can, and as you say we should be on guard against such a development, and also granted socialism generates its own problems, but still -- as steps down a slipperly slope go, this is a pretty small one, particularly compared to, say, expanding wiretapping, or holding prisoners in an extra-judicial limbo, or infiltrating opposing political organizations.

You're right, we should watch for steps along the path towards fascism from the left as well as the right, but (a) the right was in unchecked power until recently, and even now Congress is pretty balanced and (b) the left talks about these grand social engineering programs but hasn't actually done much of anything since FDR and probably won't anytime soon (not least because of cries of "socialism!" from the right). That said, obviously I wouldn't characterize this administration as fascist and I have no worries about Bush declaring himself dictator. American politics is a pendulum and we've swung towards the right a bit further than I (and many others, judging by polls) find comfortable, but there's a long way to go between the US and a truly fascist state. Sure, we should be watchful, but we should also keep some perspective.

__________________________

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

…………

Mandatory public service

is a collectivist idea. In many repsects authoritarian socialism and fascism share many traits.

In my general view, as the state takes on more power for collectivist, nationalist, populist and security reasons, we are subtly enabling the state to control more and more of what we do and that has a profound impact on media, education and general public sentiment. Over time, what was once unheard of in terms state power becomes acceptable.

The state serves its people, not the other way around. And when I say that, I don't mean it grants their every wish, I mean it serves its constitutional purpose. Anything our government does in recognition of its constitutional duty should be accepted by the people....but grudgingly to be sure it isn't doing us any unneeded favors. Like many other entities that offer help upfront, like the mafia (please just accept the analogy and let it go) the extra help, support and favors sound nice up front, but you begin to regret the extra strings attached to it because you lose your personal sovereignty a little at a time.

In the case of government, we become subjugated by its broadening reach thru nice sounding policies. Once the apparatus is in place, there's little stop it from growing beyond what most intended.

Things like this don't happen in an obvious way.

I hope you get my intended meaning. I couldn't think of a better analogy right now. I'm a little punchy til mid afternoon.

………… parent

Good points, Brendan.

Unchecked power can be extremely dangerous, regardless of where it 's coming from, but right now, it's coming from the Right, which is even more dangerous, imo. I believe that the United States Constitution, which is being shredded by the G. W. Bush administration, however, has definitely put the brakes on the move towards fascism, but I also believe with the shredding of the Constitution, the journey towards fascism will be sped up considerably unless we remain vigilant, but keep some perspective.

………… parent

I find it interesing

that populism is associated with Fascism, or Stalinism. But don't forget that it is partly nationalism at play.

To simplify: Many good political leaders use populist campaigns to get elected.
The compassionate conservative...... for example. Then once in power abuse it.

My particular beef with those in power now is touting an ideology that says free markets are the answer to every problem. Competition keeps prices down.
Under the guise of competition we see more mergers, and more transnational corporations.

I mean isn't fascism running a country like a business? Using business as an arm of the government? A good example would be Halliburton, or Comcast.

Fascists reject free markets, pluralism and the rights of individual as being protected by the state. It involved economic planning and centralization and respected private property only so long as it didn't interfere with state interests.

To take the example of Haliburton. Is that a free market competition, or a monopoly? Can you sue Haliburton to protect yourself from the 'state'? A centralized organization, heavily tied in with our defense and providing for its needs, centralized in the UAE.

Accepting the precept that Haliburton is intertwined with our military. Now in my state of Co. the military is trying to make a bigger playground and using eminent domain to take away thousands of acres from ranchers and farmers.

Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting laws....

We see the hard right trying to to interject itself into social and cultural issues.

If fascism is totalitarian attempts to impose control over all aspects of life! Call an agency, give em the last digits of your phone # and what information do they have access to?

In light of the recent news about Cheney...... his 'shadow govt' and pushing the envelope for more power........ how do you feel about Cheney's constitutional authority.

__________________________

It is the economy, stupid.

…………

I see you mention Halliburton a lot

when topic of free markets come up. You've done so before as well. Halliburton is not an example of free markets. Halliburton, as I understand it, is a contract company that provides services to the military as one of their main functions. What halliburton did is not free market in any way. It was a no bid contract given by the state with tax payer dollars. It was not and is not subject to competition from other companies. In short, Halliburton has nothing to do with free markets.

And on this administration and Bush, I don't see a view of free markets as the answer for everything.

As for my views on Cheney, I'm quite concerned with what I see as an ever broadening scope of the executive without much in the way of reproach. I don't like it at and feel it sets bad precedents. Over the decades, it's seems the state always takes power but never really ceded any. Not good.

………… parent

Halliburton

Is a business.

A contract company is a business. When I say free markets I mean the ideology or the way this country does business.

Though I take your point and see you have a different meaning.

But in the context of fascism..... if you define it as a corporate run country then Halliburton is in play.

Halliburton is a perfect example of how this country is run, and what role private contracters and government intervention and favors play in how our country is run, including no bid contracts. Private contracters, who then issue sub contracts have been a convenient way to hide accountability for a job poorly done and play along the edges of what is legal.

I see an agenda if you will behind the free market ideology that has possibly corrupted its original meaning.......... which I would say should be fair competition makes for better cheaper products and spurs innovation.

The corruption comes from companies like Wal-Mart that say 'free market' but seek only one goal, less competition and cheaper labor at all costs.

Cheney is huge on getting government out of government and contracting and sub contracting the govts businesss. His negotiations to ensure that oil profits from Iraq go to a corporate entity and not the Iraq govt are a testament to his ideology.

I could go on but have got some work to do. I enjoy discussing this and hope that you don't think I am being unfair. I don't think people are fully aware of how extreme and to what extremes this administration (Cheney) and others have taken our country. It am not going to say it is fascism, but I don't like the direction we are going.

__________________________

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

I see free markets as an ideal to work toward

we do not have free markets.

Halliburton Is a business.

A contract company is a business. When I say free markets I mean the ideology or the way this country does business.

OK. But that is wrong and you shouldn't use the term as such. It's totally false and misleading. What you mean when you misuse the term "free markets" is a varying degree of state capitalism or what some call "crony capitalism".

That is not what what people like me mean when the use the term.

State contracts have nothing to do with free markets.They are simply pay outs for services outside of market forces. Free markets mean consent, choice and competition for goods, services, employees and customers. That's what we engage in on, to varying degress, a day to day basis.

A spin off of this discussion in another diary would discuss the word "capitalism" and its many derivatives....some good, some ok, some bad. Doing so would illustrate what ideas mean from certain people and avoid false labeling of the intent of others.

Maybe that will be my next one.

………… parent

I believe she is also insisting

that some Republicans use the term "free market" to justify actions at odds with genuine free market forces, such as no-bid contracts, or government subsidies or tax breaks, or inefficient payments to umbrella organizations that subcontract out the actual work, or privatization of state resources at below market costs.

None of these actions are inherently good or bad, actually; it depends on the situation and the oversight. But it's annoying to hear them justified as "free market" by some Republicans.

Since you're a libertarian, you really shouldn't get stuck defending their actions, but we don't have enough hard-core conservatives around to bully =)

__________________________

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Wait a minute

Since you're a libertarian, you really shouldn't get stuck defending their actions,

I've done no such thing. EVER. My points are rarely having to to with the parties.

I think the heavy partisanship around here causes a lot filtering of information thru the prism of DEM/GOP talking points as well as projecting that partisanship onto others.

Let's understand eachother on that point.

………… parent

No no, relax

I worded that clumsily. What I mean is, it's unfair of us to act as if you have a responsibility to defend Republican actions. We should meet your (libertarian) arguments on your terms, not ours.

__________________________

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

thanks. sigh of relief. ;)

………… parent

Yes

I agree. And Brendan gets what I am saying.

But the word, unfortunately has been corrupted. And when I hear the word free markets I run screaming the other way.

Contract labor is used all over the place, for the 'not free market' goal of cheaper labor.

IN construction everything is contracted out. Contracters and sub-contracters and sub sub contracters.

Perhaps competitive markets would be a better word.

__________________________

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

I get what you're saying

But that's not the same as my taking issue with the use of word or idea to describe something that is entirely different than the word being used. The double whammy is then, in this case, that "free markets" get slammed for problems arising its perversion and not from the original idea.

Let this be the day that you don't hear "free markets" and run the other way. Let this instead be the day that recognize on its merits.

BTW, a little wrinkle to all this:

Contract labor is used all over the place, for the 'not free market' goal of cheaper labor.

that quote makes zero sense to me on any level. What do you mean?

Free markets, it must be said, have no goal about the price of labor (or prices). wages and prices are dependent on other factors and not goals unto themselves. This is a very important point. What should be gathered from this is that looking at or dwelling on what to do about wages and prices in terms of regulation and policy is inherently flawed since they are dependent on and caused by other market forces.

Think of it as a perfectly functioning puppet. Prices and wages are like arms and legs. If they don't move in a pleasant way, you must look up the strings and see why. Tinkering with the arms and legs is pointless since they depend on other input.

To go a layer further, we must then see why the human hand on the strings in moving as it is to find the problem. Is it a problem with the hand? is there something effecting the hand that's causing the problem? We must look at economics in this way to judge it properly.

………… parent

OMG Don't make me

do research to back up my broad sweeping assertions please!

Sorry today will not be the day that I hear free markets and don't run away.

It sort of ties in with free market globalization, and free market democracy.

I will look for details and try and give a sense of what I am saying, because I think it is important.

And frankly, I think that the way we view economics, and finding a better business model is THE way to build a better democracy and a better world.

So in that sense at least for me, it is always the economy stupid.

__________________________

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Again,

I think that the way we view economics, and finding a better business model is THE way to build a better democracy and a better world.

what do you mean?

………… parent

Chill out!

Give me some time here.... :+)

Okay! I think in many ways we agree.

__________________________

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

chill out?

I wasn't under the impression that you planned on addressing that question without my asking.

………… parent

Read the

OMG post.

Look in the middle.

You will find this.

I will look for details and try and give a sense of what I am saying, because I think it is important.

Coupled with the joking referance to OMG don't make me do research to back up my broad sweeping claims.

Was I being unclear, or did you just not bother to read what I wrote?

If it was the former, yes I pleade guilty of being vague at times. If it is the later, I feel less inclined to try and offer you my thoughts, wondering if you will jump to your own conclusions before you even read what I write.

__________________________

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

I did read it.

I don't think you were being vague, I just wasn't under the impression that you were going to explain that particular quote with what you were going to post later. So I asked.

sheesh.

………… parent

Halliburton

(response to thread, not just John)

Best joke:

"The only trouble I had paying my taxes is when writing my check, trying to figure out if "Halliburton" had one 'l' or two."

missliberties should just come out and say that when LBJ decided that some military services traditionally done by the military could be done by private companies, and he let out the first such contract to Brown and Root, now a part of Halliburton, he led us into another big government boondoggle.

One should also reach some understanding of how things work. The government takes bids for ten year contracts for first call services. "Bids" are attempts to make these contracts assigtnable on some sort of market basis. The bid came up in 2002, and the company that had it since 1992 lost to Halliburton, who in the eyes of those charged with making the judgment, submitted the better bid. it also helps that Halliburton and its vvarious companies now have more experience in the field than any other comapny. It's sort of why the same airplane builders keep getting contracts to build planes, and Morton-Thiokol keeps getting contracts in the space program. for the same reason, when the oil fields in Kuwait were burning, they called in Red Adair.

What this 10 year contract, sort of like a retainer, does is to require that Halliburton accept contracts made on short notice in situations where it is judged that circumstances do not allow a bidding process. (say, because it is an emergency) The famous Army Corps of Engineers contract at the beginning of the Iraq War was an example of such a contract, as were at least one having to do with Katrina. Unfortunately, liars report these as "no bid contracts" as if bidding would normally be done, and some chicanery was used to skip past that normal bidding process.

IN the ACE case, and in all others, investigations and oversight have failed to find any evidence of irregularities in letting the contracts.

Also of note is that Halliburton lost the contract in 1992 because they were barred from competing because of some problems they had before that. (Can't remember the exact problems, but it involved fraud or cheating, or something like that.) Of course, this was before Cheney took over the company, and happened, in fact, while Cheney was part of the government.

Further, much of the Halliburton bullcrap centers on some vague but totaly unsubstantiated notion that Cheney is profiting from the Halliburton contracts, or steering contracts to Halliburton, but this is entirely false, since Cheney is completely walled off from profiting from Halliburton in any way whatsoever, being more walled off than even the law requires.

Note that I am not defending how Halliburton or anyone else delivers on contracts. But there is one truism: when the government puts large amounts of money up for grabs, people will find ways to get some of it, and those ways are not always legal. When the Bushies were criticized for not getting money out fast enough during the Katrina aftermath, it was immediately possible to predict two things:

1) This would lead to more money being thrown out faster, and that would lead to more than the usual corruption and scams;

2) Those whose complaints led to the quicker effusion of the money would be complaining the loudest when the inevitable scams came to light.

Because, you see, they are idiots.

Remember, "a fool and his money are soon parted." Governments, because they focus on specific results and not expenses, particularly in emergencies and unusual circumstances, are fools when it comes to money. And that is our money.

………… parent

Good post.

It's almost a form of Godwinian argument when one side assumes the extreme of the other side, based on fuzzy historical parallels. You can push too far in any direction, but the average Republican has about as much in common with Mussolini's fascists than the average Democrat has with Stalin's communists.

What I do find useful is the careful exploration of what elements of those states we should be avoiding at all cost. One of the series' I've really enjoyed reading online was Neiwert's analysis of what he called proto-fascism in the United States, since he was careful to preface with 1. we are not a fascist state, 2. we are not likely to become a classical fascist state, and 3. he's only looking at those negative qualities of fascism that we are starting to share.

Why are we more conditioned to expect authoritarianism from the Right? I think it's a matter of philosophy, not just social conditioning. A lot of right-oriented philosophies posit elements of authority that those on the left do not - and when the left arrives at authoritarianism, it tends to be through the back door. But it most certainly can arrive there, no matter what rhetoric it cloaks itself in.

__________________________

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

…………

yes, pico

and if you want an example of something akin to fascism coming from the Left as you describe, look no further than Hugo Chavez.

………… parent