Fascism: Are We Heading There?

[nollmeyer]

Hello all

I just found this while attempting to research. I am still slightly taken aback. How close are we to this?

David

Fascism
by Sheldon Richman
About the Author


As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:

The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)

Before his foray into imperialism in 1935, Mussolini was often praised by prominent Americans and Britons, including Winston Churchill, for his economic program.

Similarly, Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:

The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)

Both nations exhibited elaborate planning schemes for their economies in order to carry out the state’s objectives. Mussolini’s corporate state “consider[ed] private initiative in production the most effective instrument to protect national interests” (Basch 1937, p. 97). But the meaning of “initiative” differed significantly from its meaning in a market economy. Labor and management were organized into twenty-two industry and trade “corporations,” each with Fascist Party members as senior participants. The corporations were consolidated into a National Council of Corporations; however, the real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Instituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, which held shares in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises, and the Instituto Mobiliare, which controlled the nation’s credit.

Hitler’s regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory.1 The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. Labor conscription was inaugurated in 1938. Two years earlier, Hitler had imposed a four-year plan to shift the nation’s economy to a war footing. In Europe during this era, Spain, Portugal, and Greece also instituted fascist economies.

In the United States, beginning in 1933, the constellation of government interventions known as the New Deal had features suggestive of the corporate state. The National Industrial Recovery Act created code authorities and codes of practice that governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce. The National Labor Relations Act made the federal government the final arbiter in labor issues. The Agricultural Adjustment Act introduced central planning to farming. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.

It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

[Voxpopuli]

No we are not.

Fascism was only a reaction to the threat of Communism. It was a unique ideology that came about due to events that were taking place at a given time.

Fascism, like Marxism has exists only in the dust bin of history. We won't see either rear their heads again. Statism, which both Communism and Fascism are children of, has not gone away. Instead of worrying about dead ideologies we should be more concerned with the Leviathan which when it grows too large takes on many forms (Fascist, Communist, etc...)

Question and oppose any move by your government to expand its powers. Whether it be for "fixing" the economy or protecting us from terrorists. While Fascism and Communism are dead, Statism is alive and well.

[nollmeyer]

Hello

Does Neo Fascism approach the near depression that we are approaching? What exactly is statism?

[Voxpopuli]

Hello

Does Neo Fascism approach the near depression that we are approaching?

No form of fascism approaches.

[Tigerdrafted]

Collectivism leads to Central Planning which leads to monopolies that ultimately fail forcing the State to take full ownership of capital. The result is socialism. Hayek draws comparison to fascist WWII Germany.

Posted from IPhone

[Mike88]

No we are not.

Fascism was only a reaction to the threat of Communism. It was a unique ideology that came about due to events that were taking place at a given time.

Fascism, like Marxism has exists only in the dust bin of history. We won't see either rear their heads again. Statism, which both Communism and Fascism are children of, has not gone away. Instead of worrying about dead ideologies we should be more concerned with the Leviathan which when it grows too large takes on many forms (Fascist, Communist, etc...)

Question and oppose any move by your government to expand its powers. Whether it be for "fixing" the economy or protecting us from terrorists. While Fascism and Communism are dead, Statism is alive and well.

Communism and fascism (as well as liberalism, marxism, ans socialism) are children of feudalism. Peasants living and working at the whims of the royal class. All ANY of these leftwing ideologies have done is change the language and definitions used in feudalism.

[harry tuttle]

We are not a Fasicist government. We have international trade, labor unions are alive and well, for the most part the economy is free.It is statism that is worse than any fascism the world has seen.

[Tigerdrafted]

Rm32

I fail to see how unions are the only thing that differentiate us from being facsist. You pretty much described where we are headed. Most of our unions are state run

[harry tuttle]

Before you trash this country. Do yourself a favor. Travel abroad. Believe me, you will never complain about this country ever again.That's no different than what Germans said about their own country in the 1930's.

[harry tuttle]

Before you trash this country. Do yourself a favor. Travel abroad. Believe me, you will never complain about this country ever again.Citizens of Italy in the 1930's said the same thing too. You sound just like them.

[nollmeyer]

Class Stratification is occuring at the hand of government selection and not according to skill and the market. The talented individual and the honest man have lost to the elitists. Everytime the greedy have abused the laissez faire totalitarian elements have arisen as Hitler to get Germany out of the depression and the quagmire we exist in at present.

If we or others create chaos to exploit the incompetent I will consider we are neo fascist or heading closer to such.

In the creation of money who won and who lost? This is closet fascism. Maybe it is not the real thing.

[Long Island Bob]

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

~ Benito Mussolini

Noting like that going on here.

[nollmeyer]

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

~ Benito Mussolini

Noting like that going on here.

We are exiting market economics and entering state socialism where government ownership is for profit as Pemex and Bancomex in Mexico.

Are we maliciously creating losers by intervention and not letting skill decide?

[Voxpopuli]

Communism and fascism (as well as liberalism, marxism, ans socialism) are children of feudalism. Peasants living and working at the whims of the royal class. All ANY of these leftwing ideologies have done is change the language and definitions used in feudalism.

Not quite. Unless you are referring to feudal socialism which lived a very short life. Like Fascism it was a reaction by the polity to subdue the revolting working class in order to maintain their positions of power. Feudalism has more to do with the aristocracy maintaining power through military contracts with a warrior class. It is also relies heavily on inheritance which Marxism objects too. Feudalism died a long time ago thanks to Capitalism and the age of enlightenment.

There seems to be a need to label current forms of government as "Fascist" or "Feudal" when they are clearly nothing like what these labels mean.

[Voxpopuli]

Class Stratification is occuring at the hand of government selection and not according to skill and the market. The talented individual and the honest man have lost to the elitists. Everytime the greedy have abused the laissez faire totalitarian elements have arisen as Hitler to get Germany out of the depression and the quagmire we exist in at present.

If we or others create chaos to exploit the incompetent I will consider we are neo fascist or heading closer to such.

In the creation of money who won and who lost? This is closet fascism. Maybe it is not the real thing.

I pretty much agree with the underlined portion of this post. However, how long in American history has this been happening? Jefferson desired a natural aristocracy but this hasn't really been the case in our history. Nepotists and cronyism are inherent to bureaucracy which is byproduct of the state. This isn't anything new.

I disagree regarding your claim that every time that the greedy abuse laissez-faire a Hilteresque person arises. Corporate welfare is fairly common and it is an abuse on the free-market but it doesn't create a totalitarian environment.

Once again, I disagree that we are moving towards any form of fascism. I do believe the state is increasing in power in our country and we are moving towards a mixed-economy but then again we haven't really been a free-market economy either. I do think this is a bad thing (rise of statism), I just feel it weakens ones argument to try and defend free-market capitalism with hyperbolic terms such as "fascism."


Are we maliciously creating losers by intervention and not letting skill decide?

Do you think its malicious? Or is it just the natural result of government interference?


By the way, your post has an Objectivist sound to it. You aren't being influenced by Rand are you?

[nollmeyer]

Yes I believe that the choice of who benefits from corporate welfare is a subjective interest. It is a hardball uncompetive practice. The average person would be bankrupt but those interests namely big banks in the cartel survive.

Aristotle and Plato argue that whomever the police and military back up results in the character of that country.

This world is Animal Farm and we are in convergent totalitarianism. Ron Paul stated at cpac that fascim is likely.

As the state expands who will defend such? The police in Mexico defend the narcos and some use the term narco fascist although I believe these countries are oligarchic.

We are losing freedom and economic chaos permits extremist to emerge.

We will see who emerges.

We will be less free.

[Nick In Mo]

I belive that the best way to describe the U.S. gov./freemarket is an Olagarchy i.e, Gov. controlled by few, corporations and or elite. Which in my opinion corporations are the elite. By elite I do not mean intellectual, but rather the other two aspects, superior social and economic status

[Voxpopuli]

Yes I believe that the choice of who benefits from corporate welfare is a subjective interest. It is a hardball uncompetive practice. The average person would be bankrupt but those interests namely big banks in the cartel survive.

Aristotle and Plato argue that whomever the police and military back up results in the character of that country.

This world is Animal Farm and we are in convergent totalitarianism. Ron Paul stated at cpac that fascim is likely.

As the state expands who will defend such? The police in Mexico defend the narcos and some use the term narco fascist although I believe these countries are oligarchic.

We are losing freedom and economic chaos permits extremist to emerge.

We will see who emerges.

We will be less free.

Yes, it is subjective to political influence. Tarrifs, subsidies, etc... all influence on how wealth is created or lost without any influence from the market. A good example would be how the 2004 election allowed tariff deals with the EU to sink the Steele industry due to the EU threatening the US orange industry with reprisal tariffs.

I like Ron Paul and supported him during his campaign, to the point that I gave multiple donations to his campaign. However, I strongly disagree with his recent statements at CPAC. I felt that he was engaging in empty rhetoric which only hurt the cause of liberty. He has a strong message but to use sensational terms like "fascism" only clouds the message. I really wish he would have chosen his words more wisely.

I don't think extremists are taking influence of our nation's economy. Essentially, we have a rise in Keynesian economics. It seems to have become popular again. Simply put, Demand side economics is en vogue while supply side is on the outs. I wouldn't consider this extremist but I do think its a very bad move for our nation. Then again, monetarism was heavily corrupted by political motives that it really didn't do much for the economy at all either.

[Amallek]

These14 Points of Fasicm were written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile) The points indicate we should hope we are now in the process of recovering from nearly becoming a fascist nation.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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.

[Amallek]

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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.

[Amallek]

Socialism and fascism are quite different systems. Fascist only like socialism for the ruling class. (ie. privatise gains, socialize losses - sound familiar?)

[Long Island Bob]

These14 Points of Fasicm were written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile) The points indicate we should hope we are now in the process of recovering from nearly becoming a fascist nation.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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 http://www.ellensplace.net/space_1.gif

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.


The following comes from one of Hitler's own proclamation here is the last half:

11. Abolition of unearned incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

Adolf Hitler proclaimed the following explanation for this program on the 13 April 1928:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/25points.html

[brody]

Faster, Please! » We’re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny (http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/02/14/were-all-fascists-now-ii-american-tyranny/)

[Henry Piarrot]

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/ (http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/)

[Droog]

Socialized losses and private profits are textbook economic fascism.

[Voxpopuli]

Oh no, its the 14 points of fascism! Guys, there is no Dr. Lawrence Britt who is a political scientist that studied fascism. The thing is a fraud.
A college freshman could tell this article does a horrible write up of fascism. There is no way a Phd in Poli-Sci would write this list. The list could easily be changed to "14 points of totalitarianism, authoritarianism, etc..." There is no reference to the historical background of fascism. It doesn't even touch on the fact that fascism was a reactionary ideology to communism.

Whats next a video of Zeitgeist?

The thread starters original post contained a very good explanation of fascism. If you read the article you will see why we are not on the road to fascism.

From the article:


The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance.

Fascism was a reaction to communism. It incorporated tenants of socialism in order to pacify the revolting working class. The polity of Italy, Germany and Spain were threatend by the working class revolting. The working class in nearby nations successfully overthrew their political leaders via communism/socialism. At the time there was a great fervor for revolution and communism/socialism was very popular. Based on these threats, fascism formed. Without these threats it is unlikely that fascism would ever have surfaced. This political climate does not exist now.

Which is why we are NOT on the road to fascism.

[Tigerdrafted]

Oh no, its the 14 points of fascism! Guys, there is no Dr. Lawrence Britt who is a political scientist that studied fascism. The thing is a fraud.
A college freshman could tell this article does a horrible write up of fascism. There is no way a Phd in Poli-Sci would write this list. The list could easily be changed to "14 points of totalitarianism, authoritarianism, etc..." There is no reference to the historical background of fascism. It doesn't even touch on the fact that fascism was a reactionary ideology to communism.

Whats next a video of Zeitgeist?

The thread starters original post contained a very good explanation of fascism. If you read the article you will see why we are not on the road to fascism.

From the article:



Fascism was a reaction to communism. It incorporated tenants of socialism in order to pacify the revolting working class. The polity of Italy, Germany and Spain were threatend by the working class revolting. The working class in nearby nations successfully overthrew their political leaders via communism/socialism. At the time there was a great fervor for revolution and communism/socialism was very popular. Based on these threats, fascism formed. Without these threats it is unlikely that fascism would ever have surfaced. This political climate does not exist now.

Which is why we are NOT on the road to fascism.

Big brother is fascism. I'm not going to risk my capital or cash to start a business if I have to give Big Brother 39% of my gains.

You can sugar coat our democratic socialism and it's still socialism and after we all go broke, it will be fascism.

[European]

To be honest:

Sometimes the stuff american conservatives say is extremly similar to the stuff the NPD (a right wing Nazi Party in Germany ony a few dumb idiots vote for) says...


Fascism was a reaction to communism. It incorporated tenants of socialism in order to pacify the revolting working class.


True BTW did you know that only the SPD (a left wing Socialdemocratic Party still exising today) voted against
the Enabiling Act in 1933 which led Hitler to power,all other centrist or right wing parties voted for that law!!!(and the ones that voted for Hitler werent even Nazis)
(the KPD communist party of germany was already forbidden and most of the members were executed or in conzentration camps so they werent able to vote against it)
Hitler believed that with the Centre Party members' votes, he would get the necessary two-thirds majority. Hitler negotiated with the Centre Party's chairman, Ludwig Kaas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Kaas), a Catholic priest, finalizing an agreement by March 22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_22). Kaas agreed to support the Act in exchange for the protection of Catholics' civil and religious liberties, religious schools and the retention of civil servants affiliated with the Centre Party.
source Wikipedia and my history book ;-)





And here is the law:

Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation

The Reichstag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_%28institution%29) has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsrat_%28Germany%29), it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:

Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.

Article 2
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.


Article 4
Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies of the legislature. The government of the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.



So Under the Act, the government had acquired the authority to pass laws without either parliamentary consent or control.And you know what this sort of reminds me of?The USA Patriot Act!!



So I'll end with the words of the brave leader of the SPD who spoke againt that law in a Reichstag speech and was later killed in a concentration camp:

"At this historic hour, we German Social Democrats pledge ourselves to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and Socialism. No Enabling Law can give you the power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible ... From this new persecution too German Social Democracy can draw new strength. We send greetings to the persecuted and oppressed. We greet our friends in the Reich. Their steadfastness and loyalty deserve admiration. The courage with which they maintain their convictions and their unbroken confidence guarantee a brighter future." [Noakes and Pridham, 1974].
Looking directly at Hitler, Wels proclaimed,
"You can take our lives and our freedom, but you cannot take our honour". We are defenseless but not honorless."

[brody]

After having read the above post the only thing I can conclude from it as applied to the current situation here is that Conservatives should stick to their beliefs and Republicans should vote down any Democratic bills because the SPD were against Hitler but made concessions and then ended up in concentration camps.

Or maybe you are trying to say that the two parties that you mentioned above should have just thrown out their convictions and voted in favor of having Hitler declared Fuhrer to avoid the repercussions.

Round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows.

[Voxpopuli]

Big brother is fascism. I'm not going to risk my capital or cash to start a business if I have to give Big Brother 39% of my gains.

You can sugar coat our democratic socialism and it's still socialism and after we all go broke, it will be fascism.

"Big Brother" is representative of a totalitarian state. Orwell, was pointing out the tyrany that results from a totalitarian government and not specifically a fascist one. Which is why he incorporated aspects of both the Nazi and Stalinist regimes in his book.

All fascists governments are totalitarian but not all totalitarian governments are fascist.

[nollmeyer]

"Big Brother" is representative of a totalitarian state. Orwell, was pointing out the tyrany that results from a totalitarian government and not specifically a fascist one. Which is why he incorporated aspects of both the Nazi and Stalinist regimes in his book.

All fascists governments are totalitarian but not all totalitarian governments are fascist.

I concur with this statement. The class stratification, hence the ability to rise or fail due to a meritocracy is in question.

I do not believe an olde school carbon clone of the 1930s is at hand. I do see elements of neo fascism, what I believe to be a soft fascism under a kindler gentler dictator. I believe this to be a democratically elected dictator. In the United States it will be collusion between the Republicans and Democrats.

If you are not a party man of either side you will be marginalized. Other parties will be heard slightly to give the veneer of legitimacy.
The democrats will concentrate on social welfare and the Republicans on corporatism.

The present market economics of Reagan-Stockman are defeated. The use of Fiat money or flexible currency is desired to inflate and deflate value thus destroying the competition.

In this way the Federal Reserve and Treasury can delivery the bogus currency and credit to their allies rescuing them and keeping challengers out.

Robert Mugabe deliberately drove his country into the ground knowing that the neo-colonialists would not interfere as he seized the properties of the olde guard from Europe. He successfully used autarky to drive others as refugees to other countries as his militias identified those they wished to eliminate.

I do not believe that Madoff, who drove his investors assets into the ground worked independently. He is rumoured to receive a plea deal now.