Sticks and stones

[n0mad23]

After following (and contributing) to several of the political off-topic threads here, I thought it might be both interesting and potentially educational to dedicate a thread to political language itself. At least in terms of finding common ground in which such a disparate international community can better understand each other.

We are symbol makers and manipulators of pure abstraction. Unfortunately, in many instances this has been reduced to an absurdist position that it really doesn't matter. But it does.

For English users the phrase, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me," is a cliche. But it is utter nonsense and minimalizes the power contained in the language we use. How often do people come to blows after the escallation of charged language attacks?

Back in 1946, George Orwell published an essay titled, "Politics and the English Language." For those unfamiliar with it, although in many ways dated, its two part thesis is still applicable today.

Orwell writes, "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." It doesn't take much reflection to see that very little has changed in the last 62 years. Terminology such as "uncorrelated targets," "liberation," and "fledgling democracies," do more to obscure reality than allow us to have informed positions.

The second part of his thesis is this: "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." In many ways, this is even more provocative and the basis for the direction I'm hoping this thread will go.

In other words, Orwell indicates that if we're not thinking about the words we use, then the words are doing the thinking for us. What's important then is the definitions we're using, as the definitions offer boundaries to contain meaning.

I, for one, would rather not be a meat puppet.

What I'm proposing here is to define, discuss, and debate the political models and philosophies themselves. What exactly is meant when someone invokes "democracy?" What is "socialism," and how is it different than "communism?"

And how have these definitions slipped and/or been appropriated to mean something entirely different?

To start it off, and to give you an idea of what I'm asking for, I'm going to give you one of the modern terms that annoys me to no end.

"Islamo-fascist."

This one bothers me because it's a conflation of terms, and a juxtaposition of two incompatable models. It also relies on people accepting that "fascism" is a bad thing without knowing what it is.

However, my annoyance is also because of the definition of "fascism" that I have chosen to embrace, and must conceed that there are many who don't find "corporatism" to have any connection to fascism.

Here's the definition I've been using as articulated in Wikipedia:

"Corporatism and fascism

Some critics equate too much corporate power and influence with fascism. Often they cite a quote claimed to be from Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Several variations of the alleged quote exist. However no text written by Mussolini has yet been found with any variation of the alleged quote.[20]. Despite this, the alleged quote has entered into modern discourse, and it appears on thousands of web pages[21], and in books[22], and even an alternative media advertisement in the Washington Post.[23]. However, the alleged quote contradicts almost everything else written by Mussolini on the subject of the relationship between corporations and the Fascist State.[20].

In one 1935 English translation of what Mussolini wrote, the term "corporative state" is used,[13] but this has a different meaning from modern uses of the terms used to discuss business corporations. In that same translation, the phrase "national Corporate State of Fascism," refers to syndicalist corporatism. The dubious quote is sometimes claimed to more accurately summarize what Mussolini did and not what he said. However many scholars of fascism reject this claim.

There is a very old argument about who controlled whom in the fascist states of Italy and Germany at various points in the timeline of power. It is agreed that the army, the wealthy, and the big corporations ended up with much more say in decision making than other elements of the corporative state[24][25][26]. There was a power struggle between the fascist parties/leaders and the army, wealthy, and big corporations. It waxed and waned as to who had more power at any given time. Scholars have used the term "Mussolini's corporate state" in many different ways[27].

Franklin D. Roosevelt in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism:

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes
stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.[28][29][30]

From the same message:

The Growing Concentration of Economic Power. Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935: "Ownership of corporate assets: Of all corporations reporting from every part of the Nation, one-tenth of 1 percent of them owned 52 percent of the assets of all of them."[28][30]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_fascism/Redirect#Corporatism_and_fascism)

Ok, the rules here are simple. This is the domain of the Hegelian dialectic and the ideas are allowed to openly duke it out. However, this is a battle of ideas and there is no room for personal attacks. Personal attacks don't promote dialog or debate, but shut down communication altogether.

Edit:
Perhaps someone would like to tackle "Democracy?" It seems as an ideal, a system worth pursuing. But which form? Again, the term itself can be rather limiting if you think there's only one type.

Anyone?

 

[GregBurch]

As usual, we agree on almost nothing :lol:

I'll pick one term to discuss initially -- "Islamofascist." I think it's an absolutely defensible and quite useful term. Here's why.

1. Meaning. To me, the salient characteristics of fascism are totalitarianism and the belief that some subset of society is best suited to rule politically, and is destined somehow to do so. Both apply to the Islamist movement. One of the things that the "religion of peace" crowd (Karen Armstrong comes to mind) utterly miss or simply don't want to talk about is the FACT that Islam purports to be a TOTAL way of life. Every minute detail of life in all of its aspects is to be regulated by Sharia, in the view of Salafist Islamists. This is the very essence of totalitarianism.

As for the "privileging" (how's that for post-modernist cant) of one group over all others, you simply can't beat Islam: The faithful are superior in every respect, and those who live in the dar al Islam who do not submit (after all, the definition of "Islam" is submission), are to be treated as "dhimmis" -- second-class citizens. The documentation of the reality of dhimmitude, both historically and presently in many Muslim societies, is extensive. But you won't hear about it unless you dig, even though its a fact of life for tens of millions of people in the world today. Why, I wonder?

2. History. The connection between the modern Islamist movement and European fascism is real and vital. Reading the sanitized "history" on offer from the Islamic apologists in the West, you'd never know about the fascinating story of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1920s-1940s. This fellow was one of the principal instigators of violence against non-Muslims in Jerusalem in those years, so much so that even the Islamophilic British finally got fed up with him. During the second World War, he went to Germany, where he actively and enthusiastically generated and disseminated anti-semetic propaganda for the Third Reich, and organized a "Muslim Corp" that engaged in religiously-based genocide in the Balkans on behalf of the Nazis. he served as a major conduit of European fascist ideology into organizations like the Baath party, and also into the Muslim Brotherhood.

Oh, and guess who the Grand Mufti's nephew was? Yassir Arafat.

So, I think the term is quite valid. Now, of course, all Muslims do not accept the totalistic and oppressive view of Islam that is well supported in the Islamic scriptures and the modern practice of Sharia in many places. Which is one good reason to have a term like "Islamofascism" -- it highlights the distinctive ideology of the Salafist Islamists as distinct from the beliefs and practices of those Muslims who reject them.

 

[tblaxland]

As usual, we agree on almost nothing :lol:

Strange, because from where I sit you don't seem that far apart. For example:

That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

From that, I take "Islamo-facism" to mean Islamists taking control of government. That is pretty much what Greg is saying here:

Every minute detail of life in all of its aspects is to be regulated by Sharia, in the view of Salafist Islamists.

The only difference I can see is in scope - "ownership of government" is not as broad as control of "every minute detail of life".

 

[n0mad23]

Fabulous guys,

This is exactly what I had in mind, and it's using the dialectic approach as well.

So Greg, it seems that definition is what's keeping us apart here. It's why I was compelled to do this thread, as definition is so important. If we're not really talking about the same thing, how will we ever understand each others positions?

For you, "totalitarianism" is the core of fascism. In a sense, I agree with you - but only to a point, as I think that it's inseparable from "private power...[that's] become
stronger than their democratic state itself." It's why there's a difference (though minor) between a dictatorship and totalitarianism. Although I wasn't a supporter of Ron Paul's bid (sorry Andy44), I was intrigued that someone from the GOP would be using a parallel definition of fascism that I use.

For me, here and now, corporate control (how many lobbiests are there for every representative now?) is a real threat to democracy. Couple that with raging nationalism and the elimination of civil liberties and we've got a real problem.

That said, I've got to congratulate you for the above post. For the first time I actually understand why this term can be used without it being an "Orwellian" double-speak, or radical misuse of the language. Nicely done.

Islam, in its basic structure, is quite different from its other monotheistic "people of the book" religions in that it's praxis based rather than based in orthodoxies. It's about doing more so than believing (yes, there are radical fundamentalist deviations from this as well, but I'm talking about the core). In this sense, it is a "Total way of life." This then is a totalitarian approach, is it not? Huh...

Somehow (must be my advanced age) I'd completely forgotten about the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and this fits into the puzzle quite neatly. Though not the corporate control that scares me so much, it parallels the same hierarchical structure so closely that the term perhaps isn't as problematic as I'd thought.

All right then. What are some of the other political systems and/or terminologies that cause misunderstandings like this?

 

[Eagle]

What a delightful thread.

tblaxland's observation that definitions for terms are not even shared probably has several pounds of truth in it. Almost worse than a language barrier in some respects.

Don't mind me, I'm just passing through.

 

[tblaxland]

Almost worse than a language barrier in some respects.

Worse. At least with a language barrier (foreign language, that is) you know that you don't understand each other. With these political language misunderstandings you can go on having an argument, banging your head against a wall, thinking "why doesn't the other guy just get it!"

Don't mind me, I'm just passing through.

The more the merrier

All right then. What are some of the other political systems and/or terminologies that cause misunderstandings like this?

One concept I have always had trouble assigning a clear definition to is "left-wing/right-wing". The only politics I have any real knowledge of is our Australian system and it seems the left and right swap between the two major political parties every other week. Is there really a left and right in modern politics?

 

[GregBurch]

Is there really a left and right in modern politics?

I'd say very much so. As viewed by an American, the extreme left is socialist and oriented to placing the locus of legal rights in groups (so long as the group isn't a corporation), while the extreme right is socially conservative to the point of applying state power to enforce minutely defined social norms and tends to be blind to corporate abuse of power.

Unfortunately, individual liberty gets strangled in the conflict between these two extremes, whichever tends to be on top, because government power is almost inevitably a one-way ratchet. So the left curtails property rights when it is in power and moves the locus of other legal rights to groups instead of individuals, and the right curtails moral liberty when it is in power, and neglects the application of principles of basic justice to economic power wielded by corporate actors. The same principles apply in every polity, but the spectrum is shifted leftward or rightward depending on the basic political culture of specific places. Thus a fairly extreme left-winger in the US would be considered moderate or even right-wing in Europe, for instance.

 

[n0mad23]

As viewed by an American, the extreme left is socialist and oriented to placing the locus of legal rights in groups (so long as the group isn't a corporation), while the extreme right is socially conservative to the point of applying state power to enforce minutely defined social norms and tends to be blind to corporate abuse of power.

For a concise answer, I'm largely in agreement here, but I think it's important to expand on it a bit. The extreme left occupying the position of socialism can be true, but overly limits the other groups that are here as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the socialist identification is largely because of the New Deal Liberals which is when the welfare state enters into our history. Modern Democrats largely still honor this 'tradition,' and their identification with FDR.

But the left also includes social democrats, Rawlsian liberals, civil libertarians, and the occasional anarchist democrat - and finding a socialist connection with some of these groups is quite a stretch.

Thus a fairly extreme left-winger in the US would be considered moderate or even right-wing in Europe, for instance.

This really leaped out when I read it, and hopefully it offers some insight to the non-US readership here. I've tried to explain this recently myself to someone about the Greens here in the States. The best I could do was equate them with the German Social Democrats as an US Green isn't a European one.

 

[tblaxland]

I'd say very much so. As viewed by an American, the extreme left is socialist and oriented to placing the locus of legal rights in groups (so long as the group isn't a corporation), while the extreme right is socially conservative to the point of applying state power to enforce minutely defined social norms and tends to be blind to corporate abuse of power.

OK, thanks. That has helped clarify my own definition of left-right. I don't know what it is like in the US but it seems to me that in a bid for popular votes both our major parties (the ALP and the Liberals) are both fighting to occupy the centre.

The same principles apply in every polity, but the spectrum is shifted leftward or rightward depending on the basic political culture of specific places. Thus a fairly extreme left-winger in the US would be considered moderate or even right-wing in Europe, for instance.

This really leaped out when I read it, and hopefully it offers some insight to the non-US readership here. I've tried to explain this recently myself to someone about the Greens here in the States. The best I could do was equate them with the German Social Democrats as an US Green isn't a European one.

n0mad23, you sent me off to do some reading on your Green Party and the German Social Democrats. My overall impression is that, as far as political culture goes, I would put the Australian centre in between those of the US and Europe. We are so centrist that we occupy the centre of the centres!

 

[Linguofreak]

I'd say very much so. As viewed by an American, the extreme left is socialist and oriented to placing the locus of legal rights in groups (so long as the group isn't a corporation), while the extreme right is socially conservative to the point of applying state power to enforce minutely defined social norms and tends to be blind to corporate abuse of power.

Unfortunately, individual liberty gets strangled in the conflict between these two extremes, whichever tends to be on top, because government power is almost inevitably a one-way ratchet. So the left curtails property rights when it is in power and moves the locus of other legal rights to groups instead of individuals, and the right curtails moral liberty when it is in power, and neglects the application of principles of basic justice to economic power wielded by corporate actors. The same principles apply in every polity, but the spectrum is shifted leftward or rightward depending on the basic political culture of specific places. Thus a fairly extreme left-winger in the US would be considered moderate or even right-wing in Europe, for instance.

You also get "strange bedfellow" and "strange enemy" effects. Two groups can end up on the same side of the political spectrum as a result of agreeing on a few issues when they disagree on most. And vice versa.

Also, you're talking about left and right in terms of whether they see rights as a group or individual thing, but what about responsibilities?

 

[n0mad23]

I'm wondering if perhaps this thread isn't a little too "meaty" for most, as it doesn't promote knee-jerk responses.

I was going to turn to socialism next, but I'm finding I'm still thinking mostly about fascism, so I'll stay here for the moment.

I found this one again, and find it both provocative and more than slightly inflammatory. Perhaps this is the spark that can kick things forward a bit.



[FONT=&quot]Fascism Anyone?[/FONT]

Laurence W. Britt

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.

​

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. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché 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. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

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. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. 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, 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.

For the works cited page, see http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm


Alright, so if you've read this, you can see it's pretty inflammatory. In what ways is this (or isn't it) a good working definition of fascism?

 

[Notebook]

It just seems like a list of bad things?

N.

 

[Eagle]

Interesting post Nomad. I do appreciate seeing different views of the world. The definition was a little wordy for my taste. I like the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) method.

I guess the US still has a few good protections against Fascism including:
- Civilian run military that is sworn to the Constitution, not government, state, or people. (Zero chance of military coup, ever.)
- An uncontrolled media
- Little regulation on art or non-science academics
- Checks and balances in gov't still exist.
- And others, I'm tired of typing.

It technically doesn't matter what fascism is defined as, just as long as we're consistent.


-----Posted Added-----


Really, I guess it isn't a terrible definition. Fascist governments can be identified as holding these traits: (the bullet points).

I could argue against a few of the arguments and that others are missing. Non-toleration of dissent seems to be a significant omission. But, we won't get far in discussions if we can't get past definitions.

 

[GregBurch]

The definition you offer is extraordinarily parochial in a historical sense. For glaring example, before 1980 or so, no one would have thought to include "sexism" in a definition of fascism. Frankly, the definition sounds to me like a list of everything that the head of the literature department in a modern American university doesn't like. :lol:

In fact, it very, very much reminds me of this:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/03/1033538721280.html

Remember that? When that great scholar of political philosophy, Barbara Streisand, posted a quote from a Shakespeare play that fit her rants against the Bush administration to a "t." The only problem was that it was from a non-existent play -- it was a complete fabrication; or this:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/pelosi-quotes-phony-bible-verse-to.html

Where Nancy Pelosi used a quote from the Bible that exactly supported her views on environmentalism. Only it was also a complete fabrication.

Yeah -- it kind of reminds of those ...

 

[tblaxland]

In what ways is this (or isn't it) a good working definition of fascism?

IMHO, it is more a description of the symptoms of fascism than a definition of it. The extract I pulled from your OP seems a more succinct definition to me:

That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The 14 items in your above post are consequences of the ruling elite's attempts to protect their position.

 

[David]

Quote from Mussolini:

"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."

(from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html)


The manifest characteristics of a fascist society, are implicit from this - including:

Nationalism/militarism - pursuit of the glory of the state

Lack of human rights and of populism/democracy/classism(as in Marxist theory) - these are antithetical to the supremacy of the state, since they value personal or subgroup concerns, rather than unity. Fascism thus tends to be characterized by dictatorship, presumably by someone who will tend to the singular interest of the state as a whole.

Lack of free media and free enterprise - again, what is important is only that which serves the state. Rather than fascism's "protecting corporations," these tend to be nationalized; corporate personnel with expertise in the specialized needs and functions of a particular industry, will be valued and therefore politically influential, but this is because they are useful to the state and its control of the industry, rather than their being influential as if the corporation controls the state.

Perhaps lack of labor unions, religions and artistic pursuits - again, what matters is what is useful to the state, not what is useful to individuals or subgroups.

Harsh laws - arguably necessary for controlling the population, to ensure that citizens pursue only the interest of the state (which is not the default consideration of humans)

Corruption/cronyism - not specifically implied by collectivism, but perhaps inevitable within a dictatorship which, to some extent, is necessarily oligarchic, rather than purely monarchical, in a technologically sophisticated economy

 

[n0mad23]

As a kid, I lived in both Cameroon and Indonesia. Both of these governments were undeniably dictatorships, but neither quite fit the bill for fascism. I was a bit surprised that Britt's article had labeled Suharto's government as a fascist one.

I think in many ways, Tblaxland's observation coincides with my thinking in this posting. The 14 bullets all have to do with the symptoms of a political system whose power-base is protected by a ruling elite. However, I think as symptoms and/or warning signs, they have more than a bit more credibility than Barbara or Nancy's strange (yet telling) fabrications.

The media control is particularly disturbing for me as a US citizen. Granted, none are under a direct government control, but the consolidation and ownership by less than 7 groups really doesn't bode well for freedom of information.

In this sense, nothing seems to change much. How's the old cliche go? "Freedom of the press only applies to those with a printing press." Or how about, "You have the right to free speech, as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it."

Edit:
I guess the growing US prison population sends up red flags for me as well. Even though we've got less than 1/4 the population of China, we have more people before bars. It hasn't always been this way either, and it certainly doesn't seem like it's solve the crime problems.

Back when the idiot Carter left office, we only had 200,000 prisoners.

 

[GregBurch]

The media control is particularly disturbing for me as a US citizen. Granted, none are under a direct government control, but the consolidation and ownership by less than 7 groups really doesn't bode well for freedom of information.

In this sense, nothing seems to change much. How's the old cliche go? "Freedom of the press only applies to those with a printing press." Or how about, "You have the right to free speech, as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it."

Let me focus on just this point for a moment. I hear folks on the left getting hysterical about "media ownership consolidation" all the time. Bill Moyers has become the patron saint of this particular catechism.

So here's my question to those fearful of corporate control of the media. It's never been cheaper in both absolute and relative terms to create and disseminate media content. Listening to a Moyers speech in my car a couple of months ago, as he moaned and groaned and warned and prophesied about how terrible the corporate media barons were, I carried on an imaginary dialogue with him. My question was: If what you have to say is so all-fired important to the public good, who the hell is stopping you from saying it? And if you think it's so utterly important to find a slick, expensive outlet for whatever message you think should be laid before the people, who's stopping you from raising the money to do that? Where's George Soros and all your friends in Hollywood when you need them, Bill? And speaking of your friends in Hollywood, an overwhelming majority of them seem to agree with your view that America is becoming a fascist state. They have a LOT of dough. And they also have a lot of media saavy. So ... what's stopping you, Bill?

Bill didn't answer. But I can imagine an answer: That what he has to say will be so deeply unpopular, that it can't be a commercial success. Ahh, so then what? Well, we could go back to George Soros and Babs Streisand and George Clooney and ask them to pay up for a non-profit news outlet. Why don't you do that, Bill?

No answer.

I think Bill wanted ME to pay for his news outlet. In fact, I'm pretty sure he did.

 

[Andy44]

Guys like Moyers will complain about media consolidation on the one hand, while complaining about the wild nature of the internet on the other. Funny they never see the irony.

 

[tblaxland]

The media control is particularly disturbing for me as a US citizen. Granted, none are under a direct government control, but the consolidation and ownership by less than 7 groups really doesn't bode well for freedom of information.

In this sense, nothing seems to change much. How's the old cliche go? "Freedom of the press only applies to those with a printing press." Or how about, "You have the right to free speech, as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it."

It's never been cheaper in both absolute and relative terms to create and disseminate media content.

Cheaper and easier. I'm less concerned about media consolidation than I used to be a decade ago. Anyone with a computer and an internet connection can have a fairly widespread voice, ie, just about anyone has virtual printing press. In some ways that can be a problem since "citizen media" often does not have the same quality control as more professional media outlets. Still, there are some respectable alternative outlets online - Stephen Mayne's anti-establishment crikey.com.au comes to mind. Seven major media groups sounds a long way from a monopoly to me - but then for as long as I can remember the media in this conuntry has been majority controlled by less corporations that you can literally count on one hand, so I guess it is all relative to your experiences.

I think Bill wanted ME to pay for his news outlet. In fact, I'm pretty sure he did.

I'm curious, do you have any state owned media in the US? We have both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service. Both of these provide high quality news and current affairs programming (eg 7:30 Report and Insight) amongst the entertainment. The ABC has been accused of left-wing bias a number of times but these accusations are generally not upheld (btw, of 19 former staff to take up political careers, 10 went left, 9 went right). All in all, it is a service I am happy to pay for (through taxes) and use.

Edit:
I guess the growing US prison population sends up red flags for me as well. Even though we've got less than 1/4 the population of China, we have more people before bars. It hasn't always been this way either, and it certainly doesn't seem like it's solve the crime problems.

I have had concerns about this on a state level here. Our current state government has a "lock-em up and throw away the keys" attitude to dealing with crime. That said, it would be drawing a long bow to accuse the NSW Labor Government of fascist tendancies.