Interesting.
As by the examples you give, you do not appear to confound fascism with mere authoritarianism as so often happens, it may be worth wile to examine whether the list of criteria you give are necessary components of fascism, whether they are defining for it and whether they are applicable to the present day USA:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AA
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.
|
The list starts off well enough. This is indeed both a necessary and defining component of fascism. Although the merely tangentially related issue of xenopohbia has no place in this point.
It is also applicable to the USA and I'd give it a 65/100 score.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AA
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.
|
Disdain doesn't consitute a necessary nor a defining component. Nothing short of the complete absence of human rights and the rock hard institutionalization of this in the laws of the examined nation would suffice to identify fascism. Since there's neither necessity nor definition for the proposed criterion, the score is 0/100.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AA
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.
|
This is a defining, though not necessary component. It's no coincidence it's a common characteristic of the aforementioned regimes, but, yet, it is not absolutely critical to the system itself. For its semi-applicability I'd give it a 40/100.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AA
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.
|
Both necessary and defining. As for the applicability I would set it no higher than 50/100. The economies of the aforementioned regimes were at times
entirely dedicated to military production. This has never been, nor is at present, the case in the USA. Consumer goods are the primary output.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AA
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.
|
Where does this come from ? It's not necessary to fascism, it's not defining, it's not even a characteristic of the regimes in the OP. And it's certainly not applicable to the USA where there are many laws that precisely seek to eliminate sexism, notbaly those that are decried as 'PC' by their opponents. There can only be vehement opposition to abortion when abortion is allowed in the first place. A clear 0/100 and it should in fact receive a negative mark.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AA
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.
|
Perception is
not reality. The mass media in the USA, generally, are controlled by a small elite, yet this is not the political elite. The goals of the mass media taken as a whole are mercantile, not political. A politically controlled mass media would imply that all avenues speak with the same voice, i.e. that all channels would be Fox (or its opposite).
Yet, for the reason that there is some overlap between economical and political elites and that some outlets are blatantly catering to the ruling parties, I'll credit the item with a generous 15/100.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AA
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.
|
Highest score so far. This part of the ideology is most applicable to the examined case because of the great disparity between the actual and perceived threat : 80/100.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AA
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.
|
This is not a necessary, nor a defining component. It is not defining as it is almost the rule in any regime in history. Only a handful of specifically secularist nations in recent centuries can claim true independence between the prevalent religion and the ruling elite. Up and until the French and American revolutions there is hardly a single exception to the rule. Even today, some nations that would never be considered fascist, retain this allegiance between the religious and the elite, i.c. some of the European monarchies.
0/100.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AA
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.
|
There is exactly one system in which the power of corporations is not protected : anarchism. Since you do not differentiate between the private vs. public ownership of said corporations, the criterion doesn't even manage to distinguish between the extremes of economic organization. The criterion is for instance perfectly and entirely applicable to the Soviet Union.
An unavoidable 0/100.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AA
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.
|
While definitely being a necessary and defining component of fascism, its applicability to the US is highly questionable. The absence, rather than suppression, of labour power is by consensus, not by enforcement. This appears to be a cultural, ideological trait of American society, rather than a result of the will of the ruling elite. Not more than 10/100.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AA
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.
|
Pretty much the same case here. Anti-intellectualism is an obvious and widely spread attribute of American society, but again, this appears to be no more than a consensual and voluntary cultural trait. But for it to be taken into consideration as an attribute of a fascist State, it would have to be incorporated into the very legislation of the country. This isn't the case. I'll give it 30/100 though because there have been
some cases of official suppression and physical attacks on intellectuals.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AA
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.
|
This is not a defining criterion of fascism but of authoritarianism. I'm suprised you now manage to amalgamate the two despite the correct examples in the relevant paragraph in the OP.
0/100.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AA
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.
|
Ditto. In fact, it's even less than a characteristic of authoritarianism. It is unavoidable in all hierarchic systems. Not a necessary, nor a defining compenent, ergo 0/100.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AA
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.
|
It isn't necessary to have fraudulent elections to institute fascism. Ignorance and gullibility of the populace suffice. It is not defining either. A 99% + score in elections is not proverbially called Stalinist for nothing. Defining, nor necessary, thus 0/100.
The overall score for the present day USA held against the criterions you've set forward to identify it as fascist is therefore : 290/1400.
This is 20.7% or a big fat "F".
Since the list of criterions fails in many places to present either necessary or defining characteristics of fascism, it appears to be compiled
ad hoc with the specific purpose to label the present day USA as a fascist State.
But even these
ad hoc criteria fail miserably to do so.
I find it disrepectful towards the many victims of actual fascist regimes to apply the term with such looseness. All systems based on hierarchy show some tendencies towards, and aspects of fascism, but many bridges have to be crossed before fascism is actually, entirely and exclusively institutionalized. And at each passing of a metaphorical bridge, the populace has the opportunity and power to say : "No pasaran".
05-28-2007
Linear Mode
