Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Is the US a fascist state?

140 replies

glasnost · 03/10/2011 21:07

Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

  1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
  1. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
  1. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
  1. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
  1. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
  1. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
  1. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
  1. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
  1. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

  1. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

  2. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

  3. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

  4. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

  5. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

From Liberty Forum

On the basis of this is the US a fascist state? And the UK? Italy undoubtedly is.

OP posts:
abendbrot · 04/10/2011 16:06

When comparing it to Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Zimbabwe, Peru or numerous others, I would say emphatically NO.

If you want to nitpick and say well some of those things apply some of the time, I would say YES.

Why are you singling out Italy above all these other countries? Nothing to do with the Kercher case I hope.

Original poster
glasnost · 04/10/2011 15:58

Oh well that's alright then.

You're wilfully ignoring the fundamental point about the congress being made up of politicians beholden to corporate interests.

Do you have vested interests in defending the US gov? Or do you seriously believe it is democratic? In which case you'll be very disappointed.

OP posts:
onagar · 04/10/2011 15:58

flim and flam?

You should look up the differences between legislative, executive and so on if you want to pass yourself off as some kind of political expert.

Ah here it comes. the big global conspiracy with the black helicopters and the secret world government. :o

Are they tapping your phone? Do you hear noises in the night as the world government agents sift through your rubbish? (at least they get paid to)

meditrina · 04/10/2011 15:37

Not film flam - US government structures 101.

I'm not quite sure what other point you are making. Rumsfeld, in his role in defence, had no authority over the FBI. Were you thinking of something/someone else? The Rumsfeld Doctrine, perhaps?

But the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were both properly authorised by the government: authorization for Use of Military Force September 18, 2001 , Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23] was passed on Spt 18th 2001, authorizing the use of force in afghanistan, followed by a NATO vote to involk article 5 of the NATO charter, then the UN Security Council passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 authorizing the use of Force.

The Iraq War resolution was passed in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Public Law 107-40 and Public Law No: 107-243 function as a declaration of war by the US Congress.

OP posts:
Original poster
glasnost · 04/10/2011 15:09

That's all so much flim and flam, meditrina, worthy of Donald Rumsfeld and his unknown knowns who - of course - had absolutely no say in the FBI's activities. At all. No way. Come along now.

Back to the congress. Is it or is it not populated by corporate puppets? Do a bit of research.

Congress is beholden to corporate interests. Congress has recently given person status to corporations.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/warning-corporate-fascist-military-coup-brewing-in-the-united-states.html

OP posts:
meditrina · 04/10/2011 14:37

Do you mean the Secret Service, or other services often described as secret?

Whichever, they are all federal government organisations subordinate to (not part of) the government. Many of these have appointees heading them.

They have however no role whatsoever in governing. They carry out government policy requirements. To suggest otherwise (ie that they have a policy making or legislative role) shows a lack of understanding of US government structures, procedures and functions.

Original poster
glasnost · 04/10/2011 14:04

All US legislators are elected becuase they have tonnes of money behind them put there by corpoarations who then expect them to do their bidding once in office.

I think you'll find the CIA is part of the gov. And it would be disingenuous to state that the head of it has no ties to the gov seeing as they put hm there.

OP posts:
meditrina · 04/10/2011 13:46

Being head of the Secret Services is not relevant to the point I was making, as the heads of the agencies are also not part of the government, and (like the military) act only under political direction.

All US legislators, whatever their background, are elected.

Original poster
glasnost · 04/10/2011 13:45

onagar they may not execute yet for believing in the wrong god but they do execute apparently innocent people in a bid not to seem "soft". (Troy Davis case not ring a bell?)

OP posts:
Disputandum · 04/10/2011 13:34

OP I think that the problem here is that the article is being used out of context to support a particular world view; just because Britt is able to show that the US shares some characteristics with historical fascist regimes does not mean that it shares all characteristics or that it must therefore be congruent.

Original poster
glasnost · 04/10/2011 13:15

ANYWAYS why don't you perhaps try to substitute military personnel with personnel from the corporate/financial sector. See where you get. The military hardly counts anymore. All you need are CIA minions in Nevada pressing buttons to guide drones anyway. All they really need apropos military personnel is cannon fodder to constitute the boots on the ground of which there will always be plenty as long as the populace at home is kept poor.

This list of 14 is a tad anachronistic and I never said anywhere that it's infallible. Corrections and modifications can be made.

I'd argue the corporate/financial sector is now instrumental in creating a fascistic state. Which the US has in spades. Congress is made up of corporate sponsored politicians doing the corporations' bidding.

OP posts:
Original poster
glasnost · 04/10/2011 12:36

meditrina no military personnel are in the gov ex officio?

www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/06/us-usa-cia-petraeus-idUSTRE7850VU20110906

No they just put them at the head of their secret services.

No time now but will have later.

OP posts:
meditrina · 04/10/2011 11:13

yy to mousema

One point missed re the supremacy of the military. It's totally absent in US. All military action is at the orders of the government. No military personnel are in the government ex officio.

onagar · 04/10/2011 10:08

I think Mousesma covered it.

The list of things I don't like about the US and UK governments is a long one, but both are still essentially democratic and free. Compare this to say Iran where a man is about to be executed for believing in the wrong god and Saudi Arabia where they have only just allowed women to vote.

mousesma · 04/10/2011 10:07

Good point about vigilance BelfastBloke I retract the "silly question" bit of my earlier post.

Disputandum · 04/10/2011 08:42

Mousesma - good response, particularly in regards the fact that several points do not apply to the current administration; Britt himself has said that it was intended as a criticism of the Bush administration and not of the US generally.

BelfastBloke · 04/10/2011 08:17

Good responses, mousesma. I'd disagree on a couple, but you've basically given a fair assessment.

You also said it was a silly question, mousesma. I don't think it's a silly question, because vigilance is required, and the US does have a number of tendencies towards fascism, as outlined above. But as you have outlined, it also has many facets where it just doesn't apply at all.

People are always too quick to describe 'the US' as crazy/fascist/fundamentalist/stupid etc etc just because some person, or even some state, does/says something stupid.

The OP's list is a bit vague and silly, but useful as talking points, I suppose.

mousesma · 04/10/2011 07:37

Can't believe I am justifying this silly question with a proper reponse but here goes.

  1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - you can have that one, but it's not compulsory and is sometimes riddiculed my main stream US satire Team America, Simpsons to name a few
  1. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - yes a bit, it's getting better under Obama but too slowly.
  1. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - same in most developed countries I think to distract from cock ups in local policy. Counter arguments can still be heard in main stream media though.
  1. Supremacy of the Military - Again I think most countries guilty of this, India for example has terrible poverty yet spends a fortune on their nuclear weapons program
  1. Rampant Sexism - No more than anywhere else. There are women in top government and legal positions. It's much easier to be taken seriously as a professional women in the US than in Italy for example. Abortion is still legal as is homosexuality and divorce. Don't confuse the US government with the fundamental right wing Christians that live in some parts of it
  1. Controlled Mass Media - The press is still free and can and does openly criticise the government.
  1. Obsession with National Security - Yes but is it different anywhere else.
  1. Religion and Government are Intertwined - No it's not again you are confusing the US goverment with the fundamental right wing Christians that live in some parts of it.
  1. Corporate Power is Protected - Yes but that is the price of captialism, when everyone is dependent on big business to prop up the economy and pay into pensions etc. then they will hold you to ransom.

  1. Labor Power is Suppressed - I don't know how the unions in the US work so can't comment.

  2. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Not sure this is true. The Arts thrive in the US including Indie films, music etc.

  3. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - The police do not have unlimited power there are some abuses of power but they are not endemic

  4. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Not true in current administration

  5. Fraudulent Elections - US still has free elections if they didn't the Repuclicans would still be in power.

So overall yes the US has some policies which could be considered Fascist i.e. Patriot Act but does not score highly enough to be a facist state. I think many of the qualities you have listed describe elements of the extreme right wing religious groups in the US but not the current administration.

Original poster
glasnost · 03/10/2011 22:43

An improvement on the frogs Disputandum but still doesn't quite cut it in explaining why the US hasn't become fascistic in protecting and furthering its corporate uberlords' interests.

OP posts:
Disputandum · 03/10/2011 22:43

And whilst the Patriot Act is controversial it is a long way from transferring all legislative powers to the President.

Disputandum · 03/10/2011 22:39

You have experienced the US as a repressive state recently Glasnost?

What, like Nigeria in the '80s?

Or did they just, like, stop you guys from holding up traffic on the bridge?

KatharineClifton · 03/10/2011 22:29

I meant to write 'many other eras pre 9/11'

KatharineClifton · 03/10/2011 22:29

Like it wasn't in the McCarthyite era, and many other eras post 9/11. The internet is the only thing which has made a difference. There is more information available to many more people. And yy to media! The NYT is perhaps the most dangerous as the bias is more hidden.

Original poster
glasnost · 03/10/2011 22:24

I agree Katherine viz the US having pursued a nefarious foreign policy for aeons but I feel post 9/11 it's become a repressive state within its own borders too as I've had occasion to witness recently.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread