How close to being a fascist nation is the USA?

[Skyrad 0]

Dr L W Britt defined fascism using fourteen points.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

5. Rampant sexism

6. A controlled mass media

7. Obsession with national security

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

9. Power of corporations protected

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

14. Fraudulent elections

It seems to me that the USA currently fulfils many if not all of these points and is on a slide towards the rest. Am I wrong? Is today's USA one which the founding Fathers would recognise? Was this their dream?

'Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power.'

Benito Mussolini.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[billvon 2,991]

Any definition of fascism is bound to fail; it has come to mean "anything bad" and is used in such a context in modern conversation.

From an essay by George Orwell:

============
Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: ‘What is Fascism?’

One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this question of a hundred different people, and got answers ranging from ‘pure democracy’ to ‘pure diabolism’. In this country if you ask the average thinking person to define Fascism, he usually answers by pointing to the German and Italian régimes. But this is very unsatisfactory, because even the major Fascist states differ from one another a good deal in structure and ideology. . . .

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
==============

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Any definition of fascism is bound to fail; it has come to mean "anything bad" and is used in such a context in modern conversation.

Which is why I gave a clear definition so people can talk from the same criteria.

Seems Ron Paul agrees, but I don't think this is a Dem Vs GOP thing as BHO hasn't exactly been a beacon of democracy either nor any other Lib or REP POTUS in my lifetime.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57380947/paul-u.s--slipping-into-a-fascist-system/

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kelpdiver 2]

as close as we are to colonizing the moon.

[kelpdiver 2]

btw, virtually none of these 14 points apply to the US, without using a ridiculous standard that ignores any sense of perspective.

[Skyrad 0]

Guess it looks very different from the inside.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[billvon 2,991]

>Which is why I gave a clear definition so people can talk from the same criteria.

To go from your list, then:

>1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

Not really. At any given time the out-of-favor party can be heard lamenting the death of all that is decent in the country.

>2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

No.

>3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

Not really. We just aren't that organized. We'll target communists/mexicans/muslims etc but that's pretty transient.

>4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

No.

>5. Rampant sexism

No.

>6. A controlled mass media

No.

>7. Obsession with national security

Somewhat, but we are a long way from any kind of obsessive national security.

>8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

No.

>9. Power of corporations protected

Some validity here; we see more and more law intended to protect corporations at the expense of people.

>10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

No.

>11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

A bit of partisan effect here, but nothing systemic.

>12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Somewhat true based on the numbers.

>13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

That certainly exists here, but as a while we're a lot less corrupt than most countries.

>14. Fraudulent elections

No. Every study I've seen simply cannot find any significant fraudulent voting.

[mpohl 1]

That should answer your question.

No need to reinvent the wheel!!!


http://www.fascismusa.com

Quote

Dr L W Britt defined fascism using fourteen points.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

5. Rampant sexism

6. A controlled mass media

7. Obsession with national security

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

9. Power of corporations protected

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

14. Fraudulent elections

It seems to me that the USA currently fulfils many if not all of these points and is on a slide towards the rest. Am I wrong? Is today's USA one which the founding Fathers would recognise? Was this their dream?

'Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power.'

Benito Mussolini.

[quade 4]

Besides which, you can easily tell we're not yet a facist country; our trains do not run on time.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mpohl 1]

It is not only that your fascist trains (Steve Reich, "Different Trains" anyone?) don't run on-time.
A Fascist Train from the EC to the WC for a family of four runs on the order of $1,400++!!!!

And that's for basic accommodation. No sleeper nothing.

Seems middle-class families are relegated to air travel!!!!

What's up with that, BITCH?

Quote

Besides which, you can easily tell we're not yet a facist country; our trains do not run on time.

[livendive 8]

I would disagree with you on several of those points. I think we, collectively, express nationalism to a fault, despite plenty of evidence that we're the best at very few things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16K6m3Ua2nw (It's Hollywood, fictional, and dramatized, but the most poignant fictional moments rely on some element of truth to be believable)

I think we very much make a point of dehumanizing our enemies. Whether it's communists, or muslims, or liberal/republicans...we collectively are very poor at any sort of empathy for those with whom we disagree.

I don't know how you can say we're not avidly militaristic with a straight face. Have you seen our defense budget? Or how ostracized politicians are for suggesting we cut back to maybe double a ridiculous amount?

Obsession with national security...not there yet, but the Patriot Act took a big step in that direction. I hope we step back from it.

Religion and the ruling elite. Mostly. The Republicans don't have full control, but they've got the churches trying to hand it to them.

Power of corporations protected. We just called them constitutionally protected people, after spending and unbelievably huge amount of money bailing them out over the last several years.

Republicans have been trying to squash the arts for years and Democrats seem ready to cry uncle.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Andy9o8 2]

I think Livendive's post #11 is closest to accurate thus far.

I'll answer your OP query succinctly (for now): it's not nearly as fascist as during the early-to-mid 1950's; it was considerably more so back then. And we survived that. We'll survive this, too.

[aphid 0]

Quote

I think Livendive's post #11 is closest to accurate thus far.

No argument here...

Quote

I'll answer your OP query succinctly (for now): it's not nearly as fascist as during the early-to-mid 1950's; it was considerably more so back then. And we survived that. We'll survive this, too.

I agree, America will survive. But the price paid while awaiting social, political and judicial recovery, will be and currently is being borne by many unfortunate individuals both home and abroad. Sadly, many of these will unlikely live long enough to experience that redemption.

John

[loch1957 0]

American fascism: by political definition the US is now fascist, not a constitutional republic, we were never a democracy. Democracy is gang rule "two wolves and a sheep arguing over whats for supper"guess who wins that argument.

The OP requirements are not the best standards of a fascist nation.

The definition of “fascism” has some academic variance, but is essentially collusion among corporatocracy, authoritarian government, and controlled media and education.

Take a half hour and read Carl Herman's article, including the links.

Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher in economics, government, and history. Yes folks we are and have been a fascist country for a while. But feel free to delude yourself as much as you wish.

http://www.examiner.com/article/american-fascism-by-political-definition-the-us-is-now-fascist-not-a-constitutional-republic

Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”

[billvon 2,991]

>American fascism: by political definition the US is now fascist

Per its detractors it has been for a long time. (At least since around 1945, when "fascist" was redefined as "all things bad.")

[ShcShc11 0]

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3D6NMr2VrhmFI

[billvon 2,991]

>I don't know how you can say we're not avidly militaristic with a straight face.

The part I was responding to was "supremacy of the military." We do not automatically give military leaders positions in government; they are kept quite separate. We forbid soldiers from using their military positions to advocate their political positions; the exact language is that they cannot participate in any "activity supporting or relating to candidates representing, or issues specifically identified with, national or State political parties and associated or ancillary organizations.” This is in stark opposition to countries where military leaders are the de facto government.

We go to great lengths to ensure we do NOT allow military supremacy in our government. We do, however, have a huge military.

>I think we very much make a point of dehumanizing our enemies. Whether it's
>communists, or muslims, or liberal/republicans...we collectively are very poor at any
>sort of empathy for those with whom we disagree.

Yes, we do. But from my experience it is the media and the people of the US in general who do that, not our government.

Our history has shown a steady decline in our government's proclivity to dehumanize, harass and abuse "the enemy." In the 1940's we imprisoned Japanese because they were Japanese. In the 1950's McCarthy tried to imprison communists and succeeded only rarely (fortunately) - at that point his power had largely become limited to blacklisting them.

After 9/11 we had the media (and indeed the people of the US) advocating doing all sorts of things to Arabs - making them "prove they stand with us", restricting their ability to enter the country etc. And almost down the line the government said "no, sorry, you can't do that."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Guess it looks very different from the inside.

Bill took the time to do the point by point, and I find myself in pretty high agreement, including the few where there's a little smoke. But we're not remotely close on most, and far less so than we were in the past.

If you want to make your case, you'll need to do the same point by point coverage. Then we can rip the claims to shreds.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Which is why I gave a clear definition so people can talk from the same criteria.

The criteria listed are each very subjective. Nearly every criterion can be reasonably argued either way. That makes the definition very unclear.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[sfzombie 3]

yo missed some, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 , and 13 are all yes
the media is controlled either by one party or the other

http://kitswv.com

[billvon 2,991]

>the media is controlled either by one party or the other

No more so than they are controlled by their advertisers (i.e. "big business") their demographics (i.e. "the viewers") or their own corporate officers (i.e. "the bigwigs.")

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

>9. Power of corporations protected

Some validity here; we see more and more law intended to protect corporations at the expense of people.

You just answered the OP's question right there. The broad use of fascism as a pejorative term is irrelevant as are the above 14 points referenced in the original post. Mussolini's definition was simple -- the meshing of corporation and state. It's happening not only in America, but all over the world. Here is one example in Northwestern Ireland where the police are protecting the interests of Royal Dutch Shell rather than the people who live there.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[billvon 2,991]

>Mussolini's definition was simple -- the meshing of corporation and state.
>It's happening not only in America, but all over the world.

It's been happening since this country has been founded, and quite far beyond that. Sometimes the government "palls around" with corporations. One of the earliest examples are "letters of marque and reprisal" as a way to get cheap military help. Modern day examples are the FCC being chummy with TV stations, factory farms having undue influence over the USDA, and Blackwater and Halliburton being able to operate with near-impunity with the government's blessing.

And sometimes the government kicks them to the curb. Examples here would be the breakup of Standard Oil, the deregulation of phone and airline industries, the re-auctioning of parts of the EM spectrum and the slow privatization of companies like Amtrak and the Post Office.

[SkydiveJonathan 0]

Considering the sheer size and social penetration of its police and imprisonment apparatus, the United States is not only a police state, but the biggest police state in the world, by far: the police state against whose dimensions all other police systems on Earth must be measured.

[SkydiveJonathan 0]

For the American media, including lots of media that claim to be of the Left, it is axiomatic that China is a police state. And maybe, by some standards, it is. But, according to United Nations figures, China is 87th in the world in the proportion of its people who are imprisoned. China is a billion people bigger than the United States – more than four times the population – yet U.S. prisons house in excess of 600,000 more people than China does. The Chinese prison population is just 70 percent of the American Gulag.