Argument against the idea of the USA becoming more fascist

[FiziKx]

I posted this on a revolutionary-left (aka Commies, Anarchists, etc.) discussion forum, and boy did I ever get the people there riled up XD Thought I'd share it with you. Some of you may agree with me, and some may also get riled up and argue... oh well: to each his own.

Some members there actually accused me of working for a Democratic Party Liberal NGO being paid to write this on their forum (talk about paranoid psychopaths who have a problem with authority and reason)

Anyway, my responses are based on an image that I saw on a website about the United States becoming more fascist. I, personally, believe that the United States is actually becoming more Socially Democratic in nature and will explain why below (the > lines are those points brought up in said image):

>Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
This is real (blind nationalism), but thats with a lot of the people, not the democratic cosmopolitans like me who are supportive of a strengthening UN and all that. Most democrats, in a way, support that even though it is far off.

>Disdain for Human Rights
No. There is a dwindling ratio of uneducated conservatives to intellectuals, and with such, more progressive human rights measures are being enacted (labour laws, abortion, freedom from slavery, right to fair trial, etc)

>Identification of Scapegoats/Enemies
Scapegoats, no. International alliances/enemies, yes. But this is what every country does in order to protect their people. We don't place blame on certain groups--if you think otherwise, you are a conspiracy theorist who just has no trust in the people who are -elected- by -we- the people into power.

>Supremacy of the Military
It is not wrong to use a somewhat powerful force (although still only 4th or 5th largest force in the world) that stands for liberty and justice to help promote those just ideals in places where fascism and an insane disregard for human life runs rampant. We are not in a military state here at home, and we never will be.

>Rampant Sexism
Not at all. Ever since the mid 1900's women have been becoming more integrated into society and are being given more rights than ever. Abortion is rapidly gaining public support with people everywhere showing just how true this is.

>Controlled Mass Media
The press, radio, television and Internet are all mediums of support for free speech. Bills like SOPA will never pass as long as intellectual thinkers and progressives are in office (which they will continue to be, according to trends), and your inherent right to free speech or to choose what to believe will never ever be trodden upon. There is media bias, but that is indicative that there is hardly any control over the media because of such varied opinions.

>Obsession with National Security
The world has become a place where all life could be destroyed 100 times over in under an hour. I, for one, am glad that the government looks out for the security of its citizens.

>Religion and Gvnmt Intertwined
It is becoming less so with each passing year. Secularism is on the rise in this nation, and it can be seen. However, there will always be that ridiculous minority who think otherwise, and we can do nothing about them. Even so, it is their right to believe what they choose, even though they will make no impact on the future.

>Protected Corporate Power
If a person wants to do business, it is their right in this nation to try and take their idea and turn it into something that that person benefits from. That's what both the beauty and critical hatred of capitalism stems from. This right should be protected, as should corporations to a certain extent. However, they should not be protected as people, and gladly, they aren't. Corporations do not run the government. There are balances in place so that one group cannot independently fund an entire campaign and get their person into office to protect them and their interests only. That is the beauty of our Democratic Republican/Federal Republican system, and the founders of the country were -very- careful with this issue. Plus, more and more regulations are being placed on companies whenever left-leaning politicians are in power to protect the people and the environment. Its the extremely conservative right wingers who need to be watched when pertaining to this issue.

>Suppressed Labor Movements
Not at all. Unions are present -everywhere- and it is your right to gather and protest. Actually, a recent show of the tolerance of protests and movements pertaining to economics and labor is the 'Occupy' Movement. These people are allowed to continue doing what their doing so long as they don't break any existing, and perfectly rational, laws.

>Disdain for Art and Intellectuals
No, not at all! The United States has some of the best galleries, exhibits, and universities in the world. The educational system may be screwed up where you live, but education is a state-level issue at the moment when not taking into account programs like No child left behind, which was ridiculously created by, once again, a right winged conservative.

>Obsession with Crime and Punishment
A good justice system does not equal a power-hungry group of psychopaths. Again, I am glad that crime is dealt with quickly. If a law is broken, the person who breaks the law gets a fair trial in -every- case, and is sentenced based on the outcome of said trial. It is a fair system that has been in place since the first days of the nation.

>Rampant Corruption
Again, this comes down to conspiracy theorists and trust. Most government officials are not corrupt, but the ones who are are often ousted or brought to light through media scrutiny--which is a benefit of such freedom of the media. Of course, there will always be some corruption somewhere, but in the majority of cases, elected officials truly try to be good representatives of their constituents.

>Fraud Elections
No. No. No. It doesn't happen, plain and simple. Of course there may be discrepancies in the vote-counting, but that is what recounts are for.

>Private control of wealth
Part of the capitalist economic system, which, with increasing numbers of social policies being implemented that help to ease the differences/gaps in the classes--this allows everyone to get by while still allowing people to use their ideas and abilities to move up in life. A welfare state would provide for the people while still allowing those same people to try and achieve their own personal goals.

---

The main issue with my argument that was brought up when I first made it was that the person disagreeing with my claim had little faith in the people in power and would prefer full personal privacy to even quite a raise in the potential of injury of the US citizens (through things such as public attacks by enemies of the state or people).

The problem here is obviously either an overwhelming naivety or an inherent and impossible-to-understand distrust of people in power, even though -we- elect them as a people.

Also, when arguing the government's duty to provide and protect it's populace, a question that begs to be asked when regarding such issues is 'What is the real definition of freedom?' I personally believe that many disputes about the topic above (ones, for example, having to do with privacy vs. protection) all trace their roots back to that one simple question.

Now, the answer may seem obvious to yourself, but let me show you an example to show that this question may not be so obvious:


In the mid-late 1900s, a United States citizen was visiting the USSR and takes a taxi cab to his destination. En route, the taxi driver pulls the vehicle over in a back alleyway and asks the American if he has any blue jeans that he could buy. The American at first is shocked by the question, but then tilts his head to the side and responds: "You can't buy blue jeans here? We really are freer than you in the USA." The taxi driver shakes his head for a moment and then replies: "Sure, I may have to buy many of the things that I want on the black market and may be unable to get some of my desired products at all, but we are given all of that which we absolutely need. If we are hungry we are given food to fill ourselves. If we are ill, we go to a clinic and get treated. Therefore, because I can live my life free of all fear of not being able to take care of myself and my family--I am more free than you."

Who is more free in this case? I would support the Soviet in this case, because I believe freedom from fear is a truer form of freedom than the freedom to do exactly what you wish all of the time without government intervention... however, it could definitely be argued either way. Anyway, this relates back directly to the complete personal privacy vs. government protection issue. In my honest opinion, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Also, in any case, the government here will absolutely not ever go so far as to step into your personal lives (unlike in the scenario above's USSR) any more than it absolutely must to protect as many lives as possible.

[Henkie]

Fascism is awesome... When appropriately applied

[Chris]

You may be interested in one of Robert Paxton's scholarly articles, The Five Stages of Fascism. In 2009, Sara Robinson wrote a piece using Paxton's stages to look at the US political scene. She thinks that we are at the third stage.

[FiziKx]

I'll read that. It really is an interesting argument, but isn't the most fun to debate. In any case, I firmly believe that the United States is actually becoming more Socially Democratic, but only time will tell, eh?

[Chris]

I'll read that. It really is an interesting argument, but isn't the most fun to debate. In any case, I firmly believe that the United States is actually becoming more Socially Democratic, but only time will tell, eh?

It's not either/or. For example, in pre-Hitler Germany, the Social Democrats were the largest party and led a governing coalition. In both Italy and Germany, conservative parties had problems because they were aristocratic and not used to mass politics. Along came fascist parties, which became very good at mobilizing masses, so partnerships were established between conservative elites and fascists. Fascism always has a list of internal enemies to scapegoat and eliminate, and the socialist left is always on it. Reactionary politics is in part a response to the successes of social democracy.

[Snickie]

I want Ally to post his debate/essay/whateveritwas that he wrote years ago on what welfare is/was/was-supposed-to-be.

[Vega]

You should see "Die Welle" ("The Wave" in English, "La Ola" in Spanish.)
Great film about how the fascism could work nowadays.

[FiziKx]

In any case, I'm not talking about the Social Democratic/Democratic Socialist movement of the mid 1900's in Europe directly akin to well known forms of socialism. I'm speaking about the type of Social Democracy in which a capitalist mode of production is still used, but there are progressive government economic policies in place to help curb the problems caused by such a system, like in a modern welfare state.

Although the development of such a thing may also cause the idea of fascism to perhaps become more prevalent in the USA, I am arguing that the nation as a whole is becoming more socially democratic through the more socially-friendly policies that are continuously being enacted by the government itself.

[Chris]

In any case, I'm not talking about the Social Democratic/Democratic Socialist movement of the mid 1900's in Europe directly akin to well known forms of socialism. I'm speaking about the type of Social Democracy in which a capitalist mode of production is still used, but there are progressive government economic policies in place to help curb the problems caused by such a system, like in a modern welfare state.

Although the development of such a thing may also cause the idea of fascism to perhaps become more prevalent in the USA, I am arguing that the nation as a whole is becoming more socially democratic through the more socially-friendly policies that are continuously being enacted by the government itself.

The problem is that "the nation as a whole" is not a good way to analyze the situation. There are always political divisions. The issues are whether one of the factions qualifies as fascist and whether it can gain power. The US has always had a thuggish element like the KKK, the Sovereign Citizen movement, and the Posse Comitatus. They have been at the margins recently, but that could change. The Republican Party used to hold them at arm's length, but it seems bent on moving ever rightward, toward that violent fringe, instead of fighting for the center.

[gejyspa]

You should see "Die Welle" ("The Wave" in English, "La Ola" in Spanish.)
Great film about how the fascism could work nowadays.

That film of course, is based on an American 1981 made for TV movie, The Wave (which I loved, btw, despite being a bit sappy and simplistic, and can be seen here: ) , novelized into a book of the same name by Todd Strasser (also very good). The movie was based on the real experiment in 1967 called the Third Wave in an American high school. The articles from the school newspaper after the experiment terminated can be found here (page 3).

[FiziKx]

OH! That book, The Wave. I -did- read that a while back. I must say it was quite interesting, but the thing is that this specific experiment was performed on High School students--the oldest of which (the senior class) apparently led a coup d'etat against the 'fuhrer', showing that perhaps the stronger, older, more educated people (adults) -wouldn't- fall victim to such a thing in the modern world.

[gejyspa]

Yes, and Operation Valkyrie tried to assassinate Hitler. So what? You act as though Gemany wasn't a "modern" state. Now, what HAS changed in the past 80 years is that the internet and mobile phone usage has made the marketplace of ideas much more widespread and democratic, so even people like the Poeple's Republic of China have a hard time suppressing dissent. But it could still happen, even here in the US. Eternal Vigilance is still the only bulwark against it. Look how easily things like the USA PATRIOT act passed.

[Dafie7]

Yeah it seem USA becoming more fascist increasingly. sometime they are playing double standard over some countries.
Link removed

[Henkie]

I didn't click that Dafie, and remove that link, it has nothing to do with the topic :s


Vega: I saw the German version of the movie, even had it on my literature list, awesome movie.

But I don't view the 'fascismesation' of America as a bad thing.

[Chris]

Now, what HAS changed in the past 80 years is that the internet and mobile phone usage has made the marketplace of ideas much more widespread and democratic, so even people like the Poeple's Republic of China have a hard time suppressing dissent.

Fascism (distinct from other forms of authoritarianism) doesn't take hold because of a lack of ideas. It only occurs where liberal democracy already exists and is unsatisfying because it is gridlocked and unable to get anything done. It isn't an ideology so much as a romantic longing for the good old days when heroic figures made things happen by force of will and strength — before the country's enemies sabotaged it. Or so the fascist myth goes.