Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

11

LostYonder wrote

What makes one think the US isn't already a fascist state? Or do you have a very particular definition of what a fascist state is? The US is highly nationalistic, be it alt-right, center, or left; it is a police state with a highly militarized security apparatus; it is imperialistic; it is deeply racist (again regardless of where one might on the political spectrum). It isn't quite dictatorial, but we don't need a dictator as the political establishment is deeply entrenched, the "deep state", with ultimately very little shifts in policy from one regime to the next.

5

zorblax wrote

it is not yet a one-party dictatorship

but damn is it close

5

LostYonder wrote

Given the nature of the deep state, I don't think the party matters much. There is a veneer of "democracy" and without doubt some very significant differences for those populations who are most marginal in regards to the policies and protections the state provides them, but despite that the differences between the 2 parties is marginal, at best, and the deep state functions regards of who the puppets are in congress and the white house.

As zer0crash comments, fascism will mutate and we shouldn't just be looking at Nazi Germany as our model of comparison and evaluation. Media is a joke, education is on the verge of becoming a joke, elections are merely symbolic at best, on and on we see ways in which a particular, singular, and absolutist ideology operates behind the facade of democracy and justice.

5

zorblax wrote

I think the so-called deep state is by no means a cohesive entity, more like a tendency towards self-preserving behaviors by various high-powered actors. This discounts it from being a real fascist dictatorship in my mind, more like a devolved form of representative democracy.

6

LostYonder wrote

I can see that. However, what those 'self-preserving' behaviors do is in fact reproduce the status-quo over and over again, with very little actual change in policy orientations. As well, they manufacture consent in very nefarious ways that essentially provide a mechanism for the state to operate as a fascist state behind a well textured facade of democracy.

The US doesn't require a dictator, we have the mechanisms for pacifying the populace, a highly armed and effective police/security apparatus, and a state that is designed to seek out and fulfill the needs of an elite few, even when they may have conflicting interests. In fact, the adaptability of the state to fulfill different and competing needs of the elite establishment is one of its creative hallmarks. But I don't think that flexibility makes it any less fascist.

What I would suggest is that we have a non-dictatorial fascist state...

10

zer0crash wrote

Here is a critical take away: Fascism will likely never look the same as it did previously. Attempts to use WW2 Fascism as the Litmus test for modern day fascism in an inadequate model. Fascism will invariably mutate, as it primarily uses culture, not politics, as its primary vehicle.

5

RedAgitator wrote

That's because so far there is not need to enforce a totalitarian rule and fully suppress labor movements and communists. In Italy and Germany they needed that to prevent an impending revolution. Until that day I believe we will have neoliberalism, either with a friendly face or not, paired with an increased global apartheid.

4

DissidentRage wrote

I think we are seeing that now, not just in the obvious stale memes generated by the right, but also by the fact that they have enough self-awareness to rebrand themselves as a moving target to keep average non-political people from recognizing them for what they are. The whole "you just call everyone you don't like a 'fascist'" mantra is indicative of this. They know they work against the interests of literally everyone and everything else on the planet, and they know the best way to overcome that kind of opposition is to change outward appearances. They know that if they can fool the average person, they can performatively discredit their opposition as unnecessarily suspicious.

8

SouthsideGrackles wrote (edited )

Oh, no question. If Trump wasn't such an idiot he could have turned the cult of personality he has, the loyal media he has, and the complacency of everyone else into an outright acceptance of fascism and even a monarchy.

And when he's gone all that momentum and situation won't change. As charles manson said, what you have right now is people with the control who dont have the power. You get someone in the controls who has the power and then you watch the whole buggy rock.

So if we see a non moron get in control of the trump train once trump is gone, then we're all totally fucked.

4

mofongo wrote

I don't think the ruling class would have accepted Trump as king or openly fascist. Fascism requires that corporations subordinate to the state and that wouldn't go in america.

6

SouthsideGrackles wrote

Many corporations would have opposed him, sure. But others wouldn't have, and then he would empower those while declaring the others enemies to the nation and taken them over, handing the spoils out to loyal corporations and oligarchs and probably family members.

Even look at now. Hes giving some corps the shaft like alt energy companies while giving previously less catered to inustries and corps patronage that the establishment used to give to the now more neglected corps.

2

mofongo wrote (edited )

I agree, that's part of the issue. The opposing section would have no qualms to kill him or start a civil war to maintain their power, however neither is preferable to diplomacy.

I'll expand my thoughts to defasher as they replied first.

3

Defasher wrote (edited )

Isn't fascism a form of corporatism though? They might accept more state control if it means absolute market dominance.

2

mofongo wrote

Yes, the runner up corporations will see that as a benefit but I don't think that the winning team would like to share the spoils. (I had thought it several examples and situations but don't feel like writing it right now)

I consider the corporations will have more trouble with the populist demands of fascism. Like demanding increased wages, replacing their minority workers, the increased labor costs of not having cheap immigrant labor easily accessible or even having their assets frozen due to whatever conspiracy is the government's mind at the moment. That's without considering how a change like that would affect the international markets, how the goverment would deal with foreign corporations/Capital in US soil, etc, etc.

As I read somewhere, the ruling class only results to fascism as a last result due it's costs.

1

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

I have a hard time believing that Corporations would be opposed to Donald Trump. Why would a bunch of rich guys who worship/love money and power, hate another rich guy who also worships/loves money and power?

Plus, fascists like running roughshod over the rights and lives of others and so do corporations. All those safety and labor laws weren't something that they gave us out of the kindness of their hearts.

1

mofongo wrote

Because they are not a monolitic block, each group/individual have a preference on how things should be done. There's also their elitism, standars of clothing, behavior and taste created to keep the new rich out of the social in groups. In short, they may not like them but they can still use them.

3

MrPotatoeHead wrote

I don't see the US media as being loyal to Trump, except for Fox News. CNN, MSNBC and the major networks consistently bash him by mocking his tweets and comments. What am I missing?

5

SouthsideGrackles wrote

I was talking about fox and the breitbart and infowar type things. Those are like state media at this point, and a lot of people believe them completely.

But yeah, definitely not saying the entire media is behind him, just that he has a loyal state media apparatus ready to go.

6

NeoliberalismKills wrote

http://rense.com/general37/char.htm

The US meets all 14 categories. It just paints it with a veneer of democracy. Now is it all in on all 14 categories? No. But it wouldn't take much to help push "us" even further. Another 9/11 and we are full Orwell.

3

sudo wrote

It meets most of them, but some of them it only half-qualifies for.

For #2, Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights, it half-meets. The US always makes a big deal out of other countries abusing human rights, but it says nothing about when it does the same thing. Occasionally, when it gets called out for abusing human rights (like with the Guantanamo Bay prison), it will do this, but usually it tries to keep this as hushed-up as possible.

For #11, I don't think it meets this one. Higher education is viewed pretty well over there, as far as I know. Going to college is pretty much an expectation, if you want to have a career, instead of hopping from service job to service job. But I think that's because higher education rarely tries to criticize the government. As far as the arts go, mainstream art is the same way. There are some artists who do make work critical of the US, but most people aren't interested in non-mainstream art (i.e. the kind you'd have to go to a museum to see), and those who are would probably just analyze the work, but not take its message to heart. So, I don't think the US fits into this one.

Same with #14 - as far as I know, the elections aren't fraudulent. But it doesn't matter, because the people are just choosing which flavor of evil capitalist they want to be president.

So, there are a few that it doesn't meet, but that's mostly because the US doesn't have to worry about the problems those ones address. The rest, it definitely meets, so I'd say it is fascist.

5

DissidentRage wrote

For #11, I don't think it meets this one.

Anti-intellectualism not only has run rampant for generations culturally and politically, it's also part of the doctrine of the corporate elite. The Powell Memorandum suggests the injection of corporate apologeia and supportive actors into higher education, as it's recognized as a threat to liberalism. It's been a guiding principle to the elite since it was penned in the 70s.

Same with #14 - as far as I know, the elections aren't fraudulent.

Electoral college and gerrymandering basically render them so. On account of the first, Trump won the election in spite of being down 3 million votes. As for the latter, in some areas it's effectively impossible to elect someone who isn't an overtly-liberal/fascist Republican, as it is on one of the Carolinas (I can't remember which).

4

Catsforfun wrote (edited )

There are some people who make elections equipment (software?) Who have come out to say that politicians have tried to pay them to rig it. I'm not saying all elections are rigged but there is a very strong possibility that at least some of them are.

2

sudo wrote

Is there a source for that? I'm not saying someone made it up, but it's always a good idea to check sources, just in case it was. That and sometimes the telephone game way of passing on news ("I heard that he heard that she heard that X happened") can lead to distortions.

3

Catsforfun wrote

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1thcO_olHas

I guess it could be fake, but it seemed credible to me when I watched it while ago. Let me know what you think

2

sudo wrote (edited )

That's good enough. This tells us that one person asked him to rig the elections, so we don't know how many others might have asked other people. But he said a telltale sign of this is a gross difference between exit polling data and the actual tabulated results, so I would look for that to see if an election has been rigged, when these proprietary voting machines are in use.

Thanks for linking to the source.

2

NeoliberalismKills wrote

America has always had a strong anti-intellectual strain that ebbs and flows. And it's difficult to find a truly dissident voice in academia. But this category is probably the one the US is probably least likely to qualify for.

Having 2 parties that are essentially the same is fraudulent to me. Is the integrity of the actual elections usually compromised? No. But the Supreme Court gave Bush Jr the job by circumventing a recount. That's as good as fraudulent.

2

mofongo wrote

I don't think so, the ruling class turn to fascism after the failure of a revolution, as it was during ww2.

Members of the population identifying with fascism does nothing to the structure of the economy/goverment, the same way that part of the population identifying with the radical left does nothing to them.

2

NeoliberalismKills wrote

Object lesson today. Trump administration wants to treat the NY terrorist that ran over the bikers as an enemy combatant. Whether they're successful in doing so is another matter. But trying to is no trifling matter.