To the Tea Party: Keep Your Hands Off of German History

[Michael Hardner]

However debates on the true meaning of "fascism" are known to be very lengthy and generally, unresolved. In the end it matters not, it's only a word. What matters is, providing fair criticism of a given system for what it is.

If we allow people to call Bush a fascist, then we might as well call Obama a socialist too. It's like the politics of our era aren't exciting enough, so we have to pretend it's the 1930s.

It's just lame.

[nicky10013]

The United States is not a fascist state, not if fascism is a word that has any meaning at all.

Absolutely.

And I'm sure in the day to day governance Hitler may have been aloof, leaving things to his underlings, but I can tell you that in the administration of the war, Hitler was all too involved. The generals, particularly those from the regular armed forces, and not the political-military SS groups, had a considerable number of problems with the way Hitler was prosecuting the war, seeing strategies like Operation Barbarossa as sheer folly, but Hitler was very much in control, and forced the issue, hating Bolsheviks almost as much as he hated Jews.

Maybe not aloof during the war, but there was as much politicking (see: sucking up) from the military as well. Very unorganized. He was also generally always in control of everything, that's generally why people had to fight for his attention. Interesting (disturbing) way to run a country.

[maple_leafs182]

Oh good grief. The worst I've seen is the idiotic security theater at international airports.

Those were implemented on a failed terrorist attack, what would happen if an actual terrorist attack occurs, what happens if it is of the same scale of 9/11.

Also, have you heard of the Patriot Act?

The US is not a fascist state. Actually looking at fascist states from the 1930s ought to be enough to see the difference.

It may not be as extreme of a case as in Nazi Germany but America is headed in a similar direction.

And starting off your post with "I'm a PoliSci Guy" don't impress me. Anybody who thinks that the US is a fascist state doesn't know a damned thing about fascist states.

I wasn't trying to impress you.

You dismissed my definition of fascism even though I took it almost word for word out of my text book, that was my point.

[Moonlight Graham]

In terms of how the US is amalgamating almost everything into a single centralized entity that covers all the bases. Then yes, it's not hard to show that the US is indeed fascist. And I think Canada is as well. Although many won't notice it, even when it slams them in the face. This centralization is very evident with the security agencies and law enforcement.

ridiculous. More perversion of the term.

[Sir Bandelot]

Maybe not aloof during the war, but there was as much politicking (see: sucking up) from the military as well. Very unorganized. He was also generally always in control of everything, that's generally why people had to fight for his attention. Interesting (disturbing) way to run a country.

Not really, sounds just like my employer.

[Jack Weber]

The only "Fascist" state on this planet,other than a few African and Arab tin pot dictatorships,is China....

The "Fascism" we see today is not as overt,or virulent,as it was in the 1930's.It has morphed into a Corporate Fascism that puts the will and necessities of corporations and private business ahead of the needs of the populous that thinks it's electing officials who have their best interests at heart.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Jack Weber

[nicky10013]

The only "Fascist" state on this planet,other than a few African and Arab tin pot dictatorships,is China....

The "Fascism" we see today is not as overt,or virulent,as it was in the 1930's.It has morphed into a Corporate Fascism that puts the will and necessities of corporations and private business ahead of the needs of the populous that thinks it's electing officials who have their best interests at heart.

China isn't fascist. Without doing research first I'd say there isn't any true fascist states in the world. Period.

[Jack Weber]

China isn't fascist. Without doing research first I'd say there isn't any true fascist states in the world. Period.

China is'nt Fascist??

Hmmm...

1.Authoritarian/Totalitarian state

2.Emphasis on Corporatism

3.A growing strident nationalism

Those are the 3 hallmarks of a Fascist state...There are others...

As for other countries that are Fascist states,please take a look at Cameroon and President Paul Biya...Simply take a look at Cameroon's coat of arms...

[Michael Hardner]

3.A growing strident nationalism

Jack, I don't know if this is growing as much as our awareness of it is growing. My experience with them is mirrored by my experience with bjre here: an unwavering national pride and my-country-right-or-wrong attitude.

I would say it's a modern fascist state. We don't care so much because they don't do mass ethnic exterminations, they don't invade other countries and we do business with them.

[nicky10013]

China is'nt Fascist??

Hmmm...

1.Authoritarian/Totalitarian state

2.Emphasis on Corporatism

3.A growing strident nationalism

Those are the 3 hallmarks of a Fascist state...There are others...

As for other countries that are Fascist states,please take a look at Cameroon and President Paul Biya...Simply take a look at Cameroon's coat of arms...

Fascism doesn't exist without:

1. Dictatorship wrapped around a cult of personality a la Hitler, Stalin

2. Terror apparatus that not just arrests dissidents but rounds up people at will to instill fear

3. Rabid ideological base

Cameroon doesn't have that and neither does China.

[Jack Weber]

Fascism doesn't exist without:

1. Dictatorship wrapped around a cult of personality a la Hitler, Stalin

2. Terror apparatus that not just arrests dissidents but rounds up people at will to instill fear

3. Rabid ideological base

Cameroon doesn't have that and neither does China.

I can state from personal knowledge that all of those apply to Cameroon...

The cult of personality stuff is meaningless...Franco had the personality of a wet sock...

Are telling me that there is no teror apparatus,or "rat squads" in China?

I'm thinking that there is a growing and strident nationalistic (see superior) attitude and ideology in China...

[Sir Bandelot]

I could argue that we western nations suffer from every one of these maladies, rabid ideological base, terror apparatus and cult of personality. They are not used as forcefully or consistently as might be done in an openly fascist state, but they are used at certain times when it's necessary to get the support of the masses. As in endeavours of war, control of social attitudes where economic advantages must be maintained, and getting people to believe in hope and change.

[Wilber]

Unfortunately, too many from both ends of the political spectrum are not above playing the Hitler card. I automatically tune them out as soon as they do. It may play to the ignorant but to anyone who has any knowledge of history it just comes across as ignorant and obnoxious, an insult to anyone who was a victim of the Nazis.

[nicky10013]

I can state from personal knowledge that all of those apply to Cameroon...

I don't doubt Cameroon is highly authoritarian, but I've seen no proof of a personality cult or a terror apparatus.

The cult of personality stuff is meaningless...Franco had the personality of a wet sock...

It's not meaningless at all. It's what gives these regimes their power.

Kim Jong-Il has only ever made 1 public statement in his history as leader of North Korea yet he enjoys one of the most wide spread and perverse personality cults ever constructed.

Even being a wet sock he still held some pretty intense titles.

Already proclaimed Generalísimo of the Nationalists and Jefe del Estado (Head of State) in October 1936, he thereafter assumed the official title of "Su Excelencia el Jefe de Estado" ("His Excellency the Head of State"). However, he was also referred to in state and official documents as "Caudillo de España" ("the Leader of Spain"), and sometimes called "el Caudillo de la Última Cruzada y de la Hispanidad" ("the Leader of the Last Crusade and of the Hispanic heritage") and "el Caudillo de la Guerra de Liberación contra el Comunismo y sus Cómplices" ("the Leader of the War of Liberation Against Communism and Its Accomplices").

Are telling me that there is no teror apparatus,or "rat squads" in China?

In the way that they existed under Stalin and Hitler and other fascist states (even Franco's Spain)? No. China is more like the late Sovie Union. There was no such thing as "human rights" but then again people weren't afraid of an anonymous knock at the door in the middle of the night followed by the proclamation of a 25 year sentence for absolutely no reason other than for the secret police to meet its arrest quota as they were in the 30s.

I'm thinking that there is a growing and strident nationalistic (see superior) attitude and ideology in China...

Are there torchlight parades? Massive rallies? People whipped up to such a degree that there are book burnings? Nationalism surely exists within China today but to compare it to the rabid ultra-nationalism of fascist states isn't fair.

[nicky10013]

I could argue that we western nations suffer from every one of these maladies, rabid ideological base, terror apparatus and cult of personality. They are not used as forcefully or consistently as might be done in an openly fascist state, but they are used at certain times when it's necessary to get the support of the masses. As in endeavours of war, control of social attitudes where economic advantages must be maintained, and getting people to believe in hope and change.

This post is an insult to the people who suffered under those regimes. The fact that you were actually able to type that at all is a testament to the fact that your post is utter non-sense.

When were you ever afraid, in the west, of being rounded up in the middle of the night and thrown in a concentration camp?

[Pliny]

Fascism doesn't exist without:

1. Dictatorship wrapped around a cult of personality a la Hitler, Stalin

2. Terror apparatus that not just arrests dissidents but rounds up people at will to instill fear

3. Rabid ideological base

Cameroon doesn't have that and neither does China.

Cuba does. Is it Fascist or is it Communist?

So was Stalin a fascist dictator or a communist?

It is really odd that there is no clear cut agreement on what fascism or communism is.

As anyone who has read my posts I have had this argument before. Although there are diffrences between fasicism and communism they are both about the State.

Castro is not considered a dictator because he is a communist. Stalin is not considered a dictator because he was a communist. Some people however, do label them dictators. The people that do are usually people that have a soft place for socialism and statist ideology and attempt to distance the brutalities of those leaders from their favoured ideology. Others that label them dictators just think of the definition of dictator despite political ideology.

In actuality, to prevent the atrocities of both extremes of the political right or left or as I prefer big government it is only necessary to keep power decentralized. Thus no one person (dictator) or group (Politburo) can seize total power. One of the things that progressivism (creeping socialism) does is first take over the control of the money supply and then "progresses" from there.

To continually have this argument show up is really indicative of the amount of confusion there is in the area.

Boiling it all down in their extremes they are just different forms of the total state with the accompanying social and economic engineering.

The disagreements and confusions may lie in how we get to the total state. Most think that dictators just seize power but they don't. The way has to be prepared and power has to first be concentrated which means enough people have agreed it should be concentrated. The dictator can only step in once he has enough support of people who believe power should be centralized. His support is generally from the military and like minded powerful entities, groups or individuals. Progressivism is the progressive centralization of power. It isn't about "progress" unless the growth of the state is considered progress. Communism is about seizing power through revolution and also requires enough like minded people who have already to a degree concentrated power to make the final push to total power.

Either way both can be avoided by ensuring government stays within a limited mandate.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Pliny

[Sir Bandelot]

This post is an insult to the people who suffered under those regimes. The fact that you were actually able to type that at all is a testament to the fact that your post is utter non-sense.

When were you ever afraid, in the west, of being rounded up in the middle of the night and thrown in a concentration camp?

No it is not an insult. It's more of an insult to forget what happened, or not be allowed to talk about it. People should know the real history, obviously so it won't be able to happen again. So please take your sanctimonious "thou shalt not speak of it", pc attitude up the creek. If you think it couldn't happen here just as easily, you're a naive fool. We have all the same basic elements at the ready. There is no fascism outside of us, it is in us. Without knowing it, without condemning every effort and minor change made that brings us closer to it, tt can happen again. In a heartbeat.

[Sir Bandelot]

... and so therefore, to Der Speigel I say, YOU shut up. We have every right to talk about it, to keep bringing it up whenever and wherever we might see the threat of nazism show its ugly face. No matter how much it "offends" your hypocritical sensibilities.

[ToadBrother]

Fascism is pretty innately a dictatorial, autocratic political philosophy. Communism is more debatable. There's the whole "dictatorship of the Proletariat" stage that supposedly comes after the revolution, and the Communists I've talked to tend to believe that that is where places like the USSR, China and Cuba went wrong, that they stayed in that place rather than moving then towards a purer Communist state.

In either case, whatever the long-term intent, in the end both political philosophies deliver power to a small group who then, as has always happened, cling on to it, enlarge it and build the state in a fashion that permits the perpetual maintenance of their power.

I'm not sure liberties are best protected by a decentralized state. I think that's just a back door way of trying to push a particular Libertarian ideology through. To my mind, what protects liberties and democracy is the surrounding culture. It's a fertile soil vs. barren soil problem. Simply put, the society has to put a high value on democracy and freedoms, on rule of law and of the notion that no one is greater than any other before the eyes of the law. Without these bedrock principles agreed upon by the vast majority, people will just naturally fall into the familiar pattern of delivering power to a small cabal.

The reason I so detest the claims that Bush was a fascist or that the US is a fascist state is simply because, though there are no doubt irregularities and blemishes in the whole democratic construct, in general, the US is a nation built upon the rule of law, built upon the idea that the People are not only the source of power, but the ultimate arbiters of who exercises that power in their name. If Bush had been the fascist so many like to say he is, there would have been no 2004 election. He would have followed the model of other Fascist states that we know of, concentrated power in the White House and ultimately seized power. Congress and the Courts, the two other pillars of government, would have either been rendered moot or at least castrated, becoming little more than organs of Presidential fiat.

Simply put, that never happened. The courts didn't always side with Bush, and did maintain their independence. Congress went along with him for some time, as has happened during other periods of national crisis, where lining up behind the President, rightly or wrongly, was seen as a necessary unifying step. That only last a few years before the public, clearly no longer confident of Bush's strategy, ripped Congress from the hands of the Republicans. In other words, the precise thing you wouldn't expect from any kind of fascist, or indeed any sort of autocratic state, happened. The People used that most potent of powers to alter the government.

It isn't perfect, and certainly the two party system isn't terribly representative, but none of what happened between 2000 and 2008 in the least bit resembles a Fascist take over. What it represents is an inadequate president with brilliant political advisers but horrifically bad, ideologically-driven foreign policy advisers, reacted to 9-11. Doubtless they'll still be talking about the Afghan and Iraq invasions a long time from now, just as people still debate the actions of other presidents who put their nation on a war footing; whether that be Polk, Lincoln, Wilson or FDR, and so on. And even if the Patriot Act was as bad as some describe, it's hardly the first time bad legislation that crossed constitutional lines has been passed. You can go back all the way to the Alien and Seditions Acts for an example of highly controversial legislation in a similar vein.

Constitutional rule of law cannot always prevent abuses. In fact in many cases the wheels of constitutional justice move to slowly to prevent Congress and the Executive from doing things that ultimately are viewed as dangerously impinging on Liberties. What constitutions in nations ruled by law can provide is a means to challenge such laws, to correct laws or policies that cross the line.

[Sir Bandelot]

There's nice sounding ideology of how it oughta be, and then there's practical reality. Rule of law sounds very noble, and it is, in theory. In practice, when there are many millions of people each having opinions and clamoring for attention to their idea of rule of law, only the most practical of things can be done. Who shall get listened to most easily? The one who is able to get attention, through use of media to spread a message. In real terms, sorry for the politically negative tone but it's propaganda. Who can spread the propaganda most effectively? In a capitalist society, those who have the money.

And now, corporations having the wealth and intent to change laws in their favour can easily do so. By lobbying politicians, by making donations during election time, these are practical methods of achieving change for their benefit. All done, by Rule Of Law. And when the law is a barrier to achieving our goals, we use these methods to change the law. That is reality. You have the freedom to vote, but only for the vetted candidates with the right connections. You have the freedom to work and use your money to purchase goods and services. But only those which are provided for you, those which again are vetted by the state/ industrial leaders. They do not need to control directly, in the garish methods of fascists of old. They do so by purely legal means set up by a framework that appears to give equal liberties to all. The state and industry gives you the legal right to try and prosper. But that does not mean, they are obligated by law to give you any meaningful influence. The new face of fascism is a smiling "brother".

Edited October 30, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[nicky10013]

Cuba does. Is it Fascist or is it Communist?

So was Stalin a fascist dictator or a communist?

It is really odd that there is no clear cut agreement on what fascism or communism is.

As anyone who has read my posts I have had this argument before. Although there are diffrences between fasicism and communism they are both about the State.

Castro is not considered a dictator because he is a communist. Stalin is not considered a dictator because he was a communist. Some people however, do label them dictators. The people that do are usually people that have a soft place for socialism and statist ideology and attempt to distance the brutalities of those leaders from their favoured ideology. Others that label them dictators just think of the definition of dictator despite political ideology.

In actuality, to prevent the atrocities of both extremes of the political right or left or as I prefer big government it is only necessary to keep power decentralized. Thus no one person (dictator) or group (Politburo) can seize total power. One of the things that progressivism (creeping socialism) does is first take over the control of the money supply and then "progresses" from there.

To continually have this argument show up is really indicative of the amount of confusion there is in the area.

Boiling it all down in their extremes they are just different forms of the total state with the accompanying social and economic engineering.

The disagreements and confusions may lie in how we get to the total state. Most think that dictators just seize power but they don't. The way has to be prepared and power has to first be concentrated which means enough people have agreed it should be concentrated. The dictator can only step in once he has enough support of people who believe power should be centralized. His support is generally from the military and like minded powerful entities, groups or individuals. Progressivism is the progressive centralization of power. It isn't about "progress" unless the growth of the state is considered progress. Communism is about seizing power through revolution and also requires enough like minded people who have already to a degree concentrated power to make the final push to total power.

Either way both can be avoided by ensuring government stays within a limited mandate.

Castro is a dictator. Stalin was a dictator. I challenge you to find someone who DOESN'T argue that.

[nicky10013]

No it is not an insult. It's more of an insult to forget what happened, or not be allowed to talk about it. People should know the real history, obviously so it won't be able to happen again. So please take your sanctimonious "thou shalt not speak of it", pc attitude up the creek. If you think it couldn't happen here just as easily, you're a naive fool. We have all the same basic elements at the ready. There is no fascism outside of us, it is in us. Without knowing it, without condemning every effort and minor change made that brings us closer to it, tt can happen again. In a heartbeat.

No one has ever said don't talk about it. No one. If anything people who care about these issues want it to be talked about more. What people are arguing against is trivializing it which is exactly what you did by saying that our society is as bad. It's exactly what people do by calling political leaders Hitler or Stalin.

[Sir Bandelot]

No one has ever said don't talk about it. No one. If anything people who care about these issues want it to be talked about more. What people are arguing against is trivializing it which is exactly what you did by saying that our society is as bad. It's exactly what people do by calling political leaders Hitler or Stalin.

Calling people another Hitler or Stalin is childish, yes, depending on who it is. But nowhere did I say "our society is as bad."

The names Hitler or Stalin were not even mentioned. Read again-

I could argue that we western nations suffer from every one of these maladies, rabid ideological base, terror apparatus and cult of personality. They are not used as forcefully or consistently as might be done in an openly fascist state, but they are used at certain times when it's necessary to get the support of the masses. As in endeavours of war, control of social attitudes where economic advantages must be maintained, and getting people to believe in hope and change.

I stand by my point. Elements of nazi and fascist ideology proved themselves to be very powerful and are attractive to post-WW2 forms of national leadership. Those elements are very common in corporate leadership. Nazi technology is not the only thing we imported from the Germans after the war.

[nicky10013]

Calling people another Hitler or Stalin is childish, yes, depending on who it is. But nowhere did I say "our society is as bad."

The names Hitler or Stalin were not even mentioned. Read again-

I stand by my point. Elements of nazi and fascist ideology proved themselves to be very powerful and are attractive to post-WW2 forms of national leadership. Those elements are very common in corporate leadership. Nazi technology is not the only thing we imported from the Germans after the war.

You don't have to mention Hitler or Stalin. By saying that there are similarities between the west and Nazism is just about the same. It also is absolutely not true.

I asked before and conveniently never recieved an answer. Have you ever been afraid of being rounded up at night?

[Sir Bandelot]

You don't have to mention Hitler or Stalin. By saying that there are similarities between the west and Nazism is just about the same. It also is absolutely not true.

That is your opinion, but I have demonstrated that elements of those ideologies do exist, and work well, for certain powerful groups.

I asked before and conveniently never recieved an answer. Have you ever been afraid of being rounded up at night?

If you think it can't/ won't happen overnight, you've been fooled again. I did not live in Montreal in October 1970.