There’s increasing talk of Trump as being a fascist. In fact
he has far more in common with some of the big Latin American dictators of the
past, whose only ideology was what was on their minds. But then fascism is one
of those words often not well understood.
For example, writing for Vox, Dylan Matthews recently
misleadingly noted:
In fact, most experts think that
it's hard to identify a characteristically "fascist" economic policy.
It was all secondary to other goals, notably preparation for war. "Of all
the policy areas, the economic one is the one where classical historic fascist
parties were most flexible," Paxton says. "They did what was
expedient in the moment. They were defending war veterans and attacking big
corporations but quickly dropped that when they discovered they needed the
money. … It's hard to link those people to any one kind of economic idea. They
would do anything to make their country militarily ready for war."
This is completely unhistorical view of the word. As we
pointed out some years back:
In the first place, one needs to separate Hitler, Nazism and
fascism. Conflating these leads the unwary to assume easily that all three are
inevitably characterized by anti-Semitism, when in fact only the first two are.
By avoiding this distinction we don't have to face the fact that America is
closer to fascism than it has ever been in its history.
To understand why, one needs to look not at Hitler but at the
founder of fascism, Mussolini. What Mussolini founded was the estato
corporativo - the corporative state or corporatism. Writing in Economic Affairs
in the mid 1970s, R.E. Pahl and J. T. Winkler described corporatism as a system
under which government guides privately owned businesses towards order, unity,
nationalism and success. They were quite clear as to what this system amounted
to: "Let us not mince words. Corporatism is fascism with a human face. . .
An acceptable face of fascism, indeed, a masked version of it, because so far
the more repugnant political and social aspects of the German and Italian
regimes are absent or only present in diluted forms."
Adrian Lyttelton, describing the rise of Italian fascism in The
Seizure of Power, writes: "A good example of Mussolini's new views is
provided by his inaugural speech to the National Exports Institute on 8 July
1926. . . Industry was ordered to form 'a common front' in dealing with
foreigners, to avoid 'ruinous competition,' and to eliminate inefficient
enterprises. . . The values of competition were to be replaced by those of
organization: Italian industry would be reshaped and modernized by the cartel
and trust. . .There was a new philosophy here of state intervention for the
technical modernization of the economy serving the ultimate political
objectives of military strength and self-sufficiency; it was a return to the
authoritarian and interventionist war economy."
Lyttelton writes that "fascism can be viewed as a product of
the transition from the market capitalism of the independent producer to the
organized capitalism of the oligopoly." It was a point that Orwell had
noted when he described fascism as being but an extension of capitalism. Lyttelton
quoted Nationalist theorist Affredo Rocco: "The Fascist economy is. . . an
organized economy. It is organized by the producers themselves, under the
supreme direction and control of the State."
1 comment:
Not all that relevant to the US which invented the current form. Has to do with slavery and wage slavery in an industrial era. This system in the CSA was naturally imperialist, not just the civil war but its precursor war against Mexico. Andersonville and the Long March, reservations,eugenics,Bernaysian propaganda. Hitler got it from Wilson, designer of Versailles Treaty, the MIC and anticommunism. Hitler was indebted to US business support in violation of Versailles. Fascism in the US most directly derives from Operation Paperclip and the Dulles Brothers whose anticommunism preceded Hitler and borrowed from him.Mae Brussell was the expert on the actual handoff of the Nazi Axis empire to its US successor, the object still being to unify the globe under one master government restoring in the US version, feudalism for the supreme financial sector successfully defeatng nouveau riches of industrial production if productive capitalism, to the extent coexisting, is controlled by a financialized anti-producer state overseeing static slavery much like the CSA.
Post a Comment