I agree that there are echoes of fascism in all authoritarian and repressive measures instituted under capitalist political systems. Echoes. Bits and Pieces. Parts. Quasi- or Proto-
And we all would be foolish to not object to authoritarian and repressive measures, not just in and of themselves, but becasue they can be precursors to fascist state poewr. But where does fascism come from? Is it a top down creation, or does it arise from a mass movement of the middle class, or is it a fusion of the two? I am arguing that for state fscism, there must be an autonomous middle class mass movement, a crisis, and a decision by one faction of ruling elites to build a coalition with the mass movement to stave off the crisis resulting in their being toppled. This thesis is one of many of the new theories about where fascism comes from. It is key to my objections to the overbroad use of the concept of fascism.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Chuck Grimes
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 3:50 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: The New Nazism
>
>
>
> ``...Now if you want to step back from wretched rhetoric excess and
> have a discussion about how terrible and alarming is the wave of
> government repression, I will probably agree with you completely, even
> down to the echoes of fascism...'' Chip Berlet
>
> ---------
>
> Okay (ignoring a great deal of insulting tripe). My argument goes like
> this. The Nazis put into place legislative police state powers
> first, and then proceeded to carry out their program as the rule of
> law and governance. I maintain it is the establishment of broad police
> powers of governmental institutions and their sweeping legal authority
> itself that puts the US at the threshold of Germany in the 1930s.
The problem here is still one of logical fallacies. All sorts of regimes "put into place legislative police state powers."
The far right in the US argues that since the Nazis passed gun laws that the curent US government is fascistic.
The logical fallacy here is the claim that congruence in one aspect implies congruence in all aspects. It doesn't.
So then the question goes back to "What is the essence of fascism?"
>
> There is no legal means to stop the US government from rounding up
> any, some, or all non-citizens and putting them in indefinite
> detention and or processing them through secret kangaroo courts then
> executing them. Nothing, get it? Citizens are subject to unlimited
> surveillance, investigation, arrest, held incommunicado in detention,
> and tried in secret, if they are identified (by pronouncement, without
> evidence) as supporting or involved in some overly broad category of
> unspecified crimes, termed terrorist activities. These powers are
> granted under the patriot act, to the US Attorney General, officials
> of the Justice Department and federal law enforcement agencies to use
> at their discretion. Many of these powers have been placed beyond
> judicial oversight or review.
Nothing eneated by Congress or promulgated by the Executive branch is "placed beyond judicial oversight or review." If it had been, I would agree with you that we had become a police state. I do not have much faith in the Supreme Court, but it still can review everything that has been done, and probably will.
And yes, thanks, I "get it." Political repression is terrible, especially when groups are scapegoated. Check out my web page on the subject which is one of the major sites linked by the National Lawyers Guild on the subject. I am working in a national coalition to fight political repression, including giving speeches at meetings of students and anarchists.
http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/Security_for_Activists.htm
> Even if an effective, well constructed series of court cases are
> generated, these would mostly likely end up before a Supreme Court
> that has already discredited itself. The court would mostly likely
> rule to support the very executive, the court itself installed by
> default.
>
> This isn't a question of being alarmist, engaging in loose rhetoric,
> making fallacious arguments, doing poorly researched sociology or
> ignoring the oppressions of an unbridled capitalism. These are laws
> and formal political realities.
>
> I am not claiming we live in a police state. I am saying absolutely we
> live in a police state, period. It's already accomplished fact.
If we lived in a police state, this discussion would have been terminated. The roundup of Arab and Muslim "suspects" is heinous, and must be protested, but we are not talking about actual martial law. And even if we lived in a police state, it might not be a fascist police state, and the difference matters when developing counter-strategies.
> Now, the argument against this view of affairs is to say, well yes,
> technically, since the 2001 patriot act, we live a police state, but
> nobody in government is going to carry that out to extremes.
<<SNIP>>
No, there is another argument. That the US has seen this level of political repression before, and it was neither a police state nor fascism, but that prudent people should indeed be raising an alarm about protecting civil liberties, but that hyperbole is not constructive when what we are facing is bad enough.
But would you at least concede that we are not living under "The New Nazism?"
-Chip