[WS:] You make excellent points, Chip. I very much appreciate your realistic perspective on the subject.
One thing that seems to be missing from using the Euro experience to analyze the growth of fascism in the US is consideration of the structure of the state i.e. the federal decentralized structure of the US state, that is very much different from the centralized structure of the European fascist states. That makes establishment a centralized fascist control far more difficult here than it was in Europe.
I think that a more likely outcome of the actual (as opposed to potential) growth of fascist movement in the US is the break-up of the union with some states taken over by the fascists while other resisting them. This outcome seems to be suggested by the development in former Yugoslavia, which had a federal and relatively decentralized structure.
I think it is unlikely that a centralized fascist control akin to that in Germany could be effectively established in the US. That would require unprecedented cooptation of state governors and legislatures. I can see many northern states actively resisting such cooptation, which is likely to escalate to internal tensions in the union similar to those in the antebellum period. Whether those tensions would eventually lead to a breakup of the union or some sort of military intervention is hard to predict. I think that a more likely scenario under these circumstances (if they materialize, which is a big if) is that we observed in Yugoslavia - a breakup of the federal structure into different states, some of which doing rather well (cf. Slovenia) other consummated by violent conflicts (cf. Bosnia, Kosovo), while other relatively stable but under a totalitarian rule (cf. Serbia.)
Wojtek
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org>wrote:
> Thanks for a meaty response. Let me try to respond as clearly as I am
> able. One of the reasons I am here accepting the psychic death of a
> thousand cybercuts is that I find I am unable at present to explain why I am
> worried in a coherent way, coupled with the fact that on some issues I lack
> clarity myself.
>
> See below by section for my responses. My stupid Outlook remote software
> does not place arrows in front, so I will do it myself
>
> >>>>>Like This
> ++++++++++++++++++++
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org on behalf of Marv Gandall
> Sent: Fri 2/19/2010 10:08 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Fascism, right-wing populism,and contemporary
> research
>
>
>
>
> On 2010-02-19, at 6:35 PM, Chip Berlet wrote:
>
> > I am not saying the TP movement is fascist; and no, it probably will
> > never become a full-blown fascist movement, and no, it will probably not
> > seize state power.
>
> [...]
>
> > If you (Doug) can't be bothered with this discussion, can I at least
> garner
> > your permission to answer a few more of the posts by people raising
> > serious questions and pointing out flaws in my argument?
> =================================
> Your position, though, is unclear. You've again stated that the TO movement
> will "probably never become a full blown fascist movement", but you've also
> urged on us an overheated article to by your colleague, Sara Robinson, which
> argues the opposite: that "the guessing game is over" and "we are there
> now."
>
> >>>>> Alas, you are correct. my position is unclear. Here is what I posted
> as a comment under Robinson's original post after we had discussed her
> thesis via e-mail.
>
> Needs a serious discussion <
> https://mail.publiceye.org/blog-entry/2009083205/fascist-america-are-we-there-yet#comment-11648
> >
> By Chip Berlet <https://mail.publiceye.org/user/10889> | August 6, 2009 -
> 8:28am GMT
>
> If we look at the major contemporary scholars of fascism--Payne, Griffin,
> Eatwell, Gentile, Paxton, etc.--despite their differences, there are enough
> clues in their work to make analyzing the current moment in the United
> States a much-needed exercise.
>
> Right-Wing Populism, Dualism, Demonization, Scapegoating, Conspiracism, and
> Apocalyptic Aggression are core elements of a fascist movement. Both Sara
> Robinson and David Neiwert have been ably exploring these and similar themes
> for some time now.
>
> We need to set aside the hyperbolic use of the term "fascism;" the hoax
> quote attributed to Mussolini that fascism is just corporatism; and facile
> and flawed analysis such as the fallacy of logic list by Laurence W. Britt.
>
> My views on the dynamics can be found in the list of material below [[I put
> them at the bottom of this post]]. In the meantime, I encourage folks to
> join a serious discussion led by Sara.
>
> Remember, even a floundering or failed neofascist movement can spawn brutal
> attacks and violence in a society. There have been nine murders since the
> inauguration that can be linked to some form of White Supremacy and
> Apocalyptic Aggression.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Lest I be accused of taking her comments out of context:
>
> What many, including myself, view as the Republican leadership's hesitant
> and uncertain adaptation to pressures from it's angry and restless base, SR
> sees as a fully consummated marriage in which "America's conservative elites
> have openly thrown in with the country's legions of discontented far right
> thugs". "They have", she writes, "explicitly deputized them and empowered
> them to act as their enforcement arm on America's streets, sanctioning the
> physical harassment and intimidation of workers, liberals, and public
> officials who won't do their political or economic bidding."
>
> For her, this marks "the catalyzing moment at which honest-to-Hitler
> fascism begins", and "it's probably too late to stop it". "From here, it
> escalates, as minor thuggery turns into beatings, killings, and systematic
> tagging of certain groups for elimination, all directed by people at the
> very top of the power structure." She boldly (and erroneously) prophesied
> such an escalation would begin after Labor Day.
>
> >>>>> An object lesson in never predicting catastrophic political events.
> I told Robinson (who is a colleague and cyber friend) that I did not think
> that things had advanced to the next stage, but that it was time for
> progressive "folks to join a serious discussion." Militant right-wing
> populist movements in which people start wandering around with loaded guns
> and storing ammunition (this really is happening), have been called the
> "seedbed of fascism."
>
> >>>>>At the same time that Republicans are pandering to the TP crowd,
> insurgent ultra-right racist and neofascist grouplest (Griffin calls them
> groupuscules) are actively recruiting from the TP movement, just like they
> did with the 1990s militia movement, and it was this dynamic that prompted
> Timoty McVeigh to blow up the OKC federal building. McVeigh had joined a
> neonazi cell after flowing through the militia movement. There is evidence
> that one of his three known accomplices, Terry Nichols who was closer to the
> militia movement, thought the building would be empty when it was bombed. I
> know this in part becasue I was called as an expert by the Nichols defense
> to review documents and videotapes.
>
> >>>>>Meanwhile, we see centrist Democrats and liberal commentators glibly
> dismissing the TP movement as wing nuts and crackpots and extremists. This
> while the US government and odious elected officials like Lieberman pushing
> for more goverment power to monitor and disrupt "Homegrown Radicalism" and
> "Violent Extremism" whcih would legitimise the illegal FBI COINTELPRO
> program, and further shred the Fisrt Amendment.
>
> >>>>>So you can see why actual progressive and left organizers out in the
> field (I have been doing interviews on the ground in five northwest states
> and talked with activists in ten others) are trying to navigate a path
> through this mess.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++
>
> By SR's reckoning, the three conditions said to mark the beginning of a
> fascist takeover are already present in America:
>
> 1. "Neo- or protofascisms wield major influence on the political scene";
>
> 2. "The economic and political systems are in an apparently insoluble state
> of blockage"; and
>
> 3. "A rapid political mobilization is threatening to escape the control of
> traditional elites", and they are looking for "tough helpers in order to
> stay in charge."
>
> I don't at all agree with her analysis, or that we have arrived at this
> advanced stage. I'm perhaps readier than others on the list to see
> teabaggers as seeds of a future fascist movement, but have insisted it would
> require both that the current simmering crisis turn widely catastrophic, and
> that it produce a parallel growth and radicalization on the left of the
> political spectrum, one which would threaten the political control of the
> two governing bourgeois parties - none of which is in evidence.
>
> >>>>>But what happens if the TP movement remains a right-wing populist
> seedbed of fscism while never fully transforming into a full-blown
> neofascist movement? What happens to "mainstream" politics and what happens
> to the political reality of field organizers on the Left? I see both the
> Republicans and Democrats moving further to the Right. And I see a toxic
> political wasteland in many states in which field organizers on the Left are
> getting doors slammed in their face while ultra-right and neofascist
> grouplets introduce racist and xenophobic memes into the TP movement from
> the Right. This is already happening in Montana and Idaho. I've been in
> those states in the last few months and this scenario I am describing is
> actually already happening.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> So what are we to conclude: that your perspective accords more with mine
> and others who share it or with your colleague's? You'll agree it's hard to
> "raise serious questions and point out flaws in (your) argument" without
> really knowing what it is.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am trapped between the two perspectives. I told Robinson I
> thought it was time for a serious discussion of the dynamics involving
> right-wing populism and neofascism. I thought that was an under-theorized
> terrain. I still do. I think it took a lot of guts for Robinson to try to
> frame a public discussion.
>
> I am finding this discussion here on LBO very useful in forcing me to think
> about it, so thanks, Marv.
>
> :-)
>
> -Chip
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>