Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

June 15, 2004 9:12 AM

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism.
posted by chunking express (29 comments total)

Google Search Onsite
posted by y2karl at 9:17 AM on June 15, 2004

damn it. sigh.
posted by chunking express at 9:18 AM on June 15, 2004

Wait a minute. Censorship? y2Karl is a damn fascist.
posted by chunking express at 9:30 AM on June 15, 2004

It's also probably not the best idea to link to anything from Rense. They're kind of nutty.
posted by loquax at 9:38 AM on June 15, 2004

Various versions of this have been around since at least November 2001, but probably longer... that was at least the first time one of my tinfoil hat friends emailed it to me.
posted by psmealey at 9:39 AM on June 15, 2004

It's cute how y2karl likes to play Metafilter cop. Good boy!
posted by the fire you left me at 9:54 AM on June 15, 2004

What ever happened to good old-fashioned palingenetic ultranationalism?
posted by nickmark at 9:58 AM on June 15, 2004

the fire you left me, are you intentionally hypocritical?
posted by BlueTrain at 10:03 AM on June 15, 2004

Bush is 14 for 14.
posted by wsg at 10:04 AM on June 15, 2004

So when are you "Bushitler is a fascist dictator" moonbats going to stop chirping and take up arms against the government?
posted by techgnollogic at 10:37 AM on June 15, 2004

Umberto Eco's "Eternal Fascism: 14 Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt" is a much better, and, imo, more informative read. Plus, it was written in 1995, so for all of the similarities to the Bush administration, it can't be written off as the ravings of "'Bushitler is a fascist dictator' moonbats."
posted by jbrjake at 10:48 AM on June 15, 2004

When they came to take the double posters, I did nothing, because I was not a double poster.

When they came to take the double post callout posters, I did nothing, because I was busy making pancakes

Then they came to take my pancakes, and I had nothing for breakfast.

And that really sucked
posted by Outlawyr at 10:52 AM on June 15, 2004

Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Communism:

1. Powerful and Continuing Internationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Unisexualism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion is Hated and Feared
9. Government Monopoly of Business is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
posted by kablam at 11:03 AM on June 15, 2004

When they came to take Outlawyr's pancakes, I watched from the window while consuming my delicious-yet-low-carb breakfast substitute, and did nothing.
posted by ewkpates at 11:05 AM on June 15, 2004

jbrjake: Is Eco deliberately describing middle eastern regimes, or is that just a coincidence?
posted by techgnollogic at 11:08 AM on June 15, 2004

d00ds, you gotta check out these other kool articlez from Rense:

This Month In UFO History

Israel Planning Next 9/11

MSG - Slowly Poisoning America
posted by dhoyt at 12:21 PM on June 15, 2004

Is Eco deliberately describing middle eastern regimes, or is that just a coincidence?

Well, as he says, the traits he's listed are contradictory and "typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism." So if you want to use it as evidence of burgeoning 'Islamofascism' in the Middle East, go ahead. I wouldn't, however. For one thing, most Arab states are not known for nationalism--pan-national Islamism being something else altogether. I also don't know where you're seeing syncretism in Middle Eastern regimes. Also, as Eco states, "Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology" while the Middle East is one of the least technologically developed sectors of the modern world (though, I'm guessing, ahead of Africa or rural Asia). Also, you don't see much of a rejection of capitalism. The Egyptian response to Coca-Cola's dominance wasn't to stop buying soft drinks or socialize beverages, it was to start their own capitalist cola company, Mecca. The rejection of businesses like McDonald's in the ME isn't so much a rejection of capitalism as it is a rejection of shipping their money off to America and Europe. Even Osama uses capitalism--didn't he have people hawking honey to fund terrorism a few years back? Most ME states are despotic and tyrannical, but I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable labelling them fascism. Fascism tends to happen in industrialized nations, syndicalism and all that.
posted by jbrjake at 12:28 PM on June 15, 2004

5. Rampant Unisexualism

i love this.
What does it mean? Cloning? Men with long hair? Women working at jobs?

y'know, any society that adopted such a plan really wouldn't last very long. There wouldn't be a second generation, now would there? Not a good long-term plan.
posted by Miles Long at 12:50 PM on June 15, 2004

Oh I see, so you're supposed to apply the definition broadly and loosely to states you want to call fascist, and very narrow and specifically to states you don't. These middle eastern states are "despotic and tyrannical" but they're not fascist, and the United States is neither despotic nor tyrannical, and yet Bush is a fascist. How useful.
posted by techgnollogic at 12:51 PM on June 15, 2004

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to use your judgment. Remember medical student's syndrome? When reading about symptoms, one often begins to ascribe them to oneself. The same can easily be done here. This doesn't mean those medical books aren't of value, though. Keep your eyes open.
posted by Loudmax at 1:01 PM on June 15, 2004

Funny, the link never speaks of the United States.

Of course, whether or not you like the source of the list is irrelevant. The list is simply a collection of unpleasant things that most people would not want their government to embody. The fact that this list has many similarities to the US government is very disappointing but does not mean that we have to call this goverment fascist. Call it what you will, if not fascism, call it American democracy, call it freedom fries.

It doesn't matter.

It still sucks. I don't have to compare Bush to Hitler to show my disdain for his philosophy, for his politics, for his behavior, for his growing legacy. I only have to speak about what his administration does. It's just a shitty coincidence that it does many of the things on this list.
posted by sic at 1:01 PM on June 15, 2004

Funny, the link never speaks of the United States.

Funny, I never said the link spoke of the United States. I was responding to jbrjake, who posted the link and said, "it was written in 1995, so for all of the similarities to the Bush administration, it can't be written off as the ravings of '"Bushitler is a fascist dictator" moonbats.'"

So jbrjake seems to think the list applies to Bush more than the middle eastern countries, which I think is off the wall.
posted by techgnollogic at 1:14 PM on June 15, 2004

Funny, I wasn't talking to you.

But it doesn't matter what you say, techgnollogic, it doesn't matter what jbrjake says.. You can snark, you can redefine political terms, you can get angry, happy, sad. It doesn't matter.

The Bush regime does the things on this list. This is my position. Debate my position, if you wish, I may or may not respond. Leaving Hitler out of it is fine by me.
posted by sic at 1:20 PM on June 15, 2004

Interesting--if you changed 9 to Business Monopoly of Government, then, apart from numbers 1, 5 and 8, kablam's list could be applied to the U.S. political situation in recent history.
posted by y2karl at 1:34 PM on June 15, 2004

bush is a leader-wannabe fratboy moron and is the brain-dead evil puppet of malicious greed-driven corporate fucksticks, and no amount of panty-twisting by tech-no-logic can alter that.
posted by quonsar at 1:41 PM on June 15, 2004

Oh I see, so you're supposed to apply the definition broadly and loosely to states you want to call fascist, and very narrow and specifically to states you don't. These middle eastern states are "despotic and tyrannical" but they're not fascist, and the United States is neither despotic nor tyrannical, and yet Bush is a fascist. How useful.

I never said Bush is a fascist. I said that there were similarities between the list and the Bush administration. For that matter, the list is not even of characteristics of fascism. Eco says the traits he identifies are precursors to fascism, that can be found in various cultures throughout the world.

You seem incredulous that I could think the Bush administration displays traits of what Eco calls ur-fascism (and you conflate with fascism) but not despotic and tyrannical. You obviously don't have a very strong grasp of the difference between those adjectives. Despotism is not fascism. Tyranny is not fascism. Fascism is a very specific form of government, and it's not one that grows out of the strongmen regimes we see in the ME. It comes out of Western-style republics that go bad. You've got to go through a period where the parliament has credibility in order for it lose it. You seem to think that I feel fascism is worse than despotism or tyranny. However, I think the tyranny of, say, Stalin, was far worse than the fascism of, say, Franco, or even the early Futurists.

But let explain further what I mean by similarities. Many figures in the Bush administration believe in the religious--not political--authority of the Bible. This is in line with Eco's first point, a belief in revelations handed down millenia ago and interpreted through scripture. It is also a trait found in many fundamentalist Islamic regimes. A rejection of modernism, Eco's second point, can be evidenced by the Bush administration's rejection of stem-cell research, or by Saudi Arabia's ban on cellphones. Eco's third point is action for action's sake. For example: the argument that we needed to invade Iraq in order to display America's force and its willingess to use it. This is an argument favored by my father, a Reagan Democrat who is a firm supporter of the war in Iraq. Republican's appeal to a frustrated middle class can be seen in the affirmative action debate and the immigration debate, not to mention middle class tax cuts. The Bush administration certainly works off the assumption that there's an international conspiracy against America; it happens that the conspiracy is real. Humiliation at the force of our enemies is evidenced every time Bush says the defining moment for his Presidency was 9/11, when we learned that our oceans cannot protect us and that our enemies are more ruthless than ever. Life lived for struggle, or permanent warfare, is the central thesis of Michael Ledeen, the prominent neoconservative ideologue, known for his desire to spread a revolution of democracy through invading Iraq and Iran and Syria. It's also seen in Muslim radicals who believe in a literal jihad as opposed to a spiritual one. That Americans are the best people in the world is no oddity to anyone who's been exposed to American political rhetoric from either party. The idea that everyone can be a hero is one of the most emotional, moving arguments Bush has made--that a C student, a former alcoholic, could rise to the Presidency is a sign of the greatness of the American system. Of course, suicide bombers are educated that they can all be heroes too. A transer of political will to sexual matters is a characteristic of despotic Islamic regimes who swath their women in sackcloth, but also the Republican plank that abortion is a political issue or the early act of the Bush administration to cut funding for family planning and birth control. The people having a monolithic common will is the dominant metaphor in islamic states, there there's the government, but then the 'Arab street.' However, you can also see it in things like Bush's dismissal of the protesters before the Iraq war as not representative of the people, or his dismissal of polling in favor of an abstract connection with the common people. Before the 2002 election, Bush was very fond of rhetoric exhorting against the corrupt obstructionist Democrats in the Senate. As for newspeak...homicide bombers much? Embeds? Weapons of mass destruction related activities? Interrogation?

Eco ends his article:

Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, "I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares." Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world.

posted by jbrjake at 1:42 PM on June 15, 2004

Characterize the act, not the child (or the administration).
posted by Dick Paris at 2:10 PM on June 15, 2004

banning stem cells = banning cell phones

Iraq war = gratuitous show of force

Spread revolution of democracy = Worldwide Islamic jihad

Debate over abortion, public funding of birth control = enshrouding women in cloth, honor killings, women banned from education

Your equivalencies are crap.

Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world

Like screaming and pointing at a matchstick named Bush while the Sun of Arabia cooks you from behind? Good work, Soldiers of Liberty.
posted by techgnollogic at 2:17 PM on June 15, 2004

You obviously don't have a very strong grasp of the difference between those adjectives. Despotism is not fascism. Tyranny is not fascism. Fascism is a very specific form of government, and it's not one that grows out of the strongmen regimes we see in the ME. It comes out of Western-style republics that go bad. You've got to go through a period where the parliament has credibility in order for it lose it. You seem to think that I feel fascism is worse than despotism or tyranny. However, I think the tyranny of, say, Stalin, was far worse than the fascism of, say, Franco, or even the early Futurists.

This distinction should be enshrined in the MeFi argument Hall OF Fame. Its obvious that techgnollogic doesn't get it because of his own moral equivalences (Us = GOOD, Them = BAD), but if even 90% of Mefites could keep in mind that bad forms of governance are not all the same, we might actually be closer to understanding those we don't seem to agree with. Wouldn't that be neat?
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:26 PM on June 15, 2004