A Question (or two) for Fascists...

[orange]

Originally posted by GePap
well, too bad I am so badly versed in Speer's likes and dislikes: And as always, the initial intent of the threat usually has zero to do with the eventual outcome of it.

just didn't want you thinking that I actually thought Fascism was about banning rap music

Read some of speer's posts...they're gold...

[Az]

This was a great thread. I want to post a thread on utilitarianism, or to be more precise, my beliefs. But I just cannot find the right time. It's either I am busy, and not online, or I am debating something else, and it's getting rather late.

[Lancer]

Tell me, will fascism get rid of idiot headbanger music too?

[Tripledoc]

IS THE ISRAELI ECONOMY A FASCIST ONE?

(Authors note. This is a lengthy response I have written because I was banned for 14 days at civfanatics for denouncing Sharon as a Fascist. I would sincerely like some constructive criticism in order that my riposte (when the day comes) be true to the cause. I thought this the appropriate place to test my grievance.)

Let me correct first adress the common misunderstanding that Nazism and Fascism are the same.

1. Nazism is in essence a fundamentalist neo-pagan religion, this definition was made by the Holy See in their apology for not doing enough to confront the morality, or rather lack thereof, of nazism during the Second World War. The latest historical research on the subject of Nazism also support this. Hitler was acting the delusion that he would provide Messianic leadership. Also note that nazism functioned as an extension of parochial or folkloristic superstitions, something the Church have always fought against. As such it is thoroughly anti-modernist.

2. Fascism is a political and more importantly an economic system. In political terms it is characterized by an intense loyalty to the state and often a quite uncritical embrace of modernism, most specifically in areas of science. An extension of this is in economic terms is that it is an attempt to come to terms with the bankruptcy of the capitalist system.
In marxist terms there is a religious superstructure added to this system, but this is only used to cynically strengten social cohesion. Mussolini for example was staunchly anti-catholic and he even wrote a satirical novel of a cardinal having an affair with prostitute. The religious superstructure might change according to culture and tradition. Japanese Fascism finds sanctification in the Shinto religion, Scandianavian and North-American in Protestantism, Southern European and Latin American in Catholicism and finally, and controversially, Jewish in the Judaic faith. However, it is important to remember that all Fascist states have always remained secular.The importance of this will become apparent below.

Now, some aspects concerning the economy of the state of Israel.

On the face of it one might consider the state of Israel a modern welfare-system, meaning that it supposedly provides social support to all citizens disregarding status.
However, if one looks deeper into the matter certain things come to light.
Let me give a general outline of certain developments in the Israeli economy since the mid-eighties.

1. In 1970 the number of Palestinian workers employed in Israel proper was 20.000. This number rose to 90.000 (by unofficial estimates 150.000 during the harvest season) in 1985. By that year Palestinian workers, mostly unskilled, accounted for rougly on tenth of the total workforce in Israel proper. According to Joost R. Hiltermann (1): "The Palestinians have been a boon to the Israeli economy in more ways than one: Most of the taxes deducted from their paychecks are not returned to them either in cash benefits or in public services. This has vastly enriched the Israeli Treasury." In some way this might be said to give some credence to those who claim that the Israeli economy resembles that of Apartheid era South Africa. The apartheid system was in essence set up by white workers in order to deny any share in social benefits on equal basis with the indiginous population. Nonetheless recent developments in Israel points to something slightly more sinister.

2. On Nov. 14. 2001 a body of leading Israeli economists set down a policy designed to deal with the downward spiralling economy and the resultant worker strikes. Minister of Finance Silvan Shalom, Bank of Israel Governor David Klein, Manufacturers Association head Oded Tyrah, and Histadrut (Labor Union) Chairman Amir Peretz called for massive intervention in the Israeli economy through a freeze of public sector wages, a cessation of layoffs in industry, a reduction in interest rates, and subsidies for industry. The conservative Jerusalem based think-tank IASPS wistfully claimed. "It's reassuring in this age of globalism, multi-national corporations, capitalism, and markets, that Israel can remain true to its economic heritage: the Fascist state lead by the workers."(2) The misunderstanding that a Fascist state is in the interest of the workers points to the belief that superficial structural reforms constitutes the true nature of what is the reality of Fascism. Not true!

Opposed to the above I will now relate some recent developments in the Israeli economy since the start of the current Palestinian insurrection.

A) Social policy: 10% cut in social security. A cut in child allowances for anyone who does not have a breadwinner in the military. The hardest hit are the Israeli Arab community who suffer from higher unemployment and are also strongly discouraged from serving in the military.

B) Tax policy: The government has increased the allready high value added tax on goods from 17% to 18%. A value added tax increase will naturally hurt those who do not have very much to spend to begin with. See A) above.

C) Fiscal policy: Since December 2001, the shekel has depreciated almost 20%, and economists are predicting an annual inflation rate of over 8% by the end of this year. Israeli bonds are, however, indexed to follow inflation. This naturally preserves the wealth of the rich, while poor Israelis and Arabs are hurt. The reason for this unsound development is that Sharon, named by Dean Andromidas the "crafty fascist" (3), insists on using deficit financing in order to keep up the bloated military budget.

D) Military spending: Israel's current military spending per capita is about twice that of the US and about 25 times of its next largest rival in the Middle East, Egypt.

3. Delusional minds may say that economics is not everything. The following is an excerpt from an article by dr. Eran Lerman.(4)

" The struggle to stabilize the Israeli economy is intimately linked to the most decisive element in the present conflict: namely, the question of endurance and resilience. The rumblings of an economic crisis feed Palestinian expectations that somehow, soon, Israeli society will grow tired of this costly conflict and will sue for peace on their terms...
The Israeli economy remains essentially healthy; Israel is a land of opportunity with a real edge in certain vital high-tech and biotech fields. It needs a boost, and yet needs to be kept in balance, so as to be able to return to growth—all of which is doable, at a political price. Sharon seems willing to pay it."

We have already seen what price needs to be paid. If the message needs any further clarification let us see what Mussolini said concerning his idealogy. "To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself.... Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual." (5)


With this diatribe above we can now turn to some political aspects of the state of Israel.

Leaving aside the issue over whether Sharon expects his citizens to live on air alone
it is clear the he is bent on increasing the number of Israeli citizens. Sharon said" "It should be possible for anyone who wants to become a Jew to do so." (6) In this he has run into oppostion with the more orthodox elements within his government who compains that up to 70% of recent immigrants, mainly from Russia, do not qualify as being Jewish since that requires the individuals mother to be Jewish. Note that a Fascist stae is always secular.
The defence ministry now calls up young Russian immigrants to serve in the army while the interior ministry denies them rights because they are not deemed Jewish. Some, suspected of lying about being Jewish have been subjected to humiliating DNA tests. Clearly the threat of anarchy is beginning to show it's face. Even more ominous is the fact that a status hierachy within the state is laid down according to biological profiling.


We can conclude with the following:

1.Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state. Mussolini began a program of massive deficit spending, public works, and eventually, militarism.

Compare this to Sharons deficit financing in face of opposition of the central bank, the massive investment in building of a 'protective wall', and the last but not least the expansive militarization of the state.

2.Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.

Compare to the Israeli settlements of occupied lands.

3.The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad.

Compare to the statement made by dr. Eram Lerman (living safely in America) above.

4.Since Fascism is an exclusively secular ideology, although often inspired and underpinned by various forms of religion, a critique of the Israeli state as being Fascist is not in any way an insult to those of the Jewish faith. Likewise it would make little sense to blame Catholicism in itself or any other belief. Rather the Fascist state needs to be confronted because it employs an unsound, and wholly discredited, economic policy, which exalts the state at the expense of the livelihood its citizens and invariably also the subject peoples.


NOTES


1. Multinational Monitor: 'Israel's golden rule' 1988

2. IASPS.org November 17, 200

3. Executive intelligence review, june 28 2002 'Sharon Is Destroying Israel's Broken Economy

4.American Jewish commitee June 13, 2002 "It's the Economy (as Well), Stupid… A Weekly Briefing on Israeli and Middle Eastern Affairs"

5. op. cit. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 'Fascism' by Sheldon Richman

6. The Guardian 31, 2002 'Sharon takes on rabbis over Jewish identity'

[Ben Kenobi]

Azazel- go ahead and post that thread on Utilitarianism. Lots of meat there.

[chequita guevara]

Your piece shows a fundimental lack of understanding of the essence of fascism and a fixation on the forms that fascism takes. Do not confuse form with essence.

Nazism is a form of fascism, just as the American government is a form of democratic republicanism. Of the handful of fascist governments that exists (none exist today), no two were identical.

All, however, had certain fundimental features in common. In all cases, fascism arises only where the working class has the possibility of making revolution and fails to succeed in doing so. In the words on one anti-fascist, "Fascism is the punishment of the working class for failing to make the revolution."


Fascism is the movement of the ruined classes. This is important to understand, fascism isn't just an authoritarian government. It is a movement. Fascism is the expression of rage of the ruinded middle classes, the unemployed, the veteran, who all cry out for relief from their situation and look to a savour to lead them to better times. It is an expression of rage against those who are seen as having "betrayed" the nation: the Jews, the Communists, the Unions, etc.

Fascism comes to power only under specific circumstances, i.e., profitablity for the largest industrial and financial concerns has become endagered and the only way to restore profitablity is by smashing working class power. In the handful of countries where fascism came to power (Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain), it did so with the financing of heavy industry and big finance. It took power at their behest, and it operated the nation in their interests.

Far from nationalizing corporations, fascism does the exact opposite once it is in power, it puts the state at the beck and call of the corporations. Need new contracts, the state will provide them for you (the autobahn, rearmament). Need new markets, the state will get them for you (Albania, Ethiopa, Manchuria, Poland, etc.). Need a cheaper work force, the state will smash the old unions and provide compliant state-run unions, or better yet, slaves (the death camps were slave-labor camps). Have an unprofitable company, the state will nationalize it and over-compensate you for it. Fascism is all about restoring profitablity to private industry and finance.

Thus, Israel cannot be fascist.

[Berzerker]

"The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini

That to me seems like a broad description of fascism, but many people from a variety of ideologies make this kind of argument to support their position. I've heard liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans make this argument, so I wonder if fascism is more than just some foreign ideology that is isolated from the rest of us or if it's actually quite a widespread ideology masquerading abroad under other names.

[chequita guevara]

That statement of Mussolini's ins't necessarily a definition of fascism. If Mussolini said it was a beautiful day, that wouldn't mean that clear skies was a component of fascism. Frankly, that statement is true of all societies, even libertarian ones. Can an individual place his wishes or desires of the rights of others in a theoretical libertarian society? No. Therefore the good of society prevails over the good of the individual.

[Al B. Sure!]

Che:

you're analyzing fascism from the perspective of a communist, a political system the direct opposite fascism so I'm not too sure about that...

first off, fascism, being capitalist, is obviously going to gain support from businesses (especially as businesses, faced with either fascism or communism will obviously pick the former), but I don't think it's a movement to punish the lower middle class... quite the opposite. True, the Nazis came to power largely from the votes of the white collar and small businessmen (which, though not impoverished working class, they are still a far cry from elite industrial leaders), they still gained quite a bit of support from the right-wing poor... factory workers and agricultural workers in germany who were more socially conservative (usually due to religious reasons) would definently not turn to any marxist philosophy.

Also, you got to pay attention to what countries actually had fascism... Germany, Japan, and Italy are the best known but fascism also existed in Dominica under Trujillo, Spain under Franco, Portugal under Salvatore, Chile under Pinochet, as well as in Lithuania, Roumania, and Bulgaria during the second world war.

What do these countries have in common? first off, they were somewhat half-industrial... they had the potential to be powers (even modest powers in the case of bulgaria, dominica, etc.) but were not quite there. They had NO especially strong industry with the exception of Germany and Japan but were composed of more localized industries and smaller businesses... your theories about industry might fit germany but not dominica for example, nore the rest of the fascist countries. Most were roman catholic (italy, spain, portugal, chile, dominica, lithuania) and relatively moralistic.

There is also the issue of fascism being a movement of the middle class against the decadent groups... Goering (or was it Himmler?) was known for attacking the decadent bourgeious and seeing it as a great threat to the modified nietzschism of nazism. Goebbels attacked the Jews as being cheaters who grew rich and decadent off the backs of hard-working Germans.

To say that fascism is a punishment of the lower classes does not fit these facts... it could very well be the opposite... the first reference to fascism was made by mussolini who wrote that he wanted the proletariate to rise as a 'fasci' bundle of sticks to overthrow the weakness of the italian state.

Frankly, I see Fascism as basically being somewhat Socialist in that it is an anti-bourgious movement by the proletariate, but one that is done by conservative poor... in many ways, it is an offshoot of the populist and progressive movements of the turn of the century which were very religiously based and hoped for reform in society but within the bounds of capitalism.


thanks

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
fascism also existed in Dominica under Trujillo, Spain under Franco, Portugal under Salvatore, Chile under Pinochet, as well as in Lithuania, Roumania, and Bulgaria during the second world war.

None of these countries, with the possible exception of Franco's Spain (until the early 50s) were fascist. Authoritarianism, personal dictatorship doesn't equal fascism.

There is also the issue of fascism being a movement of the middle class against the decadent groups... Goering (or was it Himmler?) was known for attacking the decadent bourgeious and seeing it as a great threat to the modified nietzschism of nazism.

Only verbally, and once the Nazis were in power, such attacks stopped. When Roemer and the SA wanted to push forward with the supposed anti-bourgeois agenda of the Nazi Party, he and the rest of the leadership of the SA were done away with and the SA was disbanded.

To say that fascism is a punishment of the lower classes does not fit these facts...

The fascists destroyed all of the independent unions. They crushed strikes. They lowered the minimum wage. They overthrew the old contracts forced on employers by the previous militant unions. How could fascism be anything but an anti-worker movement. It did nothing to help the Italian, German, Spanish, or Japanese working classes.

Frankly, I see . . .

Does anyone really care? You're an uneducated lout, full of rage and angst who thinks he's got something important to say. Maybe instead of shooting off your mouth so damned much you should put what little intellect you have into studying. Maybe you'll accomplish something with your life.

[Al B. Sure!]

None of these countries, with the possible exception of Franco's Spain (until the early 50s) were fascist. Authoritarianism, personal dictatorship doesn't equal fascism.

They did tend to be corrupt (such as Trujillo), but they still referred to themselves as fascists. Trujillo admitted that he modelled his policies after Franco's and Mussolini's. They were right wing authoritarian systems that is usually considered one of the definitions of fascism. Dominica, etc. were just corrupt (maybe the fact that they were small countries with single industries and prone to banana republics heightened their straying from uncorrupt fascism)

Only verbally, and once the Nazis were in power, such attacks stopped. When Roemer and the SA wanted to push forward with the supposed anti-bourgeois agenda of the Nazi Party, he and the rest of the leadership of the SA were done away with and the SA was disbanded.

Nah... the SA was disbanded more because of petty politics than due to idealogical differences. Hitler saw the SA as being far too strong and as a threat to his own personal authourity. Hitler favoured a government by a dynamic individual (meaning him) and the SA was a threat to this just because it was a powerful group, not because of any idealogical leanings.

The fascists destroyed all of the independent unions. They crushed strikes. They lowered the minimum wage. They overthrew the old contracts forced on employers by the previous militant unions. How could fascism be anything but an anti-worker movement. It did nothing to help the Italian, German, Spanish, or Japanese working classes.

One thing you got to keep in mind is that most of the history of fascism involves depressions and warfare... even a marxist society can not be very pro-worker in such situations. We do not know how fascism would have turned out in a wealthy Germany in peace.


thanks

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
They did tend to be corrupt (such as Trujillo), but they still referred to themselves as fascists. Trujillo admitted that he modelled his policies after Franco's and Mussolini's.

Corruption is not a hallmark of fascism, though ever fascist state was certainly corrupt to the core. Your failure to understand is that you continue to look at the government, and the embodyment of the government in a single leader. Too say that Trujillo modeled his policies after Franco and Mussolini is meaningless. Eisenhower modeled some of his government policies after Hitler, i.e., the Interstate system was modeled on Hitler's Autobahn.

Trujillo had no mass movement behind him. Neither did any of the other strongmen you listed (though Pinochet comes close).

They were right wing authoritarian systems that is usually considered one of the definitions of fascism.

It's not a defintion, it's an observation. All fascist governements are right-wing dictatorships. Most right-wing dictatorships are not fascism.

Nah... the SA was disbanded more because of petty politics than due to idealogical differences. Hitler saw the SA as being far too strong and as a threat to his own personal authourity. Hitler favoured a government by a dynamic individual (meaning him) and the SA was a threat to this just because it was a powerful group, not because of any idealogical leanings.

You have such a limited understanding of the dynamics of Nazism. By that definition, Hitler should have abolished every powerful group, i.e., the Army, the Air Force, the SS . . . No, the difference is that the SA was largely proletarian, recruited to Nazism by the powerful anti-capitalist rhetoric of the SA. The slogan was, first the communists, then the capitalists. Well, once the Communists had been dealth with, the SA began demanding to move against the capitalists. Since the capitalists were the backers of the Nazi party, and since they could simply have called in the Army to overthrow the Nazis at any time, the SA became a dangerous liability. The worker class had already been smashed, the SA no longer served any useful purpose, the leadership was accused of homosexuality (which was true) and the organization destroyed.

One thing you got to keep in mind is that most of the history of fascism involves depressions and warfare... even a marxist society can not be very pro-worker in such situations. We do not know how fascism would have turned out in a wealthy Germany in peace.

Fascism is not a policy. It's not a type of government one simply decides to have. It only appears as a movement when large masses of the middle classes are ruined financially. In other words, it only appears during economic upheaval. The capitalists only allow fascism to take power under the most dire of circumstances, i.e., profitablity has collapsed and the working class is restless and threatening to take power (but not doing so, owing to poor leadership). In other words, fascism only appears and takes power during periods of great upheaval. During a period of peace and prosperity there is no need for it, which is why the movement dwindles. Even Franco's Spain ceased to be fascist in the 1950s, quietly slipping into a simple right-wing authoritarian dictatorship.

You have only the simplest understanding of fascism, Speer. You are like the blind man feeling the leg of an elephant and declaring it to be a tree.

[Tripledoc]

Thanks for your criticism, chegitz guevara

There are a couple of points, however, where I would need further clarification

chegitz guevara quote
"Your piece shows a fundimental lack of understanding of the essence of fascism and a fixation on the forms that fascism takes. Do not confuse form with essence."

I make the presumption 'form' is the structural aspect, while 'essence' is the functional one. For example, the structural elements of a Volkswagen Beetle are similar to other cars, but the function, the essence if you will, is that it is cheap to produce and smart. The structuralist/functionalist dichotomy, as laid out by guevera, confuses me somewhat, since the structure is a number of elements which make up a fully functional system (although in the case of Fascism it is my opinion that it is in fact dysfunctional, precisely because the elements do not make up a coherent, stable whole.) This said, guevera also say of various Fascisms that "no two were identical", which again would logically preclude any definate and final definition of the 'essence' of this system. That essentially is where guevara an I disagree on the subject as a whole.
Bringing in the utilitarian perspective one must ulimately look at what works. Since fascism is a dysfunctional system which has always been outclassed by other systems through economic or military competetion it cannot be utilitarian. If ever there was an essence to it, it is that it does not work. Therefore the rickety nature of this system must be sought after in the various parts, the form if you like.

guevara quotes an anti-fascist saying: "Fascism is the punishment of the working class for failing to make the revolution." I find that a particular useful statement in two ways.

1. The current failure of the Palestinian proletariat to have contested to issue from the beggining, now they own nothing. Is that not the reason why there is anarchy among them, no single objective but destruction of self and other? If it was not for international aid they would have all fled or died. They have ceased to be part of a self-sustainable system.

2. If we bring in historians like Felipe Fernandez-Armesto (1) and Alan S. Milward (2). The former claims that the facsism is a variant of socialism. That "planned re-inflation and wealth redistribution through public works...became the orthodoxy of social democracy." In essence is Sharon not willfully planning inflation and redistributing the wealth from the Palestinians to Israel proper through walling in the Palestinians (or is it the Israelis) and through settlement fortresses. It is well to remember that communists, at least here in Europe, often refer to social democracy as simply social fascism. A system to appease or dupe the workers. Milward, writing independently saw a clear connection between the fascist state and the post war development of the welfare state. Thus both Fernandez-Armesto and Milward are structuralists. What the aforementioned systems shared was a common belief in the nation-state. We might complain that the function, the essence, has changed, but the structure remains. Parts have been cannibalized and put into the creation of equally rickety machines. The current global economic crisis is the death-struggle of both the welfare state and social-democracy. But this does not mean that the parts cannot be put back together again, with either in hidious or beutiful results. Therein lies the struggle.

guevara says "Fascism is the movement of the ruined classes."

And agrees with Albert Speer in this thread when he says

"Frankly, I see Fascism as basically being somewhat Socialist in that it is an anti-bourgious movement by the proletariate, but one that is done by conservative poor."

In an article in the Guardian the reporter makes the analysis that the reason Sharon desires as many immigrants as possible, disregarding the obligation to faith, is that studies have shown that the second generation and the young tend to be extremely conservative in their viewpoints. (3) It is also clear that recent immigrant families tend to make up the poorer segments of society. I would modify guevaras statement of fascists being abjectly ruined to one where they have their hopes shattered.

Quote Albert Speer:"Goebbels attacked the Jews as being cheaters who grew rich and decadent off the backs of hard-working Germans."

Compare this to a report by CNN on the assasination of "Ultra-nationalist leader" Rehavam Ze'ev, tourist minister in Israel's coalition government under Sharon. CNN says "The forthright politician sparked controversy in July for referring to Palestinians working and living illegally in Israel as "lice" and a "cancer." (4) I hold no responsiblity for the wording 'forthright', also in my memory the insult was more generally directed.

Nevertheless, Fascism does not per se have to be racist. Rather racism is one function of the structure of Fascism, in that there is simply noy enough resources to go around for everybody to share. Therin the inbuilt failure. The income redistribution tend to find its way upwards instead of downwards where it is needed. In guevaras words "Fascism is all about restoring profitablity to private industry and finance." True, but that can be done through fiscal and monetary policies as well.

chegitz guevara quote
"Far from nationalising corporations, fascism does the exact opposite once it is in power, it puts the state at the beck and call of the corporations."
That is precisely why Israel holds on to the scaffolding of democracy, to allow corporations to remain influential with the state. remember corruption is ripe in Israel. And corruption springs from a fundamental lack of funds. It is a viscious cycle and it ends in failure. It is structural - not functional.

1. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, Millinium

2. Alan S. Milward, The Fascist Economy in Norway
War, Economy and Society
The European Rescue of the Welfare State

3.The Guardian 31, 2002 'Sharon takes on rabbis over Jewish identity'

4.CNN.com April 28, 2002 Rehavam Ze'evi: A controversial figure

[Berzerker]

chegitz -

That statement of Mussolini's ins't necessarily a definition of fascism. If Mussolini said it was a beautiful day, that wouldn't mean that clear skies was a component of fascism.

In that quote, "the good of society must prevail over the good of the individual", Mussolini wasn't commenting on the weather or some mundane observation, he was laying down a fundamental principle of his ideology - that the collective matters more than the individuals who make up the collective.

Frankly, that statement is true of all societies, even libertarian ones.

The Declaration of Independence refers to the inalienable rights of individuals, not a collective who can trump those individual rights. Libertarians endorse that idea.

Can an individual place his wishes or desires of the rights of others in a theoretical libertarian society?

Above the rights of others? Not sure what you meant, but no, rights are equal.

No. Therefore the good of society prevails over the good of the individual.

How do you figure? Slavery would be illegal in a libertarian system because the good of the collective doesn't trump the individual. In a system where the good of the collective does trump the individual, slavery could be allowed as part of the fascist ideology.

[red_jon]

So what type of state would Speer want?