The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.
Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A
Statement of Principles”
on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these
principles seem so logical, so
right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that
is anathema to almost
all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are
wafting in the air today,
surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we
stand for. The cliché
that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also
overestimated; often
we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly,
historical amnesia is the norm.
We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi
Germany, although constant
reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the
historical models that
define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist,
this worldview and the
characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist regimes
at various times in
the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the
later protofascist
regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars
question any direct
connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.
Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist
regimes reveals the
absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course,
is not a revelation to
the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the
interests of perspective to
restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current
circumstances.
For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following
regimes: Nazi Germany,
Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece,
Pinochet’s Chile, and
Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national
identities, cultures,
developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or
protofascist model in
obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes
have been overthrown, so
a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses
is possible.
Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link
them in recognizable
patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic
characteristics are more prevalent
and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least
some level of similarity.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent
displays of flags and
bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic
nationalism, both on the part
of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always
obvious. Catchy
slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes
in expressing this
nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign
that often bordered on
xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves
viewed human rights as of
little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling
elite. Through clever use
of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights
abuses by marginalizing,
even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the
tactic was to use secrecy,
denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most
significant common thread
among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the
people’s attention from
other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in
controlled
directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and
disinformation—were usually
effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the
target scapegoats,
usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial
minorities, traditional
national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals,
and “terrorists.” Active
opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt
with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always
identified closely with
the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A
disproportionate share of
national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs
were acute. The
military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever
possible to assert
national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and
prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the
national culture were
male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class
citizens. They were
adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually
codified in Draconian
laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country,
thus lending the
regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were
under strict direct
control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other
regimes exercised
more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control
of licensing and
access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied
threats. The leaders
of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite.
The result was usually
success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security
apparatus was under direct
control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression,
operating in secret and
beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of
protecting “national
security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or
even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the
fascist and
protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents.
In fact, most of the
regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and
chose to portray
themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the
ruling elite’s behavior was
incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under
the rug. Propaganda
kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith
and opponents of the
“godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was
tantamount to an
attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary
citizens was under
strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative
freedom was not
compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not
only ensure military
production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of
social control. Members of
the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a
continued mutuality of
interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was
seen as the one power
center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and
its corporate allies,
it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an
underclass, viewed with
suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was
considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals
and the inherent
freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to
these regimes.
Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national
security and the
patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically
unreliable faculty harassed
or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly
attacked, silenced, or
crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national
interest or they had no
right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained
Draconian systems of
criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often
glorified and had almost
unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime
were often merged into
trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents
of the regime. Fear,
and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the
population as an excuse for
more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close
to the power elite
often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked
both ways; the power
elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite,
who in turn would gain
the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a
position to obtain
vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national
resources. With the
national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this
corruption was largely
unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public
opinion polls were
usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would
usually be perverted
by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included
maintaining control of the
election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters,
destroying or
disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary
beholden to the power elite.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is
America, officially a
democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest
elections, and a
well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils.
Historical comparisons like
these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * *
____________________________________________________________________________________
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + +
Finally, the campaigns of 1793 and 1794 set Clausewitz on the path of
recognizing war as a
political phenomenon. Wars, as everyone knew, were fought for a purpose
that was political,
or at least always had political consequences. Not as readily apparent
was the implication
that followed. If war was meant to achieve a political purpose, everything
that entered into
war — social and economic preparation, strategic planning, the conduct of
operations, the
use of violence on all levels — should be determined by this purpose, or
at least accord
with it. Even though soldiers had to acquire special expertise, and
function in what in some
respects was a separate world, it would be a denial of reality to allow
them to carry on
their bloody work undisturbed until an armistice brought their political
employer back into
the equation. Just as war and its institutions reflected their social
environment, so every
aspect of fighting should be suffused by its political impulse, whether
this impulse was
intense or moderate. The appropriate relationship between politics and war
occupied
Clausewitz throughout his life, but even his earliest manuscripts and
letters show his
awareness of their interaction.
The ease with which this link — always acknowledged in the abstract —
can be forgotten in
specific cases, and Clausewitz’s insistence that it must never be
overlooked, are
illustrated by his polite rejection toward the end of his life of a
strategic problem set by
the chief of the Prussian General Staff, in which every military detail of
the opposing
sides was spelled out, but no mention made of their political purpose. To
a friend who had
sent him the problem for comment, Clausewitz replied that it was not
possible to draft a
sensible plan of operations without indicating the political condition of
the states
involved, and their relationship to each other: ‘War is not an independent
phenomenon, but
the continuation of politics by different means. Consequently, the main
lines of every major
strategic plan are largely political in nature, and their political
character increases the
more the plan applies to the entire campaign and to the whole state. A war
plan results
directly from the political conditions of the two warring states, as well
as from their
relations to third powers. A plan of campaign results from the war plan,
and frequently - if
there is only one theater of operations - may even be identical with it.
But the political
element even enters the separate components of a campaign; rarely will it
be without
influence on such major episodes of warfare as a battle, etc. According to
this point of
view, there can be no question of a purely military evaluation of a great
strategic issue,
nor of a purely military scheme to solve it.’
Everyman’s Library, 1993 ISBN: 0679420436 On war /by Clausewitz, Carl
von, 1780-1831.
Knopf, 1993. From the introduction by Peter Paret, Pg7
_____________________________________________________________________
The U-2 is a jet-powered reconnaissance aircraft specially designed to fly
at high altitudes
(i.e., above 70,000 ft [21 km]). It was used during the late 1950s to
overfly the Soviet
Union, China, the Middle East, and Cuba; flights over the Soviet Union,
the primary mission
for which the plane was designed, ended in 1960 when a U-2 flown by CIA
pilot Gary Powers
was shot down over the Soviet Union. This event was a major political
embarrassment for the U.S.
http://www.espionageinfo.com/Te-Uk/U-2-Spy-Plane.html
Soviet Prime Minister Khrushchev's reaction to the overflights which
were discovered
just before a summit conference in Paris with President Eisenhower: "It
was as though the
Americans had deliberately tried to place a time bomb under the meeting" .
. ."How could
they count on us to give them a helping hand if we allowed ourselves to be
spat upon without
so much as a murmur of protest?" The only solution was to demand a formal
public apology
from Eisenhower and a guarantee that no more overflights would take place
. . .
But the apology Khrushchev was looking for would not come. Despite
having trespassed
on the Soviet Union for the past four years with scores of flights by both
U-2's and heavy
bombers, the old general still could not say the words, it was just not in
him. . . A time
bomb had exploded, prematurely ending the summit conference. . .
Back in Washington, the mood was glum. The Senate Foreign Relations
Committee was
leaning toward holding a closed door investigation into the U-2 incident .
. . In public,
Eisenhower maintained a brave face. He "heartily approved" of the
congressional probe and
would 'of course fully cooperate,' he quickly told anyone who asked. But
in private he was
very troubled. For weeks he had tried to head off the investigation. His
major concern was
that his own personal involvement in the overflights would surface,
especially the May Day
disaster. Equally, he was very worried that details of the dangerous
bomber overflights
would leak out. The massed overflight may in fact, have been one of the
most dangerous
actions ever approved by a president.
pg. 51-55 ~Body of Secrets; Anatomy of the Ultra Secret National Security
Agency
James Bamford
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of
the progress of
human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims,
have been born of
earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating,
all-absorbing, and for the time
being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does
nothing. If there is
no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and
yet depreciate
agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want
rain without
thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its
many waters."
"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may
be both moral and
physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a
demand. It never did and
it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and
you have found out the
exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and
these will continue
till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The
limits of tyrants are
prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of
these ideas, Negroes
will be hunted at the North, and held and flogged at the South so long as
they submit to those
devilish outrages, and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men
may not get all they
pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we
ever get free from
the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal.
We must do this by
labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the
lives of others."
http://www.buildingequality.us/Quotes/Frederick_Douglass.htm
Frederick Douglass, 1857
- - - - - -> More political discussion continues at
http://www.politicsusaweb.com/
----------------------
This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in
my efforts to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational
purposes.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair
use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
