Is Neoconservatism simply a politically correct name for Fascism?

[Lone_Wolf]

I am truly having a hard time distinguishing between the two. Can somebody explain to me the differences, if any, between the two?

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. No. It is a politically correct name for feudalism

[HereSince1628]

5. I am inclined to accept in many respects

The neoconservative movement seems to be free of the concept of lesser states than the empire. Global corporations serve as feifdoms that by and large act above the law of nations and are allowed to exist in as much as they have the capacity to fend off take-overs by competitors.

Using the term feudalism also has the metaphorical advantage of naming the pirates and profiteers as "robber-barons," which seems to be an absolutely brilliant fit.

But neoconservatism is also similar to the Cosa Nosta, and the pirates and profiteers could also be called Mafia Dons.

[baffie]

16. Brilliant! I have long thought their plan is to reduce us to serfdom.

[arko]

61. Don't slam serfdom

It might be an improvement. Serfs gave up only 20% of what they produced to the feudal lord. They were not allowed to keep or bear arms, but were exempted from military service. When there was a war they were moved into the castle until the trouble was over. It didn't matter who won the war because they would still be serfs.

By the time you add up income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, property tax, extra taxes on fuel, tires, etc. we wind up giving up more than 20% to our new feudal masters. If you fail to pay your property taxes you are thrown out of your home into the street. We are allowed to keep arms (just certain types), but we may be forced into military service.

I'm not so sure what we have now is really any better.

[regnaD kciN]

65. Serf City, here we come!

;-)

(Actually, there was once a computer game titled Serf City: Life Is Feudal...)

[Tansy_Gold]

19. Absolutely correct, DuctapeFatwa

From the utter dismissal of the peasantry to the reliance on religion as a tool of secular <sic> power, the * regime does truly try to take us back to the 50s ---- the 1350s that is.

I think they are rather proud of the fact that they have created a nation in which the wealth disparity is roughly the same as in pre-1789 France. Of course, since they have not learned the real lessons of history, perhaps the "terror" they are trying to keep at bay -- so far, successfully -- has less to do with suicide bombers and Islamic fundamentalists and more to do with the likes of a Robespierre or a Madame DeFarge or even a Dr. Guillotin.

Damned aristos. . . . . .

[tom_paine]

26. Agreed, Tansy_Gold

Sadly enough, it's all true.

[DuctapeFatwa]

28. Tansy that was some damn good word writin' !

and one of the best summaries of the Waw on Terra that I have seen anywhere. Thanks!

:toast:

[Tansy_Gold]

29. <blushing>

Thanks, DuctapeFatwa!

[regnaD kciN]

66. "Allons, enfants de la Patrie..."

How very French!

:wow:

[Tansy_Gold]

71. Merci,

beaucoup!

[ET Awful]

2. Ask Mussolini . . .

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

According to the father of fascism, neo-conservatism and fascism are pretty damned close.

[HereSince1628]

3. Briefly

Neoconservatism is another way to spell corporate imperialism. It is a right wing ideology.

Fascism (classical at least) was a movement of the middle class that was seen as the rebirth/revitalization of the nation (Italy, Germany, and Spain) through the unification (fascism=bundling) of labor, industry, and government for the good of the people. The popularity of such unifying ideas during the 19-teens can be seen by the inclusion of the fasces on the obverse of the American Mercury-head dime (minted from about 1916-1945).

There are lots of typological behaviors that can be used to characterize Italian Fascism, Naziism, and Falangism. It is common in western history and political science to approach definitions in that way, but it is probably wrong to do so. These behaviors, such as xenophobia or antisemitism are probably more honestly seen as context specific manifestations.

The name neoconservatism has an earlier use by a right wing movement in post ww I Germany. That movement also believed in the conquest of foreign lands as a solution to economic interests, but it was over-shadowed and largely forgotten because of the dominance and devastation brought about by fascism.

[Lone_Wolf]

8. Okay.. here is where I get confused

I have heard the rebirth reason before and I am still confused. First, Reagan pushed supply-side economics in order to restore America's greatness (or rebirth). In effect, it also bundled labor, industry, and government. Another example is Gingrich's 'Contract with America' made many promises and to restore America to greatness by having labor, industry, and government work together. Third, fascism was also imperialistic.

This is where I can't distinguish between the two.

[HereSince1628]

18. well, I agree that reaganism is seen as the rise of the phoenix

above the ashes of liberalism associated with the Great Society programs of the 60's, and perhaps as the dawn of resistance against the environmental, women's rights amendment, and pro-abortion movements of the 70's.

In that sense the reaganism cult is palingenic, just like fascism.

BUT. The thing that we have at present is a movement that seems to be of, for and by the rich.

Fascism, at least classical fascism, was middle class. The concept was one of grand unity that served the purpose of the nation. Central government served to guide private and public efforts.

What we have now is a movement that favors less or no government regulation (and that is a central tenet of the cult of reaganism). The benefits are intended to accrue to the investor-class. Those individuals who are smart enough and energetic enough to accrue and use capital to their advantage.

If someone can define fascism in a way that nullifies the conflict between classical fascism's interest in the welfare of all the classes composing the nation and the current monstrosity's exclusive interest in the investor class I'd like to read that.

Until then I think what we have is good old fashioned greed which is promoting the deconstruction of protective regulation in the name of laissez-faire capitalism.

[Lone_Wolf]

23. Okay...

From what I learned is fascism is essentially a system of expliotation. For example, in Nazi Germany the upper class (consisting of German corporate elites) who exploited the middle class, the middle class exploited what they perceived to be the lower classes (Jews, Catholics, gays, etc.) This is supposedly why it had wide spread middle class support.

Today in American society, we also have a system of exploitation. The ruling Elite exploit the middle class. The middle class, in turn, exploits the lower class. The neocon's policies are popular among the middle class because they cut services to the poor.

I would have to disagree about what we have now being laissez-faire capitalism. One reason being our government subsidizes U.S. corporations. Laissez-faire, in the Adam Smith sense, argued for goverment and business to be completely separate.

I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass. I really appreciate your responses. I'm really just trying to understand this (and hoping that it's not just me going crazy :-).

[HereSince1628]

35. Ok, there is reality and there is belief based on suspension of reality

And I am not sure any of us, including me, can be sure where along that dimension we are in any given moment

First off I would agree that identifying scapegoats for societies ills and putting them in a forced labor camp was exploitive, criminal, immoral, and utterly undefensible.

If you have a source for the origins of naziism among the elite-capitalists of Germany, I'd like to read it. The things that I have read all seem to suggest that it grew out of the middle class. Central fascist governments wanted control over industry--the middle class supported that because they wanted to rein-in the rich and not be left behind in the on-going industrialization.

What we have now is a movement to deregulate everything and to place all the "commons" into the hands of the capitalists. That's really quite different, and while I will agree that it isn't completely laissez-faire, yet, the underlying philosophy is to move as far that way as possible.

The on going effort of Bushites doesn't seem to me to be so much one of exploiting the middle class, as it is ABANDONING the middle class in their pursuit of freedom to exploit the cheaper global market of labor. Fascists were loyal to the nation, the corporate neocon supporters have NO loyalty to the nation. Which is why they have no regret about abandoning the American labor force for cheaper labor. It is also why they seek countries with no labor or environmental laws, they aren't loyal to their foreign hosts either.

I am not sure that neoconservatism per se is really popular among the middle class. Prior to the installation of Bush & CO. neoconservatism was a baby of the RW intelligensia, and the product it was selling was "international free markets" something not of much interest to the non-investor class. Since the installation of Bush was followed rapidly by 911 and we have since been experiencing the jingoistic patriotism that accompanies war, its hard to separate support for neoconservatism and "patriotic" support of a leader.

There are many aspects of conservative personality that potentially play into members of the poor, working and middle classes supporting conservative ideas. So I am certain that examples of people from all classes can be found who support neocon ideas.

[Lone_Wolf]

38. The source I have about fascism being an Elite movement

is from a textbook I used as an undergrad: 'Great Issues in Western Civilization', Tierney, Kagan, & Williams, 1976, pgs. 617-621. Also, I am fairly certain that I recently read something that argues that naziism was a reaction against communism and libertarian socialism. I will see if I can dig out what book I read that in. I think it was in one of the books I have by Chomsky.

I have a hard time refuting your 5th paragraph as it does make a great deal of sense to me. A question, I have to ask though is, just suppose German Nazism existed today and exploited foreign workers... Would what they did still be considered Naziism? I'm not sure whether the issue of loyalty for foreign vs. domestic workers is a defining characteristic of Naziism.

Also, both German Nazi's and American Neocon's both use/used nationalism to further their agendas. I'm not sure that nationalism is the same as patriotism.

[HereSince1628]

50. Thanks for the reference from Teirney I'll try to find a copy

Nazism certainly was anti-communist.

It'll take me a bit to dig through, but I'll see if I can't find where I found fascism as a movement rising from the middle class.

One of the things I have discovered in reading about fascism is that there are two distinct schools. One that originated in communist countries which sees fascism as a sort of end game of capitalism, and the other from western Europe and North America that seems to limit fascism to the description of its occurrence between WWI and WWII.

[Sir_Shrek]

4. As I understand it...

Neoconservatism refers to folks who were previously left-leaning or progressive and have to come accept more conservative doctrines over time. That's the earliest explanation I ever heard. When I think of neoconservatives, I think of those who have typically conservative opinions but don't poo poo government as much as a more traditional or paleoconservative would be expected to. Actually, neoconservatives vaguely remind of Scoop Jackson in some ways.

[HereSince1628]

7. True, and the Jacksonites, like Richard Perle, brought to the GOP

a sense that intervention in international affairs by America was good. For many decades, and now as demonstrated by republicans like Pat Buchanan, the republican party had isolationist tendencies.

The whole concept of having and _using_ the Greatest Military on Earth to achieve and maintain hegemonic influence over the planet is the central tenet of neoconservatism--in the parlance of the 1960's comedy hour "Laugh-in" "If you've got it, flaunt it."

[Sir_Shrek]

11. I think part of the evolution of that...

...is that conservatism is not considered a boogieman word by as much of America has some believe. If pure conservatism was immensely unpopular, you wouldn't have neoconservatism. Important food for thought.

I don't think neoconservatism is fascist though. A neoconservative is just as likely to get upset about expansion of power in government, though not to the extent a paleocon would. They're just as skeptical about governmental power, but they're not going to get themselves bent out of shape about it. In essence, someone who wouldn't think it unusual to admire the policies of both Reagan and FDR could be consider a neocon.

[Flubadubya]

17. I don't see neoconservatives that way at all....

Just judging by what is now being called "neoconservative", your definition stands almost diametrically opposed to this group. These people want a fuller expansion of government, just not in a "business" sense. They want complete, unfettered capitalism, but at the same time they wish to legislate cultural and behavioral morés and dictate societal norms. They really want more government intrusion in people's lives than any group in American history.

They also advocate expansionism in foreign affairs, i.e. empire-building, whereas your conventional conservative tends to be more isolationist, e.g. Pat Buchanan.

No, these people are not skeptical about government power, they madly lust after it. They figure that someone has to be in control, so better that it's them than anyone else. They are very close to wresting complete control of this government even now, and Buddy, if they do... Katy bar the door! You'll see more government intervention than you ever dreamed possible.

It's "Power to the People" just so long they are "The People".

[Sir_Shrek]

20. Complete disagreement...

...but then again, there is no accepted definition of neoconservatism, even among themselves.

As for your points on government power and who's in charge, I think that easily applies to ALL political groups and parties...that's the whole reason they exist (though neoconservatism really isn't a party per say). How does your line: They figure that someone has to be in control, so better that it's them than anyone else. not apply to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, or anyone else?

As for the lack of isolationism obviously being evidence of designs on world conquest, if the typical Pat Buchanan conservative is isolationist, does that mean the progressives of yore were imperialistic? Would this then mean that the "Let's conquer the world!" attitude held by neoconservatives is a product of their progressive leanings, more than their conservative ones?

[tom_paine]

31. "A neoconservative just as likely to get upset about expansion of power

in government, though not to the extent a paleocon would. "

You're sure about that?

Would that be the outrage of Busheviks regarding the massive Big Brother expansion of Police Powers and bureaucratic intrusiveness and Total Information Awareness ability to check up on anybody about anything with a judge's signature?

Perhaps you are referring to Neocon outrage over spiralling defecits.

You may be confusing True Conservatives (about whom your statement would be true) with Bushevik Neocons, who aren't conservatives but totalitarians, and have none of the qualms regarding Police State Powers or Expanded, intrusive government.

For obvious reasons.

[Sir_Shrek]

52. I'm correct

A neocon doesn't like government expansion any more than a paleo, but they don't approach it with the same morose sense a paleo does. For instance, they're not going to get all bent out of deficits (as you noted) the same way a paleo will...they're probably content to vierw it as the price of doing business. Certain intrusiveness on the part of government, like gun registration perhpas, would certainly bug them I'm sure.

[tom_paine]

57. No. You're not. how does that explain the Busheviks' actual behavior?

You have described one thing, a pretty little tale about how neocons resist government expansion, yet completely ignore was has been occurring in the real world.

You have avoided my points utterly, and presented a theory without grounding in reality. You can talk all you want about neocons this and neocons that, but what does it matter if the neocons are doing the exact opposite of what you THINK they act like every single day.

The unPATRIOT Act and it's manner of being shoved through Congress swiftly after being completely rewritten the night before speak more volumes than if you sat here typing for six hours about your notion of what you think neocons are.

Actions, sir, speak louder than words. Your argument simply carries no water given it's extreme disconnect from reality on the unPATRIOT Act and any number of other fronts.

And anyone and everyone who reads this can see it in my words and your own.

[rman]

33. then why aren't they upset about expansion of power in government?

(Patriot Act, etc)

Because of the self-censoring, willing propaganda machine of the government, both of which happen to be controled by corporate powers.

we have a merger of state and corporate power
we have propaganda and censorship; deception of the people
expansionist wars, arguably against manufactured enemies
oppressing segments of the own population
war profiteering and other forms of self-enrichment
undermining the constitution and the law
pandering to rw-extremist minorities within the own population.


This list is probably not complete, but it's all pretty fascist, and the neocons in the administration don't seem to be doing much to stop any of that happening in the US.

[mrdmk]

39. I agree these people want to take over the world and...

This needs to be called totalitarianism. I really think at this point of time this the Bush administration is just pushing to get re (?) Elected and stay in power. All ideological meanings are out the window. What is confusing is the Republicans are very mean tempered and proactive in their rule of power and are able to bubble down a plan to a two to three sentence/phrase that does not imply their true intentions. Plus in the right wing there are more than one thought. The Bush administration pays lip service to all of the right wing but this is catching up with them as seen with the damming press they are receiving. Not all of the right wing wants their life dictated to them, just ask a Libertarian.

[Sir_Shrek]

53. Like I said...

...they're not going to go write a suicide note and weep for the future if there are deficits like a paleo might. Neos are most optimistic about the roles and uses of government.

And your list is ridiculous.

[rman]

63. what's ridiculous about my list?

-

[Rich Hunt]

37. power in government?

"neocons" are people like Irving Kristol and all of their children.

I don't think that they're at all suspicious of 'power in government'. They have a fine line in laissez faire-speak, but I suspect that's more about drumming up material support for their projects. Check out the corporate donors to some of these think tanks.

My principal familiarity with the neocons is through things like the arts and education, and it appears to me what they really want is state sponsorship of their ideals. They're not anti-government as long as it wholly supports their ideals.

Many social welfare programs are of no benefit to them. If they can use such programs to their advantage, then they are all for it.

For example : Bush's Mars fantasies are very "neocon", because they have great symbolic potential. The neocons seem to be very fond of this sort of symbolism, which, to be honest, DOES remind me of the fascists.

[SahaleArm]

44. "Intellectually, neocons are children of a common father...

but what can the father do after a lowly few race off and elope with Republicans? Most Dads would sigh, lament their kids' poor taste, but love them anyway."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2001834779_jackson12m.html

[cprise]

6. If so, then what does Neoliberal stand for?

Fascism minus the social agenda?

[HereSince1628]

9. Actually, neoliberalism refers to a group of economists

who were probably republicans, who used the root liberal to mean free as in "free from federal regulation."

check out on-line encyclopedias and you'll get a pretty good description and history.

[cprise]

62. They weren't Republicans

Democrats or New Labor, more likely.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. it sure seems like it

all the pieces are there...

[Cannikin]

12. As a gay man, it sure seems that way to me.

[necso]

13. Close but no.

Fascism was essentially nationalist --- the controlling corporations were essentially national ones, and the goals were towards aggrandization of the nation, albeit one that served only some small group within the nation.

Neoconservatism is corporatism, but is a version of corporatism that allows international corporations a superior degree of governmental influence (control) relative to solely domestic businesses (most of which are small and therefore have little place in neoconservatism) . This is evidenced by the Medicare bill, where by law the American people are put in a disadvantaged position with international drug companies relative to, say, the Canadian people.

Neoconservatism also has a foreign policy that effectively places (neocon perceived) Israeli interests ahead of American ones. Iraq never constituted a threat to the US, but Saddam did reward the families of suicide bombers and may have provided other support for terrorists attacking Israel. The threats that have been made against Syria and Iran are consistent with going after the two other states that are most strongly linked to anti-Israeli terror (and have little or no links to anti-US terror). This is not a nationalist foreign policy.

Neoconservatism is corporatism, but an internationalist version, stripped of any (real) nationalism. Since nationalism was an essential element of fascism, neoconservatism doesn't deserve that label: internationalist corporatism or just corporatism is more fitting.

[Sir_Shrek]

15. Hmmm....

neoconservatism is exactly the opposite of what you describe in my opinion. Where'd you come up with those theories about it?

[HereSince1628]

24. I'm book marking that, thanks

I have to think about whether Israel is primary and defining, or more peripheral and perhaps a consequence of history and geopolitics.

[necso]

45. More

Other potential reasons for the invasion or Iraq are:
1) The threat posed by Iraq: patent nonsense.
2) Iraqi support of anti-US terrorism: patent nonsense.
3) Confusion between any form of terrorism and anti-US terrorism: Many of the neocons are naive, but not his naive. They may sell this crap, but don't count on them buying into it. Regardless of whether or not they do, an invasion of Iraq was an attack (at best) on anti-Israel terror not anti-US terror. Indeed it may serve the opposite end in at least the latter case.
4) Bringing democracy etc to the Middle East. I doubt that the neocons really believe this. It is the sort of "liberal" cover that they love to use to sell their BS. Tom Friedman may buy into it, but I don't. Besides it is all just a pipedream.
5) Grabbing all that oil. Yahoo had a wonderful little report (since removed) on what bad shape the Iraqi oil fields are in and how total recovery rates may end up being incredibly low. This and the high costs associated with raising production were well known before the invasion. There were and are better targets for this kind of thing. Besides a truly nationalist (and wise) energy policy would have the US eliminating its dependence on imported energy supplies.
6) Establishing more bases in the region. Bases in Iraq are good for attacking Iran and Syria, little more. These bases are unnecessary for targeting the WMD programs of either of these nations and primarily useful for (threatening) ground invasion. Mind you, decreasing our military presence in Saudi Arabia was the price of tepid Saudi support --- a questionable tradeoff at best (from a strictly military point of view).

Bottom line there was no essential US interest involved in the attack on Iraq. If anything it has increased our insecurity (we should be fighting Al Qaeda, not stirring up more enemies) and promises to be a costly, low yield investment. Of course numerous large international (if largely "US based") corporations will benefit --- but I do not believe that even the neocons would push for a war on these grounds.

As for the war benefiting Israel, much of this "benefit" was perceived (or hoped for) as opposed to actual. In some circles it was thought that when money for the families of suicide bombers was cut off that these attacks on Israel would falter. The presence of large numbers of US troops in Iraq and the attack itself were seen as scaring Iran and Syria into ending their support for anti-Israeli terror. Neither of these seems to have been proven substantially true.

In terms of real benefits to any nation then, there remains an implied threat to Syria and Iran that does provide some negotiating leverage to Israel. The end of any Iraqi support for anti-Israel terror is a plus for the latter state. Adding another target for terror attacks in the region may pull some of these away from Israel. With media attention turned away from Israeli excesses and a hard line being taken against "terrorism", Israel is more free to implement hard line solutions than it would otherwise be.

In short we get basically nothing or at least nothing worth the cost. Israel gets a little something. Perhaps all the neocons were so naive and stupid so as not to see this coming. But regardless of whether or not it was foreseen, or whether or not it was planned this way, the only state benefiting proportionately from the Iraq war is Israel. Sounds like putting Israel first to me. I would argue that there was intent to do so, but of course I can't prove it. Listening to Perle's and Frum's mutterings, however, convinces me that it is so. I also can't help noticing how much of the terror/WMD BS coming from the administration seems to be reported on Debka (a very right wing Israeli site, supposedly with close ties to the Mossad) first. In the past, the Mossad used to be a good intelligence service. These days they also seem to have been "captured" by an extremist government.

[Lone_Wolf]

30. Right...

I agree that Fascism is very dependent on nationalism, but then again, aren't the neocons the ones who are waving the American flag the most?

[Must_B_Free]

14. The key word is TOTALITARIANISM

Facism is particular to an era in history so people can always shoot down the argument that it's not "really" Facism.

The issue is Totalitarianism. That is what is completely antithetical to the foundation of US government, and that is what Bush has brought - totalitarian power.

[HereSince1628]

21. yes, but totalitarianism can be on the left or on the right

Bush's cult of Reaganism is ideologically nothing like the Soviet or Chinese efforts to build a nation aroung Marxism.

I am not arguing that their aren't parallels forming in that comparison either...

The totalitarianesque push toward one-party rule IS real and is something the republicans are hard at work to achieve it. The have a Committee for Majority Rule or some other not so silly name like that. And their thinking not only involves gerrymandering as in Texas and Colorado, but also the recall in California. If the outcome to an election is "wrong" then the election must be overturned. Scary shit for America to be sure.

Thank God that most states have nothing like the recall ability available in California, or we would all be sending our kids off to school in red-white-and blue neckerchiefs underneath 10 gallon hats.

[Sir_Shrek]

22. Dems have a similar committee....

http://cfdm.net/

Again, this is something I think all political parties are working towards. I doubt you would ever hear a party chairman/candidate/supporter say "We'd be much happier if the other party came out on top...we're not interested in having a majority now or ever."

[noncon_nalevo]

48. That's so ...

but I think the difference is that the Democratic Party respects the value of a two-party system, while the GOP would be perfectly happy (in fact, would prefer) to crush out anything more than a token possibility of opposition to their agenda. And then maybe even the token possibility.

(Personally, I think the biggest value of a third major party would be to tone down the zero-sum aspects of American politics, which are part of what has made it so bitter, divisive, and stymied.)

Both sides seek a majority, naturally - the only other way to reliably push through your agenda is to woo individual members of the other party to break ranks on this or that issue, a strategy that the GOP's harsh party discipline makes ... uh ... unpromising. But unless the GOP undergoes a fundamental change in philosophy the Republicans will never be satisfied with anything less than hegemony - say, the Presidency and a 75+ percent supermajority in both houses, maintained for long enough to utterly pack the Supreme Court. The DP is willing to debate; the GOP wants to rule.

Actually, come to think of it, it's perfectly possible that the DNC _is_ of the same mind as the RNC on this, but if they do, they at least have the smarts and the tact and the restraint to conceal it very, very well.

[rman]

36. totalitarianism is an anti- left thing, imo

i'd say that true leftism, socialism even, is very much about being governed by consent of the governed. that's the complete opposite of totalitarianism.

Wheras the (far/neo) right seems to want to get rid of government and have companies run the place. by themselves, for themselves. the wealth is supposed to trickle down, but the opposite seem to be happening.

And we do know that a fascist/totalitarian regime will say just anything they think they can get away with, if they think it'll help their cause. Why would a ruler who depends on propaganda and censorship have any qualm about calling himself communist, socialist or democrat?

[SahaleArm]

46. I'd consider true leftism to be Authoritarian...

Where Government/Community knows what's best; as opposed to the individualism of a Libertarians.

[rman]

64. but. "community" = the governed

If Left means "community knows best", and the community wants to be ruled by a government that governs by consent of the governed, then what's wrong with that.

And what does this "individualism" of Libertarians entail? Do they deny there's such a thing a the community? Do Libertarians want to get rid of government and have no governance, or have the place run by corporations?

This whole individualism thing strikes me as odd; back when individualism became fashionable, maybe the Japanese culture had an issue with not being individualistic enough, but people in the west have always been pretty much their own person - no lack of individualism there. All that individualism has done is undermine any sense of solidarity amongst the people, while solidarity amongst corporations only seems to have increased.

[Tansy_Gold]

72. all the way to the left is

anarchy.

all the way to the right is

libertarianism.

essentially, they're the same thing.

go figure.

[Lone_Wolf]

27. The way I understand it...

Fascism meant totalitarianism if you were in the lower classes. The middle class, to a lesser degree, had more privileges and freedoms. The Elites were the most free of all.

Finally, isn't this a similar to what we have in the U.S. today (albeit with different types of social controls)?

[Must_B_Free]

43. yes I would have to agree

the government itself is somewhat totalitarian, but we do (did) have class mobility. We had the appearance of being ruled by consensus.

The success of Democracy is its malleability to be reborn to fit the times. It fits a growing changing organism that is a nation. We have revolution built into the game plan every 4 years.

[Guaranteed]

67. No, it IS fascism.

Because it's essentially an economic policy. It's a group of people running the government, looking to use the governmental power to make more money for themselves and their corporate buddies. Fascism. Period.

[durutti]

25. I think there's an ideological difference.

The middle class has typically been at the vanguard of fascist movements. Neoconservatism, in contrast, is clearly a movement representing the interests of the power elite.

Also, neoconservatives aren't especially hostile towards labor and/or social programs, and some of them are rather pro-labor.

[Lone_Wolf]

32. but Bush...

is trying to dismantle overtime pay and has weakened OSHA considerably. For example, they lowered Clinton's ergonomic standards. I would also have to disagree that neocons are not hostile towards social spending. Our social programs our going broke because of 'tax relief' and deficit spending.

[Rich Hunt]

40. correct

Neo-cons don't seem to me to be anti-government at all ; in fact, they are quite statist.

I don't know about the labor thing, though.

However, you have people like Charles Murray who believe that some people need welfare because their IQs leave them incapable of working for a living.

[Guaranteed]

68. Nuh uh. They're making use of the middle class in exactly the same way.

Fascists USE the middle class as a barrier to the proletariat. They demonize taxes, and spread fear and nationalism to get the idiots on their side, giving them power to do anything they want. This is exactly what the Bushees are doing.

[Lone_Wolf]

70. Yes the buffer theory...

I tend to believe this.

The ruling class feels threatened by the lower classes masses.
In order to protect their self-interest, the ruling class gives just enough wealth and power to create and maintain a small middle class. This is done so that the middle class has a vested interest to go along with the policies the ruling class. This, along with using social control to muffle the cries of dissent from the lower class, gives the policies the appearance of popular support. In this way, the middle class buffers the ruling class from the threat of the lower classes.

I think this theory also predicts that as the ruling class gains better social controls (more effective propaganda, able to use coercion, etc.) the ruling class's need for the middle class decreases. In short, the middle class will shrink or disappear.

I wonder if this is why the middle class is shrinking as of late, and we are returning to a Gilded Age...

[Tactical Progressive]

34. In broad economic terms:

Rightism is about corporate power with minimal responsibility.
Leftism is about a democratic state constraining and directing corporate power.

Fascism was the merging of corporate and state power. It's all a matter of degree, but that's pretty much what neocons have done merging business goals with national goals. Neocons are leftists that brought their faith in government power over to the right-wing corporate agenda, birthing what you could indeed call Fascism in principle.

In practice, here are some examples of government in bed with business:
- No-bid contracts from the government for Halliburton, Carlyle, Bechtel and the like.
- Business players moving back and forth regulating their own industries, making government then making profit.
- Corporations now purposefully control the media for political purposes. They helped to impeach a President, steal an election and start a false war.

I call it 21st Century Fascism.

[mrdmk]

42. A new name

But Chris is correct. There is a group of right wing factions being put together by the Bush administration: religionist, conservative, neocons, and etc. Thus makes the Bush administration a totalitarian.


Totalitarian: Of or pertaining to a highly centralized government under the control of a political group which allows no recognition of or representation to other political parties, as Fascist Italy or in Germany under the Nazi regime. Totalitarian. Totalitarianism.
(Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary)

Unfortunately the Democrats seem to really knuckle under when Newt Gingrich came into power with his Contract with America. The Democrats did fight Reagan and Bush Sr. tooth and nail. The Democrats got a good kick in the back side and need to respond to it.

[Yavin4]

41. My Two Cents

In my book, neo-conservatism is nothing more than corporatism which is also distinct from conservatism itself. My opinion is that corporatism is an extremely unpopular political ideology because it preaches using the powers of government to benefit only corporations and no one else. So, corporatism hid itself within the conservative movement for many, many years.

Conservatism is more akin to Facism. It's a political movement that appeals to a populace's natural feelings for nostalgia. Life in the past was always better than the present currently is. Reagan was the leader of this movement. Reagan appealed to an America that has undergone two decades of rapid social, political, and economic change with an appeal to the good old days of the past, which also was a thinly veiled racist appeal, similar to the Nazi's fatherland appeal.

In 1992, we saw the divergence between Reagan conservatism and Bush's neo-conservatism, or corporatism. Pat Buchannan was indeed the standard bearer for the real conservative movement. Buchannan was a threat and he needed to be marginalized, which he has been. For instance, Buchannan's stand on immigration is the real conservative stand. Dilute the nation with more cultures from around the world further distances us from the good old days where everyone was a White Christian and those who were not knew to stay out of the way. Free-flowing immigration is central to the neo-conservative philosophy beause it helps corporations suppress wages across the board.

Today, Bush's neo-conservatism is nothing more than a push towards global corporatism whereby the entire population of the planet is heavily dependent on corporations. Citizenship means littler or nothing. Governments that offer strong social safety net programs or resist allowing corporations free reign within their borders are marginalized or destroyed through the IMF, currency fluctuations, or free trade agreements. Also, wars will be used to control access to natural resources like oil in the Middle East.

To sum, Conservatism is Facism. Neo-Conservatism is Global Corportism.

[Tansy_Gold]

47. This goes right back to the immunity of the corporations.

As non-human "persons," they have rights but no responsibilities. They can be sued, but not jailed; bankrupted by not executed.

In the "good ol' days" of physical feudalism, villeinage, serfdom, and slavery, the direct ownership of human beings (and their labor) was the inherent right of the aristos. In some cases, the more powerful feudal lords (rarely ladies) owed some allegiance to a king or maybe the Pope, but generally they were quite autonomous, having a literal power of life and death other their "subjects." (Sound familiar?)

As progressive and enlightened notions took political hold in this country at least, that direct ownership of labor disappeared. Workers now expected wages and fringe benefits, not only directly from their employers but indirectly from the government. They also wanted the "right" to strike, to not be tied to an employer, to gain a share in that previously exclusive autonomy. From roughly the 1890s and the end of the Gilded Age (or maybe even going back to the end of the Civil War) to the 1960s and the implementation of Johnson's Great Society programs, a strong shift in economic/political power took place. This was opposed by the aristos -- those who believed in an entitled class. The means they hit on to re-establish their rule was the corporation.

So what we have now -- and in some respects I think the neo-aristos (????) took some lessons from the fascists of the 1930s -- is an aristocracy of the stock certificate. By owning the corporations, they own the labor, and as they consolidate that ownership (through the collapse of the empty shells of Enron, Global Crossing, etc.) of the corporations, they essentially if indirectly own the human assets just as their medieval predecessors directly owned the slaves and serfs.

The connection to fascism is, I think, in the perception that while it is philosophically a movement of the middle classes, it is effectively controlled by as well as used as a control tool by the elites. Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco benefited far more from -- and were more closely identified with -- fascism than the people of Germany, Italy, or Spain did.

But this is just thinking off the top of my head on an afternoon when I have boring drudge work to do (balancing an empty checkbook, trying to pay a few essential bills. . . . .x( ) and would much rather engage in political dialogue.

[Yavin4]

51. I Differ Slightly

Conservatism (modern-day Facism) and Neo-Conservatism(Corporatism, or what was once referred to as country-club Republicanism) are two very different things. Like a virus, neo-conservatism cannot exist outside of a host body because it's inherently unpopular. Very few people will directly vote for a movement that says give all of the power to the corporations at the expense of the people.


So, Neo-Conservatism hid within the host body of conservatism in order to use its popularity. Nixon's famous "Southern Strategy" is a perfect example of a corporatist using the facist-like appeal of conservatism to ride to victory. Without the continuing support of nostalgic racial biggots, the Republicans would have never gotten to where they are today.


There is a real split coming between conservatives and neo-cons over immigration. Neo-con/corporatists want much more liberalized immigration work rules in order to suppress the wages of the American middle class. Wage suppression is one of the primary goals of the corporatists. Liberalized immigration rules will not sit well with conservatives who do not want their nation more diversified.

My feeling is that when the crash of 2006 happens, look to see a huge split between the conservatives and the neo-cons.

[EV1Ltimm]

49. it's facism with a twist of jesus.

[markburgess]

54. "neoconservatism" is most often used as a PC term to imply "zionism"

Plus the neo-liberal economic philosophy of neocons is opposite the stringent socialism built into fascism.

[Yavin4]

55. As I Said Earlier, Neo-Conservatism Is A Virus

that lives in the host body of conservatives.

[Cannikin]

56. Be sure to check out this thread...Some folks have a different view! hehe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1017380

[Snappy]

58. Neo-Fascists

On another board where I post that's what I call the Dubya fans. They really hate it. :)

I believe that America is a Plutocracy whether Repubs, Neo-Fascist or Dems are in power.

[ComerPerro]

59. A neoconservative

Is someone who was liberal when it was trendy, but once they discovered how much fun money was, and what they could do with it, they became assholes.

Now they are using their money to buy governments, buy drugs, sell out the country, manipulate the market, and stir up foreign affairs until Jesus comes back.

[mmonk]

60. I believe its a longer

spelling and pronunciation of the same word.:think:

[Guaranteed]

69. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

You're entirely correct. They are EXACTLY the same, as economic and social policies. Loot the treasury, control the media, find an enemy to demonize, promote nationalism, quash dissent, and use the power of government to make money for your corporate buddies. It's fascism- PURE fascism.