The Real Threat of Fascism

[bitwhys]

from a Canadian, no less



I don't really know how exclusive to North America this is.



Published on Friday, September 30, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

The Real Threat of Fascism

by Paul Bigioni

Quote:

---

Observing political and economic discourse in North America since the 1970’s leads to an inescapable conclusion: the vast bulk of legislative activity favors the interests of large commercial enterprises. Big business is very well off, and successive Canadian and U.S. governments, of whatever political stripe, have made this their primary objective for at least the last 25 years. Digging deeper into twentieth century history, one finds this steadfast focus on the well-being of big business in other times and places. The exaltation of big business at the expense of the citizen was a central characteristic of government policy in Germany and Italy in the years before those countries were chewed to bits and spat out by fascism. Fascist dictatorships were borne to power in each of these countries by big business, and they served the interests of big business with remarkable ferocity. These facts have been lost to the popular consciousness in North America. Fascism could therefore return to us, and we will not even recognize it. Indeed, Huey Long, one of America’s most brilliant and most corrupt politicians, was once asked if America would ever see fascism. His answer was, “Yes, but we will call it anti-fascism”.



By exploring the disturbing parallels between our own time and the era of overt fascism, I am confident that we can avoid the same hideous mistakes. At present, we live in a constitutional democracy. The tools necessary to protect ourselves from fascism remain in the hands of the citizen. All the same, I believe that North America is on a fascist trajectory. We must recognize this threat for what it is, and we must change course. I propose to identify the core economic elements of fascism. In doing so, I will show that present-day political fashions are leading us down the path already trodden by Italy and Germany.



Consider the words of Thurman Arnold, head of the Anti-trust Section of the U.S. Department of Justice in 1939:



“Germany, of course, has developed within 15 years from an industrial autocracy into a dictatorship. Most people are under the impression that the power of @#%$ was the result of his demagogic blandishments and appeals to the mob… Actually, @#%$ holds his power through the final and inevitable development of the uncontrolled tendency to combine in restraint of trade.”



Arnold made his point even more clearly in a 1939 address to the American Bar Association:



“Germany presents the logical end of the process of cartelization. From 1923 to 1935 cartelization grew in Germany until finally that nation was so organized that everyone had to belong either to a squad, a regiment or a brigade in order to survive. The names given to these squads, regiments or brigades were cartels, trade associations, unions and trusts. Such a distribution system could not adjust its prices. It needed a general with quasi-military authority who could order the workers to work and the mills to produce. @#%$ named himself that general. Had it not been @#%$ it would have been someone else.”



I suspect that to most readers, Thurman Arnold’s words are bewildering. Most people today are quite certain that they know what fascism is. When I ask people to define fascism, they typically tell me what it was, the assumption being that it no longer exists. I have asked this question on numerous occasions, and the usual answer contains references to dictatorship and racism which trail off into muttering when the respondent realizes that he or she knows almost nothing about fascism’s political and economic characteristics.



Before the rise of fascism, Germany and Italy were liberal democracies. Fascism did not swoop down on these nations as if from another planet. To the contrary, fascist dictatorship was the end result of political and economic processes which these nations underwent while they were still democratic. In both these countries, economic power became so utterly concentrated that the bulk of all economic activity fell under the control of a handful of men. Economic power, when sufficiently vast, becomes by its very nature political power. The political power of big business supported fascism in Italy and Germany.



Business tightened its grip on the state in both Italy and Germany by means of intricate webs of cartels and business associations. These associations exercised a very high degree of control over the businesses of their members. They frequently controlled pricing, supply and the licensing of patented technology. These associations were private, but were entirely legal. Neither Germany nor Italy had effective antitrust laws, and the proliferation of business associations was generally encouraged by government. This was an era eerily like our own, insofar as economists and businessmen constantly clamored for self-regulation in business. By the mid 1920’s, however, self-regulation had become self-imposed regimentation. By means of monopoly and cartel, the businessmen had wrought for themselves a “command and control” economy which effectively replaced the free market. The business associations of Italy and Germany at this time are perhaps history’s most perfect illustration of Adam Smith’s famous dictum: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices”.



How could the German government not be influenced by Fritz Thyssen, the man who controlled most of Germany’s coal production? How could it ignore the demands of the great I.G. Farben industrial trust, controlling as it did most of that nation’s chemical production? Indeed, the German nation was bent to the will of these powerful industrial interests. @#%$ attended to reduction of certain taxes applicable to large businesses, while simultaneously increasing the same taxes as they related to small business. Previous decrees establishing price ceilings were repealed such that the cost of living for the average family was increased. @#%$’s economic policies hastened the destruction of Germany’s middle class by decimating small business. Ironically, @#%$ pandered to the middle class and they provided some of his most enthusiastically violent supporters. The fact that he did this while simultaneously destroying them was a terrible achievement of @#%$ propaganda.



@#%$ also destroyed organized labor by making strikes illegal. Notwithstanding the socialist terms in which he appealed to the masses, @#%$’s labor policy was the dream come true of the industrial cartels that supported him. @#%$ law gave total control over wages and working conditions to the employer. Compulsory (slave) labor was the crowning achievement of @#%$ labor relations. Along with millions of people, organized labor died in the concentration camps. The camps were not only the most depraved of all human achievements, they were a part and parcel of @#%$ economic policy. @#%$’s untermenschen, largely Jews, Poles and Russians, supplied slave labor to German industry. Surely this was a capitalist bonanza. In another bitter irony, the gates over many of the camps bore a sign that read “Urbeit Macht Frei” – “work shall set you free”. I do not know if this was black humor or propaganda, but it is emblematic of the deception that lies at the heart of fascism.



The same economic reality existed in Italy between the two world wars. In that country, nearly all industrial activity was owned or controlled by a few corporate giants, F.I.A.T. and the Ansaldo shipping concern being the chief examples. Land ownership in Italy was also highly concentrated and jealously guarded. Vast tracts of farmland were owned by a few latifundisti. The actual farming was carried out by a landless peasantry who were locked into a role essentially the same as that of the share cropper of the U.S. deep south. As in Germany, the few owners of the nation’s capital assets had immense influence over government. As a young man, Mussolini had been a strident socialist, and he, like @#%$, used socialist language to lure the people to fascism. Mussolini spoke of a “corporate” society wherein the energy of the people would not be wasted on class struggle. The entire economy was to be divided into industry specific “corporazioni”, bodies composed of both labor and management representatives. The corporazioni would resolve all labor/management disputes, and if they failed to do so, the fascist state would intervene. Unfortunately, as in Germany, there laid at the heart of this plan a swindle. The corporazioni, to the extent that they were actually put in place, were controlled by the employers. Together with Mussolini’s ban on strikes, these measures reduced the Italian laborer to the status of peasant.



Mussolini the one-time socialist went on to abolish the inheritance tax, a measure which favored the wealthy. He decreed a series of massive subsidies to Italy’s largest industrial businesses and repeatedly ordered wage reductions. Italy’s poor were forced to subsidize the wealthy. In real terms, wages and living standards for the average Italian dropped precipitously under fascism.



Even this brief historical sketch shows how fascism did the bidding of big business. The fact that @#%$ called his party the “National Socialist Party” did not change the reactionary nature of his policies. The connection between the fascist dictatorships and monopoly capital was obvious to the US Department of Justice in 1939. As of 2005, however, it is all but forgotten.



It is always dangerous to forget the lessons of history. It is particularly perilous to forget about the economic origins of fascism in our modern era of deregulation. Most Western liberal democracies are currently held in the thrall of what some call market fundamentalism. Few nowadays question the flawed assumption that state intervention in the marketplace is inherently bad. As in Italy and Germany in the 20’s and 30’s, business associations clamor for more deregulation and deeper tax cuts. The gradual erosion of antitrust legislation, especially in the United States, has encouraged consolidation in many sectors of the economy by way of mergers and acquisitions. The North American economy has become more monopolistic than at any time in the post-WWII period. Fewer, larger competitors dominate all economic activity, and their political will is expressed with the millions of dollars they spend lobbying politicians and funding policy formulation in the many right-wing institutes which now limit public discourse to the question of how best to serve the interests of business. The consolidation of the economy, and the resulting perversion of public policy are themselves fascistic. I am quite certain, however, that President Clinton was not worrying about fascism when he repealed federal antitrust laws that had been enacted in the 1930’s. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives is similarly unworried about fascism when it lobbies the Canadian government to water down our Federal Competition Act. (The Competition Act regulates monopolies, among other things, and itself represents a watering down of Canada’s previous antitrust laws. It was essentially written by industry and handed to the Mulroney Government to be enacted.)



At present, monopolies are regulated on purely economic grounds to ensure the efficient allocation of goods. If we are to protect ourselves from the growing political influence of big business, then our antitrust laws must be reconceived in a way which recognizes the political danger of monopolistic conditions. Antitrust laws do not just protect the marketplace, they protect democracy.



Our collective forgetfulness about the economic nature of fascism is also dangerous at a more philosophical level. As contradictory as it may seem, fascist dictatorship was made possible because of the flawed notion of freedom which held sway during the era of laissez-faire capitalism in the early twentieth century. It was the liberals of that era that clamored for unfettered personal and economic freedom, no matter what the cost to society. Such untrammeled freedom is not suitable to civilized humans. It is the freedom of the jungle. In other words, the strong have more of it than the weak. It is a notion of freedom which is inherently violent, because it is enjoyed at the expense of others. Such a notion of freedom legitimizes each and every increase in the wealth and power of those who are already powerful, regardless of the misery that will be suffered by others as a result. The use of the state to limit such “freedom” was denounced by the laissez-faire liberals of the early twentieth century. The use of the state to protect such “freedom” was fascism. Just as monopoly is the ruin of the free market, fascism is the ultimate degradation of liberal capitalism.



In the postwar period, this flawed notion of freedom has been perpetuated by the neo-liberal school of thought. The neo-liberals denounce any regulation of the marketplace. In so doing, they mimic the posture of big business in the pre-fascist period. Under the sway of neo-liberalism, Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney and George W. Bush have decimated labor and exalted capital. (At present, only 7.8 per cent of workers in the U.S. private sector are unionized – about the same percentage as in the early 1900’s.) Neo-liberals call relentlessly for tax cuts which, in a previously progressive system, disproportionately favor the wealthy. Regarding the distribution of wealth, the neo-liberals have nothing to say. In the result, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. As in Weimar Germany, the function of the state is being reduced to that of a steward for the interests of the moneyed elite. All that would be required now for a more rapid descent into fascism are a few reasons for the average person to forget that he is being ripped off. The racist hatred of Arabs, fundamentalist Christianity or an illusory sense of perpetual war may well be taking the place of @#%$’s hatred for communists and Jews.



Neo-liberal intellectuals often recognize the need for violence to protect what they regard as freedom. Thomas Freidman of the New York Times has written enthusiastically that “the hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist”, and that “McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the U.S. Air Force F-15…”. As in pre-fascist Germany and Italy, the laissez-faire businessmen call for the state to do their bidding even as they insist that the state should stay out of the marketplace. Put plainly, neo-liberals advocate the use of the state’s military force for the sake of private gain. Their view of the state’s role in society is identical to that of the businessmen and intellectuals who supported @#%$ and Mussolini. There is no fear of the big state here. There is only the desire to wield its power. Neo-liberalism is thus fertile soil for fascism to grow again into an outright threat to our democracy.



Having said that fascism is the result of a flawed notion of freedom, I respectfully suggest that we must reexamine what we mean when we throw around the word “freedom”. We must conceive of freedom in a more enlightened way. Indeed, it was the thinkers of the Enlightenment that imagined a balanced and civilized freedom which did not impinge upon the freedom of one’s neighbor. Put in the simplest terms, my right to life means that you must give up your freedom to kill me. This may seem terribly obvious to decent people. Unfortunately, in our neo-liberal era, this civilized sense of freedom has, like the dangers of fascism, been all but forgotten.



Paul Bigioni – paul@bigionilaw.com – is a lawyer practicing in Markham, Ontario, Canada. He is a commentator on trade and political issues. This article is drawn from his work on a book about the persistence of fascism.

---

[DreamTone7]

Interesting. I think that there is much more to facism than what is covered here. But...if this truly is all that there is to facism, then Japan is much further along this road than either the US or Canada.

[bitwhys]

That may be a good example. I don't know much about the power dynamics in Japan. Of course their claim to fame is strategic protectionism to bolster the develpment of targeted industries that eventually turn around and compete successfully on the world market. Protectionism is not necessarily mercantilism, however, and from what I understand about how things were and are done in Japan the government demands more from its deliberately protected industries than mere profit taking. They are expected to turn their temporary advantage to further developement of the means of production and real growth that ultimately benefits the society as a whole.



I think it all comes down to who answers to whom about what. The Japanese are pretty blatant about their motives and goals. I'm not so sure the captains of industry over there are beyond the reach of public opinion.



As a lawyer, Bigioni concentrates on the tepid anti-trust laws in North America that are allowing merger and aquisition to create a condition where the power within any particular industry are in the hands of only a few people. I'm not so sure that is the case in Japan. What Bigioni doesn't mention explicitly is that in North America the lobbyists have become a tour-de-force in the halls of government power. Again, I'm not so sure that is the case in Japan.



Bigioni is describing the rampant corporatism that in many circles is the accepted ethos and expected modus operandi as to how the concerns of the public weal are addressed. He does draw parallels to some of the more commonly recognized symptoms of full-blown fascism as it has manifest itself in the past and can be discerned from current conditions, but more importantly he does get to the heart of the matter.



Corporatism has shown itself historically to be the precursor of fascism. Bigioni argues that we have already crossed the threshold. I agree with him.

[DreamTone7]

It's the talk of a lack of freedom outside the "company" that makes me think of Japan. Over there, the "company" (that you work for) is almost like your family. You take your vacations together, spend all your free time together...that sort of thing. It's a part of their culture...not a personal decision. When the author talks of how you have to me a member of some group in order to function in a facist society, this does not ring true in this country (US) anywhere near the extent to which it does in Japan.

[NRKofOver]

From a cultural perspective it's important to understand the desire of Japanese people to benefit the Japanese people. The selfishness you see in America in nearly non-existent in Japan. Obligation to family, nation, company, is very much ingrained in their social structure. What you call a lack of freedom, most Japanese would call their civic duty. But it's a two way street. But also unlike America, Japanese businesses are obligated to their employees as well.



Japanese government most assuredly offers incentives to corporations, but the goals with their government are always the betterment of the Japanese people. That's why there are only something like 25 billionaires out of 140 million Japanese, but 300 or so billionaires out of 300 million Americans. Personal gain is secondary to national goals.



The fascist elements of corporatization revolve around centralization of power in economics and government. It's the government utilizing economic power structures for their own gain, not the people.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[DreamTone7]

NRK - "The selfishness you see in America in nearly non-existent in Japan."



Baloney. Perhaps the average citizen, yes...but not the businessmen. They are known for being the most ruthless of businessmen...and since they are the ones that are "pulling the strings"...well...'nuff said. Selfish can be for "the Japanese" as easily as it can be personal in nature. Sounds a lot like the nationalism that lead to fascist Germany to me.



NRK - "Obligation to family, nation, company, is very much ingrained in their social structure."



"Company"...exactly what I said. And when this company also gets to the point of being an extended family, then it even drives my point home further.



NRK - "Personal gain is secondary to national goals."



And what might the national goal be? Hmmmm?



My point is that "belonging to an organization" (be it business or other) is part of what the author in bitwhys post was talking about...and I think Japan is much further along in this than is the US.

[bitwhys]

there is a big difference between "belonging to an organization" - your words, not the authors OR the man he quoted (you didn't notice it was a quote) - and getting a job.



you missed NRK's point. in return for loyalty the company is expected to offer security - a concept very much in decline in the West.



by focusing on your own misinterpretation of a minor point, you also missed the whole point of the article.



you really did.



its about corporatism, cartelization, monopolies and power structures. but if it makes you feel better to think someone is worse off than you, be my guest.

[NRKofOver]

Quote:

---

They are known for being the most ruthless of businessmen

---

And yet this in no way expresses selfishness.



I am an aggressive, strong, businessman. And yet my goals are far from selfish. The betterment of the company I work for is absolutely a goal. My personal gain from that is of no interest to me (I get paid more than enough).



Profit sharing for all employees, raises for our new employees, insuring that the company can still afford to pay for our health insurance, even making sure that the employees and the owners will have the financial strength to afford to send their kids to college, these are the motivating factors for me, not a personal stake in the company, not a personal raise, not a personal bonus.



Is it selfish in a deeper more philosophical sense? Yes, I do it because it's what gives me value as a human and I like to feel valuable. But from a purely economic standpoint, my behavior as a strong decisive businessman has nothing to do with personal gain or economic selfishness.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[ans]

Is good!

[DreamTone7]

NRK - "But from a purely economic standpoint, my behavior as a strong decisive businessman has nothing to do with personal gain or economic selfishness."



We were not speaking of particulars...but of how such an attitude figures into facism. Regardless of the motivation, if said motivation leads to the attitude where "belonging to a group" becomes a social, practical, or otherwise motivated requirement, it fits the model according to bitwhys' author...and a culture that is ripe for the fascist picking. The "business is everything" attitude...you know, the one that serves to dispel its inconveniences of kindness, generousity, and simple curtisey under the guise of "Hey...it's business."

[Rev9Volts]

speaking of fascism... musolini was great. he did lot for the coountry. his only screw up was his bet... that @#%$ would win the war. all the italians say this that i know.

[bitwhys]

Quote:

---

We were not speaking of particulars...but of how such an attitude figures into facism. Regardless of the motivation, if said motivation leads to the attitude where "belonging to a group" becomes a social, practical, or otherwise motivated requirement, it fits the model according to bitwhys' author...and a culture that is ripe for the fascist picking. The "business is everything" attitude...you know, the one that serves to dispel its inconveniences of kindness, generousity, and simple curtisey under the guise of "Hey...it's business."

---

well actually, YOU are. a particular that is peripheral to the issue and a wrong interpretation at that. those groups Arnold (not the author) was refering to were members of the power structure, not the common man.



gratefully, in Canada citizens groups still have a voice in the decision making process, albiet not as well funded as the Right Wing think tanks but at least its there.



ON EDIT: oh yeah - thanks for spelling my name right.

Edited by: bitwhys at: 10/7/05 10:50

[NRKofOver]

Quote:

---

The "business is everything" attitude...you know, the one that serves to dispel its inconveniences of kindness, generousity, and simple curtisey under the guise of "Hey...it's business."

---

And again you are utilizing the business concept you understand, one that's most definitely American (and I'm sure in other countries), but in Japan, the ethical is tied centrally to one's existence. There is no concept of 'Hey, it's business'. Maybe there are some unethical Japanese businessmen, but rather than being the rule, it's the exception. The obligation to nation, family and company are all centered around the desire to do good.



Business for profit is part of the Japanese model, but not at the expense of a person's values, their core beliefs.



In America, it seems to be nearly the opposite. There are no values or core beliefs when it comes to business. The only thing that matters is the bottom line. Decreasing the bottom line for abstract ideas like worker happiness or national value is of no concern. When you have a system like ours with the corporate giants getting more and more breaks, you end up with a skewed power structure. Where the few have too much money, too much political power, and the ability to get even more political power. And those are in fact goals of most of our corporate entities. The insurance and prescription drug industries spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on lobbying and political contributions for the sole purpose of getting the current power structure to do what they want them to, not to do what is best for this country or the people in this country. That's the underlying difference between a 'corporatized' nation like Japan and the US.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[DreamTone7]

NRK - "There is no concept of 'Hey, it's business'."



You're right...there is no such concept there. It is already culturally accepted to be such. Hence, my point of Japan being further along this path than is the US.



NRK - "That's the underlying difference between a 'corporatized' nation like Japan and the US."



"Corporatized"...again, my point exactly. And you must be a member in order to flourish...unlike America. It seems we agree after all...

[NRKofOver]

You argue just to argue.



Japan is corporatized. Yes, we agree.



Japan is not corporatized in the same sense as this article mentions about bringing on fascism. On that we don't agree.



You don't understand the social structure of Japan and seem unwilling to try.

Quote:

---

And you must be a member in order to flourish

---

Again, what you see as a lack of freedom, most Japanese see as opportunity, value and goodness. The opportunity of working in a large corporation is about providing for your family, about giving to your nation, about utilizing your skills and value for something more than personal gain. We don't have that in America. Being 'successful' in Japan is it's own reward. Getting into a great school isn't about the dollars and cents at the end of the line. It's about obligation to utilize your skills and intelligence in a meaningful manner, not for your own selfish pursuits.



And being a 'member' is not what you think it is. There is a plethura of small businesses in Japan just like in the US.



I lived in Japan for 9 years of my life. It is a country of great wonder because of the amazing spirit of generosity and kindness and the unbelievable happiness throughout the vast majority of the citizens there.



Here is the argument in a nutshell. Fascism is interested in utilizing corporate power to expand overall power over all people despite their own wishes. That is clearly not Japan.

My music for the disenchanted masses