The Real Threat of Fascism, Is the UK like this?

[Guest Main Agent]

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

The Real Threat of Fascism

by Paul Bigioni

"Observing political and economic discourse in North America since the 1970s 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 Americas 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 Arnolds 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 fascisms 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 1920s, 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 historys most perfect illustration of Adam Smiths 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 Germanys coal production? How could it ignore the demands of the great I.G. Farben industrial trust, controlling as it did most of that nations 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. @#%$s economic policies hastened the destruction of Germanys middle class by decimating small business. Ironically, @#%$ 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 nations 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 Mussolinis 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 Italys largest industrial businesses and repeatedly ordered wage reductions. Italys 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 20s and 30s, 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 1930s. 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 Canadas 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 1900s.) 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 McDonalds 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 states military force for the sake of private gain. Their view of the states 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 ones 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.

[JaseyBoi]

Im bloody gutted i read all above post thinking it was about fashion.............. not 1 hot tip for this winters must have fashion..........

[Guest Main Agent]

Never mind lol, nearly spring,

[EchelonDivision]

If Tony Blair can use the parliament act to ban fox hunting.... anything's possible.

Say NO to ID cards!!!

[StewCat]

Vote Hog for PM!!!

[Benji]

If Tony Blair can use the parliament act to ban fox hunting.... anything's possible.

Say NO to ID cards!!!

Definately say no to ID cards.. There reasoning behind the ID cards is to stop Terrorism It was reported.. Stop terrorism..lol.

If you want to stop Terrorism Tony.. Stop anytime you want mate.

[Cloud]

Say NO to ID cards!!!

Speaking of ID cards, it's looking likely that they'll be introduced regardless - but the curious thing was that the BBC reported that a compromise was on the cards - by requiring a seperate act of parliament to make the compulsory. Labour are gambling a hell of a lot on them - if it turns out that they're costing a fortune when they're not even compulsory, I wouldn't be surprised to see it all blow up in their face.

What makes me laugh is that we can't even organise a decent ID system. I found out about Estonia's ID cards when I was there earlier this week, and their system is open and accessible - the intention is that people will eventually be able to replace all their bits of plastic with just one card, so they can use it as an ID card, driving licence, bank card, payment card, etc...which is pretty cool.

Oh and the sickener? Their cards are costing just 8 quid, with the additional costs picked up by commercial parties that want to exploit the technology. Obviously we can't have such sense here :\

[chilli]

what you all bleeting about id cards, theve got you tapped-up already

mobile phones!!!!

[EchelonDivision]

what you all bleeting about id cards' date=' theve got you tapped-up already

mobile phones!!!![/quote']

What are you talking about?

[Cloud]

To be honest' date=' if my biometric details, as well as details of my medical history and credit rating were to be made available to commercial parties, I'd emigrate and renounce my nationality.

I can see the benefits of ID cards, but only to the point that they confirm your name, nationality, age and blood group. Any other information will have to be prised out of me with a strict confidentiality agreement, on a voluntary basis.[/quote']

If I understand the Estonian system, the deal is that the only information accessible by the third parties is relevant information - so although it can be used to verify your identity, the idea is that they hold the information relevant to them and nothing else.

Personally, I don't agree with the implementation of them - what use is another bit of plastic? I would love to be able to go abroad on just my photocard driving licence, so for the proposed ID card to not be useful as a driving licence is just ridiculous.

One thing in favour of ID cards - it'll be fucking nice to walk around Europe without having to carry my passport around with me. I've already broken the law most of the time here

</killing time before bus to Warsaw>

One thing - why on earth is the Labour goverment intent on controlling everything? Having visited the museums of occupation in Tallinn and Riga...well..you do the maths :\