THE DUOPOLY WATCH |
Steven
Jonas, MD, MPH
The Fascist phoenix: Toward a basic taxonomy In
America even the rise of a new party or formation identifying itself as
“fascist” may not be necessary, as the degeneracy of existing parties suffices
to fill that function, setting off no
alarms.
Fascism (and Fascist) is a term we hear
from all sorts of folk these days, ranging from some of those on the Left over
occasionally to some on the Right. It is usually used as a term of
opprobrium (except perhaps for those elements in the coalition of the
U.S.-sponsored regime in Ukraine which openly hark back to the Ukrainian
military units that fought on the side of the Nazis in World War II, or certain
far-right organizations in the United States itself). The original
“fascist” party was founded by then-future Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in
1919. Mussolini (or his public relations team) took the name from a symbol used in the days of the Roman
Empire. It referred to a bundle of rods tied around an axe,
representing civil power and authority.
I should think that few users of the
term today are thinking about the Roman origins of the term. Most would
think back to what it meant in the 20th century. There were
three major powers described as “fascist,” sometimes by themselves, often by
their opponents. They were of course the self-described “Axis Powers,”
Italy (the first self-described fascist state), Germany, and Japan. There
are also a number of smaller states that were, as we shall see in the
definition below, described as fascist. The most prominent ones
were Spain under Franco and Portugal under Salazar. Further, in the sense
that it was the first nation in history to have an autocratic, absolutist
government not headed not by a monarch (see below), Hungary under Admiral
Miklos Horthy, could be considered to be the first fascist state. It came
into existence in 1920 following a failed communist revolt. Over time, a
number of Latin-American countries could also be considered fascist: Argentina
under Peron (although peronismo is a hybrid with a generous amount of
genuine leftist populism in the mix); Paraguay under Stroessner, Cuba under
Batista, Chile under Pinochet, and Brazil under “the generals” for 20 years
from 1964.
Based on the 20th century
model, the principal political and economic characteristics of fascism can be
briefly described as follows:
“A
politico-economic system in which there is: total executive branch control of
both the legislative and administrative powers of government; no independent
judiciary; no Constitution that embodies a Rule of Law standing above the
people who run the government and the executive, legislative and judicial
bodies through which they do so; no inherent personal rights or liberties; a
single national ideology that first demonizes and then criminalizes all
political, religious, and ideological opposition to it; the massive and regular
use of hate, fear, racial and religious prejudice, the Big Lie technique, mob
psychology, mob actions and ultimately individual and collective violence to
achieve political and economic ends; a capitalist/corporate economy; with the
ruling economic class’ domination of economic, fiscal, and regulatory policy.”
In Italy and Germany, fascism was also
characterized by a single head of government/state who with originally
privately-funded armed forces behind him had seized control of the predecessor
state apparatus of a parliamentary democracy. Then, with the support of
that same body of armed men, augmented and eventually replaced by the regular
armed forces, projected themselves into the position of larger-than-life, all
powerful dictators. Again, at first these “bodies of armed men” were
privately funded by elements of their respective ruling classes, the
“Brownshirts” (the Sturmabteilung or “SA”) in Germany and the Black Shirts in
Italy.
In the other major 20th
century fascist state, Japan, while during World War II there was an
all-powerful cabinet headed by a Prime Minister, Hideki Tojo, for a wide
variety of reasons Tojo never acquired the almost mythical status in his own
country that Hitler and Mussolini did in theirs. (The Emperor figure remained
far too powerful --- as a figure --- for that to occur. The spectacle of Tojo
strutting around like Hitler or Mussolini would have appeared insolent to many
conservative Japanese, as it would have been an injury to the image of their
living divinity, Emperor Hiro Hito.)
In fact, Hitler and Mussolini both
adopted the term “leader” to describe themselves, “Fuehrer” in German and “Il
Duce” in Italian. It is important to note that that term has a meaning
beyond “President” or “Prime Minister.” Both dictators developed that
meaning to be understood by the people of their nations, supporters and
opponents alike, that they were not only in charge of all aspects of the
government, but well beyond such ordinary powers. In fact, every person
was to think of them as their personal leader and that as such
they were required to follow him wherever he might take the nation. In
Germany this was encapsulated by the fanatical term “Mein Fuhrer” not
just “leader,” but “my leader.”
In Germany, among other things this led
millions of members of the German armed forces to, at Hitler’s orders, fight to
the last man in increasingly hopeless situations after the Red Army had turned
the tide (and won the war) on the Eastern front. Perhaps blessed (or
accursed, depending on the viewpoint) with less abstract romanticism and fealty
to ideologies, the Italians never allowed themselves to go that far for
Mussolini. For example, the Italian Army in North Africa surrendered by
the hundreds of thousands before the relatively undermanned and under-equipped
British Army, did not fight the Allies much in Sicily, and promptly gave up
completely when the Allies landed at Salerno in southern Italy before taking
over the major city of Naples without too much of a fight. (More fanatical
Fascist formations, akin to the German SS stood their ground with more zeal,
but their efforts were pallid by Teutonic standards, hence the barely concealed
contempt of the Germans for the Italian people, whose nation they occupied with
unusual harshness. The only Italian who Hitler respected was Mussolini).
But, because of the singular German Nazi
and Italian examples, it is often thought that a) fascism requires a singular
leader who is granted/takes on for himself almost mythical powers and b)
because of how fascism came to Germany and Italy (by coup d’état) and Spain (civil
war) that it can only arrive through violence. (That is not necessarily
the case, and we shall see in Part 2 of this series.) In Germany,
technically the Nazi violence did not start until Hitler had gained the
Chancellorship (Premier) through Constitutional means. Indeed he was
appointed Chancellor by the nation’s President, the Prussian Army’s Chief of
the General Staff during World War I, Paul von Hindenburg. But Hitler had
his forces very well-prepared for what they would do once he gained the position
and the Nazi Terror, aimed first at the leading German Communists and
Socialists, started on that very night, January 30, 1933. Mussolini came
in with the support of his country’s king, but very much with his Blackshirts
behind him from the beginning, and he too began rounding up political enemies
immediately upon taking power.
For the United States in the 21st
century, as the economy and living standards for the majority of the population
decline, as income and wealth inequality increases, and as the ruling class
further cements its control of the State through “Citizens United-facilitated
campaign contributions,” voter suppression,
gerrymandering, and outright election theft, the question is whether
full-fledged fascism will arise and if so, how it will be imposed and what form
it will take. We shall begin to turn to a consideration of that question
in the next column in this series.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Senior Editor, Politics, Steven Jonas,
MD, MPH is a Professor Emeritus of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook
University (NY) and author/co-author/editor/co-editor of over 30 books.
In addition to being Senior Editor, Politics, for The
Greanville Post, he is: a Contributor for American Politics to The Planetary Movement; a “Trusted
Author” for Op-Ed News.com; a contributor to the “Writing for Godot” section of Reader
Supported News; and a contributor to From The G-Man. He
is the Editorial Director and a Contributing Author for TPJmagazine.us.
Further, he is an occasional Contributor to TheHarderStuff newsletter, BuzzFlash Commentary, and Dandelion Salad.
Dr. Jonas’ latest book is The 15%
Solution: How the Republican Religious Right Took Control of the U.S.,
1981-2022: A Futuristic Novel, Brewster, NY, Trepper & Katz Impact Books,
Punto Press Publishing, 2013,
and available on Amazon.
No comments:
Post a Comment