Fascism as Corporatism

From the Defense and the National Interest website

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/hossein_zad...ic_fascism.htm

Quote:

---

President George W. Bush and the neoconservative handlers of his administration have added a new bogeyman to their long and evolving list of enemies: "Islamic fascism," also called "Islamofascism." This wonton flinging of the word "fascism" in reference to radical movements and leaders of the Muslim world, however, is not only inaccurate and oxymoronic, but it is, indeed, also ironic. Of course, it is also offensive and inflammatory and, therefore, detrimental to international understanding and stability.

Fascism is a specific category or concept of statecraft that is based on specific social and historical developments or phenomena. It cannot be conjured up by magic or portrayed by capricious definitions. It arises under conditions of an advanced industrialized economy, that is, under particular historical circumstances. It is a product of big business that is brought about by market or profitability imperatives. It is, in a sense, an "emergency" instrument (a metaphorical fire fighter, if your will) in the arsenal of powerful economic interests that is employed during crisis or critical times in order to remove or extinguish "obstacles" to unhindered operations of big business.

When profitability expectations of giant corporations are threatened or not met under ordinary economic conditions, powerful corporate interests resort to extraordinary measures to meet those expectations. To this end, they mobilize state power in order to remove what they perceive as threats to unrestricted business operations. Therefore, as the 1928 Encyclopedia Italiana puts it, "Fascism should more appropriately be called 'corporatism' because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

---

I saw this article at DNI and was surprised Chet Richards published it, as it poorly researched and sourced.

Quote:

---

"It [ Fascism] arises under conditions of an advanced industrialized economy, that is, under particular historical circumstances. It is a product of big business that is brought about by market or profitability imperatives. It is, in a sense, an "emergency" instrument (a metaphorical fire fighter, if your will) in the arsenal of powerful economic interests that is employed during crisis or critical times in order to remove or extinguish "obstacles" to unhindered operations of big business."

---

This is an old Marxist saw going back to the Communist Party line imposed by Stalin during the Soviet "popular front" propaganda campaign to enlist the European democracies to stand up to Hitler by appealing to anticapitalist sentiments.

This assertion about Big Business promoting fascism has long been discredited by historians; far from being early adopters of Nazism, German Big Business jumped on the National Socialist bandwagon circa late 1932, only after years of fruitlessly backing conservative alternatives from Hugenberg to von Papen.

As always with these things, they also try to over-simplify. Hitler had industrial supporters prior to 1932, but they were either traditional conservatives who happened to be in big business or belonged to some of the newer "light" industries and not the traditional "heavy" industries. Given the structure and function of German industry at the time, this sort of direction usually came from the company chairman/owner. Big Business is usually not as monolithic as some would like to portray.

I agree this is a poor term. I think the administration and political allies are trying to call attention to the similarity between the current Iranian regime (combined power base, an oligarchy of religious, media, industry and financial institutions and other assets which wield power) and historical european fascism which sought to bind like sheaves societal forces of religion, media, transportation systems, and industry etc. all under state control. In the european experience religion both openly and covertly opposed this control while currently in Islam it appears those seeking control are the religious but I suspect mostly it is the ambitious for power who have succesfully used religion to futher their own ends and limited internal criticism and opposition by the religious guise. The vast majority of moslem clerics seem complicit in this since they see it as an alliance with the enemy of their enemy--western cultural norms which over time have and will change their societal roles. I think the administration has actively avoided using the term theocracy given religions current role in US and world politics. Sound bites do not afford opportunity for such political and religious distinctions. We will need to corrctly define these facets to be effective agents in defending our republic and its interests.

The use of the term fascism has more to do with the popular conception of fascism and less to do with its actual political and historical roots, in my view. The political left uses fascist to describe any sort of repressive policy or tactic, and thus the term has become (incorrectly) associated with that. The term Islamofascist was coined (I believe) to capture the contention that certain leaders were using the fabric of Islam to create extraordinarily repressive regimes.

I tend to agree with certain parts of this article, but I would also designate Nazism as distinct from Fascism. (while sharing common characteristics with it, the profound anti-Semitism and belief in a superior race WAS the main cause of its being) I would also state that while Bin Laden and Co share some characteristics with fascism they are more of an atavistic throwback to pre-medieval and medieval political Islam. I too, tend to think Islamofascist is rather a weak and lazy term to describe the current jihadist networks that threaten us today.

I very much agree that there is little connection between the followers of Osama bin Ladin and the partisans of ol' Benny the Moose. Nonetheless, I must confess a certain sympathy for those who use the term "Islamofascist." Though awkward and misleading, the expression does solve one of the perenial problems that we have with terrorists.

Terrorism is often nested within a much larger movement which, while radical in its goals, is not necessarily prone to violence. Thus, Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators (who tried to blow up the British government in 1605) were nested within a group of people that wanted religious toleration. The dynamite throwers and political assasins of the late nineteenth century were nested within a larger movement that wanted free love and the eight-hour day. Indeed, the existance of these larger movements seems to be an essential precondition to terrorism. That is to say, a larger movement gives terrorists with a means for justifying their actions, recruiting members and deciding who the enemy is.

Because of this connection, we often end up using the same word to describe both the terrorists and the larger group withn which they are nested. Both the bomb throwers and the peaceful advocates of free love and the eight-hour day were known as "anarchists." Likewise, both the folks who built the bomb under the houses of Parliament and the people who peacefully dissented from the religious regime of 1605 were "recusants."

This is unfortunate in two ways. First, it reinforces the view that the terrorists are the champions of the larger movement they are nested in. Second, it makes it harder to drive a wedge betwen the terrorists and the people from whom they have "borrowed" so much of their ideology.