48 Press for Conversion! Issue # 54 August 2004

By Laurence W. Britt

There is one archetypal politicalphilosophy that is anathema tothe principles of humanism. It

is fascism. And fascism’s principles arewafting in the air today, surreptitiouslymasquerading as something else, chal-lenging everything we stand for. Thecliché that people and nations learnfrom history is not only overused, butalso overestimated; often we fail tolearn from history, or draw the wrongconclusions. Sadly, historical amnesiais the norm.

We are two-and-a-half genera-tions removed from the horrors of NaziGermany, although constant remind-ers jog the consciousness. German andItalian fascism form the historical

models that define this twisted politi-cal worldview. Although they nolonger exist, this worldview and thecharacteristics of these models havebeen imitated by protofascist regimesat various times in the twentieth cen-tury. Both the original German andItalian models and the later proto-fas-cist regimes show remarkably similarcharacteristics. Although many schol-ars question any direct connectionamong these regimes, few can disputetheir visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cur-sory study of these fascist andprotofascist regimes reveals the abso-lutely striking convergence of theirmodus operandi. This, of course, is nota revelation to the informed politicalobserver, but it is sometimes useful inthe interests of perspective to restateobvious facts and in so doing shed

needed light on current circumstances.For the purpose of this perspec-

tive, I will consider the following re-gimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy,Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal,Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’sChile and Suharto’s Indonesia. To besure, they constitute a mixed bag ofnational identities, cultures, develop-mental levels and history. But they allfollowed the fascist or protofascistmodel in obtaining, expanding andmaintaining power. Further, all theseregimes have been overthrown, so amore or less complete picture of theirbasic characteristics and abuses is pos-sible.

Analysis of these seven regimesreveals fourteen common threads thatlink them in recognizable patterns of

national behavior and abuse of power.These basic characteristics are moreprevalent and intense in some regimesthan in others, but they all share at leastsome level of similarity.

Powerful and continuing ex-pressions of nationalism: From

the prominent displays of flags andbunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins,the fervor to show patriotic national-ism, both on the part of the regime it-self and of citizens caught up in itsfrenzy, was always obvious. Catchyslogans, pride in the military and de-mands for unity were common themesin expressing this nationalism. It wasusually coupled with a suspicion ofthings foreign that often bordered onxenophobia.

Disdain for the importance ofhuman rights: The regimes

themselves viewed human rights as oflittle value and a hindrance to realiz-ing the objectives of the ruling elite.Through clever use of propaganda, thepopulation was brought to accept thesehuman rights abuses by marginalizing,

����������� ������������������� ������� �even demonizing, those being targeted.When abuse was egregious, the tacticwas to use secrecy, denial anddisinformation.

Identification of enemies/scape-goats as a unifying cause: The

most significant common threadamong these regimes was the use ofscapegoating as a means to divert thepeople’s attention from other problems,to shift blame for failures and to chan-nel frustration in controlled directions.The methods of choice – relentlesspropaganda and disinformation – wereusually effective. Often the regimeswould incite “spontaneous” actsagainst the target scapegoats, usuallycommunists, socialists, liberals, Jews,ethnic and racial minorities, traditionalnational enemies, members of other

religions, secularists, homosexuals and“terrorists.” Active opponents of theseregimes were inevitably labeled as “ter-rorists” and dealt with accordingly.

The supremacy of the military/avid militarism: Ruling elites al-

ways identified closely with the mili-tary and the industrial infrastructurethat supported it. A disproportionateshare of national resources was allo-cated to the military, even when do-mestic needs were acute. The militarywas seen as an expression of national-ism and was used whenever possibleto assert national goals, intimidateother nations, and increase the powerand prestige of the ruling elite.

Rampant sexism: Beyond thesimple fact that the political elite

and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitablyviewed women as second-class citi-zens. They were adamantly anti-abor-tion and also homophobic. These atti-tudes were usually codified in Draco-nian laws that enjoyed strong supportby the orthodox religion of the coun-

Laurence W. Britt, an American politi-cal scientist, is the author of June 2004: APolitical Novel. This thriller, written in1998, is about an America where democ-racy is waning and fascism is on the rise.

������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������� ������������������������!��������� ���������������"

2

3

4

5

1

49August 2004 Issue # 54 Press for Conversion!

try, thus lending the regimecover for its abuses.

A controlled mass me-dia: Under some of the re-

gimes, the mass media wereunder strict, direct control andcould be relied upon never tostray from the party line. Otherregimes exercised more subtlepower to ensure media ortho-doxy. Methods included thecontrol of licensing and accessto resources, economic pres-sure, appeals to patriotism andimplied threats. The leaders ofthe mass media were often po-litically compatible with thepower elite. The result wasusually success in keeping thegeneral public unaware of theregimes’ excesses.

Obsession with nationalsecurity: Inevitably, a na-

tional security apparatus wasunder direct control of the rul-ing elite. It was usually an instrumentof oppression, operating in secret andbeyond any constraints. Its actionswere justified under the rubric of pro-tecting “national security.” Question-ing the activities of the national secu-rity apparatus was portrayed as unpat-riotic or even treasonous.

Religion and ruling elite tied to-gether: Unlike communist re-

gimes, the fascist and protofascist re-gimes were never proclaimed as god-less by their opponents. In fact, mostof the regimes attached themselves tothe predominant religion of the coun-try and chose to portray themselves asmilitant defenders of that religion. Thefact that the ruling elite’s behavior wasincompatible with the precepts of thereligion was generally swept under therug. Propaganda kept up the illusionthat the ruling elites were defenders ofthe faith and opponents of the “god-less.” A perception was manufacturedthat opposing the power elite was tan-tamount to an attack on religion.

Power of corporations pro-tected: Although the personal life

of ordinary citizens was under strictcontrol, the ability of large corpora-tions to operate in relative freedom wasnot compromised. The ruling elite sawthe corporate structure as a way to notonly ensure military production (in de-veloped states), but also as an addi-

tional means of social control. Mem-bers of the economic elite were oftenpampered by the political elite to en-sure a continued mutuality of interests,especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

Power of labor suppressed oreliminated: Since organized

labor was seen as the one power thatcould challenge the political hegemonyof the ruling elite and its corporate al-lies, it was inevitably crushed or madepowerless. The poor formed an under-class, viewed with suspicion or out-right contempt. In some regimes, be-ing poor was considered akin to a vice.

Disdain and suppression of in-tellectuals and the arts: Intel-

lectuals, and the inherent freedom ofideas and expression associated withthem, were anathema to these regimes.Intellectual and academic freedomwere considered subversive to nationalsecurity and the patriotic ideal. Uni-versities were tightly controlled; po-litically unreliable faculty harassed oreliminated. Unorthodox ideas and dis-sent were strongly attacked, silencedor crushed. To these regimes, art andliterature should serve the national in-terest or they had no right to exist.

Obsession with crime andpunishment: Most of these re-

gimes maintained Draconian systemsof criminal justice with huge prison

populations. The police wereoften glorified and had almostunchecked power, leading torampant abuse. “Normal” andpolitical crime were oftenmerged into trumped-up crimi-nal charges and sometimes usedagainst political opponents ofthe regime. Fear and hatred, ofcriminals or “traitors” was of-ten promoted among the popu-lation as an excuse for morepolice power.

Rampant cronyism andcorruption: Those in

business circles and close to thepower elite often used their po-sition to enrich themselves.This corruption worked bothways; the power elite would re-ceive financial gifts and prop-erty from the economic elite,who in turn would gain the ben-efit of government favoritism.Members of the power elite

were also in a position to obtain vastwealth by stealing national resources.With the national security apparatusunder control and the media muzzled,this corruption was largely uncon-strained and not well understood by thegeneral population.

Fraudulent elections: Elec-tions in the form of plebiscites

or public opinion polls were usually bo-gus. When actual elections with can-didates were held, they would usuallybe perverted by the power elite to getthe desired result. Common methodsincluded maintaining control of theelection machinery, intimidating anddisenfranchising opposition voters, de-stroying or disallowing legal votes and,as a last resort, turning to a judiciarybeholden to the power elite.

��������������� ������ ��������

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Ofcourse not. After all, this is America,officially a democracy with the rule oflaw, a constitution, a free press, hon-est elections and a well-informed pub-lic constantly being put on guardagainst evils. Historical comparisonslike these are just exercises in verbalgymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

Source: “Fascism Anyone?” Free In-quiry, Spring 2003. <secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_ 2.htm>

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

��������������� ������� ��������#���� ������"����������������������������������������������������������� ������������������ ������������������������������������������$��������� %���""""

����������������

�������������������