Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog



Is America Slouching Into Fascism Under Both Democrats and Republicans ?
Raymond Richman, 8/5/2012

It is a measure of the strength of the Communist movement that it got the media and most academics to accept the notion that fascism is a right wing movement.  The important political difference between Communism and Fascism is that Communist parties wherever they are located see themselves as part of an international Marxist socialist movement whereas Fascist parties are single-country socialist movements, initially at least. Trotsky’s complaint against the Stalinist wing of the party, which got him killed, was that the latter was insufficiently international. Communism is his view was and should be a worldwide revolutionary movement. 

The word Nazi is a German contraction of the name Adolph Hitler gave his political party, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The word Fascist is derived from the name Mussolini gave his Italian national socialist party. Its symbol was the fasces, a Roman symbol of authority. Why have the media always subscribed to the myth that Nazis and Fascists were rightist political movements? Was it because to identify them as socialists would have been to reveal how close to the Communists they really were? They did not want workers to realize that the Nazis and Fascists were socialist parties. Getting workers worldwide to believe the lie that fascism was a rightist movement was a great Communist political achievement.

The Soviet Communist leadership called their international organization the Comintern or Third International, which included the Communist Party of the United States. It was dissolved officially in 1943 to make the US and Great Britain comfortable with their support of the Soviet Union in the common war effort against Germany and Italy. It was revived in 1947 as the Cominform which included in addition to the Communist countries of Eastern Europe under Soviet control, the Communist parties of Italy and France. Working closely with the Cominform were the Communist parties of many other countries, including the United States.

The fact that Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy tolerated private enterprises was the basis for some making a distinction between the two and is the basis for the Communist insistence that fascism is a right-wing movement. Given the fact that both were governed by totalitarian regimes, the private sector had little autonomy. Clearly, Communist China under these definitions is a fascist dictatorship. It has a huge private sector but is ruled by a totalitarian Communist Party. Clearly there is no reason to make any distinction between Communism and Fascism. The only difference is in the percentage of economic activity privately operated. In both there is no free enterprise.

How should one classify the Obama administration? It is clearly not a totalitarian regime and differs little in that respect from the George W. Bush administration.  The government subsidizes and regulates many private enterprises, particularly in agriculture, banking, and a fast growing sector, the production of “green energy”. An authoritarian dimension has been added by Congress which has authorized the environmental authorities to close down coal plants and to inhibit the production of fossil fuels and their use. In both the education and health sectors, the federal government has created  authorities which have the power to issue orders to force compliance with directives issued by the authorities.

The organization most comparable to the Cominform in existence today is the G-20 group of countries. Its leadership rotates. At its meeting in Mexico, President Felipe Calderon declared that one important achievement was signing of  an Action Plan for Growth and they agreed to grant the International Monetary Fund (IMF) US$456 billion to help bail out the Euro. It was the only concrete accomplishment of the meeting. The group paid lip service to free market principles and free trade, created a Financial Stability Board, called for enhancing food security, and promoting green growth. The G20 are enthusiastic about our vast expenditures to reduce carbon emissions. They tend to make capitalism unworkable. They seem directed against the U.S., which has enormous reserves of fossil fuels but which is currently importing a large proportion of its needs.

 There was no discussion apparently of the increasing disbelief among physicists of the validity of the AGW theory – man-made global warming – and the billions being wasted around the world to reduce carbon emissions and which has cost more jobs than it created and has displaced private investment.

Our own research indicates that “green growth” is inconsistent with countrywide economic growth since all the investment in wind and solar energy requires huge government subsidies amounting to more than half the cost of the projects. The electricity produced is much more expensive than electricity produced by fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro, burdening households and businesses and causing private direct investment, which really produces jobs and growth, to stagnate. Although counted as a contribution to GDP, it makes a negative contribution to GDP.  “Green growth” needs to be rewritten as “green negative growth”. It is clearly not sustainable growth to use green’s favorite adjective.

Russian prime minister Medvedev must know something we don’t know. He addressed Pres. Obama as “Comrade”. Can the reader imagine Prime Minister Khrushchev calling Pres. John F. Kennedy “Comrade” or Gorbachev calling Pres. Ronald Reagan “Comrade’? In Communist circles, “Comrade” is a way of greeting fellow Communists. Was Medvedev equating Pres. Obama’s commitment to international projects to a commitment to international socialism?   

Your Name:

Post a Comment:


Comment by Reco, 8/7/2012:

"The fact that Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy tolerated private enterprises was the basis for some making a distinction between the two and is the basis for the Communist insistence that fascism is a right-wing movement."

They did not just tolerate private enterpise but promoted private enterpise in both Italy and Germany. Indeed, the Italians in the 20s actually privitised the economy: Mussolini even  promoted privatization of the post office!


The italian fascist party was never  "National socialist". Indeed, Mussolini changed the name of the party to Italian Fascist REPUBLICAN party in 1943. Does that mean Mussolini's party was akin to the US republican party? NO, names are meaningless.

As for the National socialist(misnomer) regime of Adolf Hitler, the regime that coined privitisation, boosted profits of buisness, smashed the communist movment, supported German capitalism  etc. Indeed, capitalists in Germany supported Hitler:

"The point is that industrial behavior under Nazism cannot be reduced to simple structural explanations. Even within the context of a dictatorship that demanded high levels of production for war, industrialists made choices as individuals. They approached the SS for cheap labor; they decided whether to buy a Jewish company at a fraction of its value; they determined how forced and slave laborers would be treated in their factories."

-

German Industry and the Third Reich:
Fifty Years of Forgetting and Remembering

By S. Jonathan Wiesen


The Natinal Socialists and Italian Republican Fascists were clearly capitalists.

 

 

 

Response to this comment by M, 8/9/2012:
@Reco. “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” (Daniel Patrick Moynihan) Fascists and Communists are not capitalist. Autocratic and authoritarian governments simply use a combination of fiat currency (non debt based money) and a government owned banking system, to control every step of production in their economies. Once this type of control is implemented, it makes nominal ownership an essentially meaningless act. This scenario may be difficult to imagine today, because after the collapse of Communism in the 1990’s no major economy employs a government owned banking system.   That the Italian Fascists privatized their postal service is meaningless if the government retained control over the postal rates that could be charged. And the Fascists always retained control. Always.   Let us remember the iron fist that kept people in line. Any person or organization that did not give express loyalty to the Fascist or Communist state was a viewed as a threat. (I.E. Italian’s applauded Mussolini’s use of police state tactics (surveillance, arrest, torture, murder) to virtually eliminate all Mafia (organized crime) activity in Italy.) Comrade Stalin and Comrade Mao would never object to these types of actions (and worse)!


Comment by Alex Constantine, 8/10/2012:

The notion that the U.S. is "going" fascist is a ruse typically employed  by Internet psyop agents, usually pretending to be liberals, and plants in the press. The country has been dominated by fascists since well before WW II. Even in the 1920s, when fascism was conceived by Mussolini, major corporations bought up the mass media to silence noisy "muckrakers" who reported that the corporations were corrupt, and wrote about the many atrocities they committed in the pursuit of profit. By the time WW II came along, the fascists at Standard Oil were in business with IG Farben, ITT and GE and GM and Ford and IBM secretly aided Hitler and the German companies that backed him. They all profited handsomely from the Holocaust. The Bush family were in on it from their gold perch on Wall Street. The Rockefellers paid Mengele. And so on.

"Slouching" toward fascism? What kind of irresponsible question is that? You don't know that the US slaughtered millions of Vietnamese for no particular reason that anyone could perceive? You don't know that America is a mass murdering machine that thrives on genocide? We kill brown skins with abandon. Corprorations profit by it, and control the government to see that it gets done. What do you call this, exactly, if not fascism? And we've been living with it joyously, with the exception of a few muffled complaints, for a long long time.

You should slouch off the Internet and stop pretending to be informed. You "warning' gives the false impression that America isn't already fascist.

Wake up and smell the bloodshed.




  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Archive
    May 2017
    Apr 2017
    Mar 2017
    Feb 2017
    Jan 2017
    Dec 2016
    Nov 2016
    Oct 2016
    Sep 2016
    Aug 2016
    Jul 2016
    Jun 2016
    May 2016
    Apr 2016
    Mar 2016
    Feb 2016
    Jan 2016
    Dec 2015
    Nov 2015
    Oct 2015
    Sep 2015
    Aug 2015
    Jul 2015
    Jun 2015
    May 2015
    Apr 2015
    Mar 2015
    Feb 2015
    Jan 2015
    Dec 2014
    Nov 2014
    Oct 2014
    Sep 2014
    Aug 2014
    Jul 2014
    Jun 2014
    May 2014
    Apr 2014
    Mar 2014
    Feb 2014
    Jan 2014
    Dec 2013
    Nov 2013
    Oct 2013
    Sep 2013
    Aug 2013
    Jul 2013
    Jun 2013
    May 2013
    Apr 2013
    Mar 2013
    Feb 2013
    Jan 2013
    Dec 2012
    Nov 2012
    Oct 2012
    Sep 2012
    Aug 2012

    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories:
    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term
    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Real Estate Taxation
    Trade
    Miscellaneous

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • TradeReform.org
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


    Wikipedia:

  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]