Raymond Richman - Jesse Richman - Howard Richman
Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog
Is America Slouching Into Fascism Under Both Democrats and Republicans ?
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?
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!
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:
Journal of Economic Literature:
Atlantic Economic Journal: