By Ismael Hossein-zadeh
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."
While
some researchers have attributed this classic definition of fascism to the
Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile[1], others believe that it came directly
from the horse's mouth, Bonito Mussolini, the prototypical
fascist.[2]
Where big money plays a crucial role in the election of
politicians and government functionaries, state power is almost always a proxy
for corporate power or big business. Under "normal" or "healthy" economic
circumstances, however, that agency role of the state is often subtle and
submerged, as under such circumstances business and government leaders can
afford to rely on the "invisible hand" of the market mechanism to perform its
putative magic work.
But as soon as an expanding economic cycle turns to
a declining one, and the declining cycle becomes dangerously persistent or
chronic, business and government leaders dispel all pretensions of deferring
business or economic affairs to the "invisible hand" of the market mechanism and
rush to the rescue of the market system with all kinds of "extra-economic" or
policy schemes of "restructuring" and crisis-management.
Such
interventionist policies on behalf of corporate interests in pursuit of higher
profits would include, for example, business-friendly changes in labor,
environmental, taxation, and anti-trust laws. They would also include changes in
rules governing international trade and investment through multilateral
institutions such and the IMF and WTO in favor of powerful transnational
corporations.
While these corporate welfare schemes are characterized by
such apparently benign labels as restructuring, downsizing, streamlining, or
supply-side/neoliberal economics, they are, in fact, legal, political,
institutional and, at times, military instruments of class struggle that are
employed by business and government leaders in pursuit of profitability, often
at the expense of working people.
These neoliberal corporate welfare
schemes contain elements or seeds of potentially fascistic economic strategies.
The germs of potential or latent fascism, however, can remain dormant as long as
implementation of such "restructuring" schemes do not face serious resistance
from labor, or menacing pressure from below; that is, as long as corporate
welfare policies can be carried out by peaceful political and/or legal means (as
opposed to police or military means). This has been, more or less, the case with
the United States
since the early 1980s where corporate and government leaders have since then
"peacefully" carried out a successful supply-side or neoliberal economic policy
that has resulted in a drastic redistribution of national resources in favor of
the wealthy.
But when major business interests find "normal"
restructuring policies of corporate profitability insufficient, or when severe
resistance or pressure from below tends to make "peaceful" imposition of such
policies difficult or impossible, corporate and government leaders would not
hesitate to employ police and military force (i.e., emergency or fascistic
measures) to carry out the "necessary reforms" in pursuit of corporate
prosperity.
Such emergency steps would include union busting, strike
breaking, tax breaks for the wealthy, cuts in social spending, severe austerity
economic measures, and the like. To undermine resistance to this belt-tightening
package of economic fascism, corporate state will then find it necessary to
embark on the corresponding package of political fascism: wearing down on civil
liberties and republican principles, manipulating electoral and voting
processes, undermining constitutional and democratic values, disregarding human
rights and international treaties, and so on.
Imposition of such
anti-democratic policies will, in turn, require scapegoating, fear-mongering,
enemy-manufacturing and, of course, war. While domestic dissent is portrayed as
treason, external non-compliance is depicted as threat to "our national
interests" because, according to this logic, other countries cannot remain
neutral or independent: "they are either with us or against
us"!
Xenophobic or chauvinistic nationalism, superficial or pseudo
populism, and worship of military power are major hallmarks of fascism.
Corporate state propaganda machine would feverishly promote these values
because, among other things, such values resonate with ordinary citizens and
help mobilize the masses behind the agenda of fascism.
Successful
mobilization of the masses behind the program of fascism is, of course, a most
ironic and perverse type of social development: the victims (the middle,
lower-middle, poor, and working classes) are driven to rise up in their crazed
desperation to support the victimizer, the big business, through the agency of
fascism. This is, of course, pivotal to the success of fascism.
This
brief description of the characteristics of fascism is more than theoretical; it
also reflects the actual developments that gave birth to the rise of fascism in
Germany and
Italy. Fascist dictators in both
countries, Hitler and Mussolini, were elevated to power by major business
conglomerates.
In Germany, for example, as anemic economic
conditions of the 1920s further deteriorated in the early 1930s, powerful
business interests put pressure on the Weimar Republic to help them carry out a brutal
economic austerity package: cutting wages and social spending, on the one hand,
giving generous state subsidies and tax breaks to big business, on the other.
Although the Weimar Republic did offer help and took some
steps in this direction, German corporate leaders found such measures
insufficient and unsatisfactory.
Thus, as Michael Parenti points out, "By
1930, most of the tycoons had concluded that the Weimar Republic no longer
served their needs and was too accommodating to the working class. They greatly
increased their subsidies to Hitler, propelling the Nazi party onto the national
stage." Parenti further writes, "Business tycoons supplied the Nazis with
generous funds for fleets of motor cars and loudspeakers to saturate the cities
and villages of Germany, along with funds for Nazi
party organizations, youth groups, and paramilitary forces. In the July 1932
campaign, Hitler had sufficient funds to fly to fifty cities in the last two
weeks alone."[3]
The Political Economy of U.S.
Militarism
by
Ismael Hossein-zadeh
buy from amazon
Like Adolf Hitler of
Germany, Italy's Bonito
Mussolini was brought to power by big capital: "To maintain profit levels, the
large landowners and industrialists would have to slash wages and raise prices.
The state in turn would have to provide them with massive subsidies and tax
exemptions. To finance this corporate welfarism, the populace would have to be
taxed more heavily, and social services and welfare expenditures would have to
be drastically cut."[4]
To undermine the workers' and peasants'
resistance to these brutal austerity measures, the corporate state would have to
curtail civil liberties and eliminate democratic rights that helped the masses
defend their modest living conditions. "The solution was to smash their unions,
political organizations, and civil liberties. Industrialists and big landowners
wanted someone at the helm who could break the power of organized workers and
farm laborers and impose a stern order on the masses. For this task Benito
Mussolini, armed with his gangs of Blackshirts, seemed the likely
candidate."
In 1922, the "Fedrazione Industriale," consisting of the
leaders of industry, banking, and agribusiness corporations, "met with Mussolini
to plan the 'March on Rome,' contributing 20 million lire to the
undertaking. With the additional backing of Italy's top
military officers and police chiefs, the fascist 'revolution' – really a coup
d'etat – took place."[5]
Although the inner-connections between
economics, politics, and cultural facets of fascism may not be as clear-cut or
precise as correlations in, for example, natural sciences, they are nonetheless
subject to specific social and historical laws, dynamics, and developments. In
general, and in broad outlines, fascism arises as an emergency reaction, or
crisis-management response, by big business to threats posed to its interests,
threats that cannot be fended off by the "usual" or "normal" maneuverings of the
capitalist state. Protracted and menacingly long economic crises tend to be
breeding grounds for the rise of fascism.
In response to such chronic
recessionary cycles, business and government leaders would, first, try "normal"
restructuring or streamlining policies to stem further economic decline and
restore profitability. These would include implementation of capital-friendly
fiscal and monetary policies; dilution of health, safety, and environmental
standards; weakening or undermining business regulations and anti-trust laws;
and so on. But if the anemic economy does not respond to such "ordinary"
neoliberal economic measures (and social tensions continue to mount as a
result), the corporate state would then not hesitate to resort to
"extraordinary" measures of economic restructuring. With varying degrees or
intensities, such "extraordinary" steps would entail elements of fascistic
politics and policies.
It must be pointed out here that the emergence of
fascism from long periods of economic and social crises is not inevitable. For
example, while the depression period of the late 1920s and early 1930s led to
the rise of fascism in Europe, it gave birth to the New Deal reforms in the
United
States. It could as well have led to the rise
of socialism in either place, especially in Europe. President Roosevelt's famous statement (in
response to opposition by some ruling circles to the New Deal package) that "we
need these reforms if we want to avert revolution" succinctly captured the
fluidity of the U.S. social developments of the
time.
Historians overwhelmingly agree that a major force behind the
corporate drive to fascism in Europe was a
desire to avert socialism. The late Rosa Luxemburg's warning on the eve of the
rise of fascism that Europe was at the cross
roads of "either socialism or barbarism" presciently captured the volatility of
the European socioeconomic circumstances of the time.
These experiences
(as well as the economic logic and theory of social developments) indicate that
the outcome of deep socioeconomic crises is not predetermined; it all depends on
the balance of power between the contending interests and the outcome of class
struggle.
Now, it is obvious that, in light of the characteristics of
fascism as a specific socio-historical phenomenon, the Bush administration's
labeling of radical Islamic movements and leaders as fascist, or
"Islamofascism," is sheer nonsense. It betrays either blatant demagoguery, or
shameful ignorance, or most probably, both.
For one thing, the economic
foundation of fascism, an advanced industrialized market economy, is absent in
most areas or countries of fundamentalist Islamic movements and/or radical
Muslim leaders. For another, militant Muslim leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
of Iran, Hassan Nasrallah of Lebanon, Hamas leaders of Palestine, and Muslim
Brotherhood leaders of Egypt are known as people's leaders or fighters, not
agents and collaborators of big business, as would be the case with fascist or
fascistic figures and characters. They are, indeed, often in collision, not
collusion, with big business and corrupt establishments of their communities or
countries.
Furthermore, most radical Muslim movements of recent years
have tended to push for more, not less, political democracy, as this would lead
to their gaining political power and independence from foreign powers and their
(comprador) local allies. That is, indeed, how, for example, Hamas won in the
recent Palestinian elections in the occupied territories. That was also how
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became the President of Iran (despite the vehement
opposition by the corrupt and moneyed establishment). Iraqi and Lebanese Shia
Muslims have equally been keen on free elections. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has
been trying for years to bring about free and transparent elections in that
country, only to be obstructed by the regime of (the life-time) President Hosni
Mubarak, the treasured ally of the United States.
Radical movements and
individuals of the Muslim world maybe called fundamentalist, populist,
nationalist, or terrorist; but they cannot be called fascist. As Marc Ash
recently put it, "Blowing up an airliner full of passengers is barbaric and
completely unacceptable, regardless of the objectives of those involved, but it
really doesn't fit the definition of fascism." (Even if we assume, for a moment,
that such wild acts of desperation can be called fascism, still they cannot be
called Islamic fascism; just as the rise of fascism in Europe was not, and could not, be called Christian
fascism.) Fascism "is not an isolated act of madness, it is a coordinated act of
state. All the while private corporations profit wildly."[6]
But while
radical groupings and individuals of the Muslim world (or anywhere else in the
world, for that matter) cannot be called fascist, the
neoconservative/corporate-run Bush administration does bear some major (though
low-level) hallmarks of fascism. These include a tendency to curtail civil
liberties and retreat from democratic principles, a penchant to view the peoples
and nations of the world as "allies" and "enemies," a preference to boost the
power and fortunes of big business at the expense of the needy and working
classes, a desire to manufacture enemies and to invent scapegoats in order to
justify wars of aggression, and so on.
This is not to say that President
Bush or the neoconservative handlers of his administration can be called
full-blown or mature fascists; but that their ranks, their circles of power, and
their politico-philosophical agenda are infested with insidious germs of fascism
that, if not contained, can develop to full-fledged fascism.
While it is
important to identify and to warn against the signs of latent or embryonic
fascism in and around the Bush administration, it is also necessary to point to
the emergence or proliferation of a number of hopeful signs and forces that are
evolving to counter the fascistic tendencies of neoconservatism. What are those
counteracting forces?
One such sign of optimism is the fact that as the
neoconservative agenda of the Bush administration is increasingly exposed as
fraudulent, public support for that agenda is dwindling among the American
people. As noted, agitation and mobilization of the masses around the flag and
on the ground of pseudo-nationalism by means of disinformation and deceit is a
major secret of the success of fascism. Rising uneasiness of the American people
with the neoconservative-Bush agenda of war and militarism is a hopeful sign
that further implementation of that ominous agenda might not be as easy in the
future as it has been in the past six years.
Another indication of
optimism is that even the military is gradually questioning the jingoistic plans
of the neoconservative civilian leadership. Tensions between the professional
military experts and civilian leadership, pejoratively called militaristic
chicken hawks, festering ever since the invasion of Iraq, have now been heightened over the
administration's policy of an aerial military strike against Iran. While
civilian militarists, headed by Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld, are said to have drawn plans to bomb Iran, many
senior commanders are openly questioning the wisdom of such
plans.[7]
Third, and perhaps more importantly, serious tensions and
disagreements are developing within the ruling elite over aggressive unilateral
policies of the neoconservative Bush administration. Cross-party opposition
within the ruling factions to the neoconservative agenda, latent ever since they
took over U.S. foreign policy, has recently
become quite intense. The so-called realists and/or multilateralists are
increasingly expressing dismay at how the neoconservative policies of the
administration are undermining not only worldwide U.S. credibility
but also its geopolitical and economic interests.
A major part of the
disagreements within the ruling circles is due to the fact that their economic
interests are impacted differently by the foreign policies of the Bush
administration. While major beneficiaries of military capital, that is,
armaments industries and related businesses that benefit from war and
militarism, support the administration's policies of unilateral wars of
aggression, non-military, or civilian, transnational capitalists do not favor
such policies as they tend to cost them foreign markets and investment
opportunities.
The Powerful interests that are vested in the military
capital or war industries include not only the giant Pentagon contractors such
as Boeing, Northrop Grumman, McDonald Douglas, or Raytheon, but also a whole
host of war-related smaller businesses that have recently spun around the
Pentagon and the Homeland Security apparatus in order to cash in on the
Pentagon's escalating budget. All these war-based industries and related
business have been reaping the benefits of a war-time bonanza thanks to drastic
increases in military spending under President Bush – officially a 45 percent
increase in real terms over what he inherited in 2001. Not surprisingly, these
beneficiaries of "war dividends" are the major supporters, and often also the
architects, of the Bush administrations foreign policy. They are the real
(though often submerged) forces behind the façade of the cabal of
neoconservative activists, their militaristic policies, and their demagogic
rhetoric of democracy.[8]
But while the interests that are vested in the
business of war have been handsomely benefiting from the Bush administration's
policies of war and militarism, Thousands of non-military transnational
businesses have suffered from losses of trade and investment opportunities in
global markets as a result of those policies. From their point of view, the
neoconservative policies of military buildup and unilateral wars of choice have
increasingly become economic burdens not only because they devour a
disproportionately large share of national resources, but also because such
adventurous operations tend to create instability in international markets and
subvert long-term global investment. Furthermore, the resentment and hostility
that unprovoked aggressions have generated in foreign lands have also created
consumer backlash against brands that are closely identified with the United
States: Marlboro cigarettes, America Online (AOL), McDonald's, Coca-Cola and
Pepsi, Pizza Hut, American Airlines, Exxon-Mobil, and many
more.[9]
Losses of trade and investment opportunities in foreign markets
have prompted a broad spectrum of non-military business interests to form
coalitions of trade associations that are designed to lobby foreign policy
makers against unilateral U.S. military aggressions abroad. One such
anti-militarist alliance of American businesses is USA*ENGAGE. It
is a coalition of nearly 700 small and large businesses, agriculture groups and
trade associations working to seek alternatives to the proliferation of
unilateral U.S. foreign
policy actions and to promote the benefits of U.S. engagement
abroad.
The coalition's statement of principles points out, "American
values are best advanced by engagement of American business and agriculture in
the world, not by ceding markets to foreign competition. Helping train workers,
building roads, telephone systems, and power plants in poorer nations, promoting
free enterprise – these activities improve the lives of people worldwide and
support American values."[10]
While these positive developments (erosion
of public support, hesitation of the professional military brass, and
disagreements and tensions within the ruling elite) are hopeful signs that the
power and influence of the Bush administration and his neoconservative allies
are rapidly declining, they do not mean that these champions of unilateral wars
and militarism can no longer inflict serious damage to international peace and
stability (for example, by a reckless bombing of Iran). One should never
discount the dangerous reactions of bullies when they find themselves against
the wall: attack.
______________________________________________
REFERENCES:
1. Frank J. Ranelli, "Defining Fascism, Then and
Now," OpEdNews.com (September 13, 2006), http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_frank_j__060913_defining_fascism_2c_th.htm
2. Andrew Boswoth, "Welcome to Neo-Fascism 101," VirtualCitizens.com (August
8, 2006), http://www.virtualcitizens.com/article.php?shorttitle=WelcometoNeoFascism
3. Michael Parenti, "Plutocrats Choose Autocrats," section 1 of Chapter 1
("Rational Fascism") of his book, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the
Overthrow of Communism, 1997. See also James Pool and Suzanne Pool, Who Financed
Hitler (New York: Dial Press, 1978).
4. Parenti, Ibid.
5. Ibid.; See also
Daniel Guerin, Fascism and Big Business (New York: Monad Press/Pathfinder Press,
1973).
6. Marc Ash, "Fascism of All Varieties," TruthOut.org (August, 11,
2006), http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081106Z.shtml
7. Ismael
Hossein-zadeh, "U.S. Iran Policy Irks Senior Commanders: The Military vs.
Militaristic Civilian Leadership," Pyavand.com (August 14, 2006), http://www.payvand.com/news/06/aug/1154.html
8. I have
provided a detailed discussion of these relations in my recently-published book,
The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2006), Chapter
6.
9. Ibid., Chapter 8.
10. http://www.usaengage.org/about_us/index.html
About the author: Ismael Hossein-zadeh is a professor
of economics at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. He is the author of the newly published
book, The
Political Economy of U.S. Militarism. His Web page is http://www.cbpa.drake.edu/hossein-zadeh
