Mussolini was for a time an avowed Marxist, socialist and atheist. He was never an original liberal. He did support modern Keynesian liberalism, saying that "Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes." But Mussolini hated the liberalism that spelled individualism. In his 1935 version of the "Doctrine of Fascism," he proclaimed: "Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State . . . . It is opposed to classical Liberalism . . . . Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms
the State as the true reality of the individual." Fascism, actually came out of Marxism. Zeev Sternhell says that Fascist ideology... was a revision of Marxism." Fascism also came out of revolutionary syndicalism (unions).

Ultimately, this global state of affairs could only be defended and preserved by the most rancid sort of unfettered fascism:

https://www.academia.edu/13...

Your analysis is spot on, BUT "we must engage millions in the fight for a different future" Are you serious? We can't even get half the people off their butts to vote. If we could, this discussion would be moot.

With the advent of nearly complete automation of every production process, and increasing automation of services (think Uber, with the coming Google cars), the employed pool of workers is steadily decreasing as a proportion of the able workforce. We can choose to believe the lies that there will be at least 1 for 1 replacement of these jobs with new, higher-paying technological jobs if we want to I guess. But I don't buy it.

Why would companies like to invest in machinery if it does not help to eliminate manual, human labor? After all, human work is error prone and slow, and in many cases, certain advanced manufacturing processes can not even be performed manually. Corporations invest in automation, recession or otherwise, so the old trope coming from the Right that workers demand too much pay, etc., appears to be convenient but nonsense "reasoning."

So, with labor steadily disappearing from the workplaces of the world, exactly who does Mr. Forman (and others) expect to sign up with their unions? The remaining workers, who earn more than their former counterparts consigned to laborious and dangerous work for poor pay, are probably far more tantalized by technological challenges that make their work pleasant and enjoyable.

It is difficult -- no, actually impossible -- for me to imagine legions of computer programmers and other high-tech workers organizing and hankering for a labor union that would have only marginal advantage for them. And they know better than most that they, too, can be displaced from their jobs by the next iteration of technological advances or better wage prospects for their corporate overlords. So we can probably put this thesis to bed also, no?

There are still millions of workers at fast food restaurants who certainly need solid and reliable labor representation, and the IWW is probably the single best union to do this (I'm a bit of a wob myself, ok?). That said, we are still only looking at a sliver of the population, albeit an increasingly larger portion of the remaining employed workforce.

It occurs to me that what we really need is to organize the consumers to effect the sorts of changes we want. Its first demand should probably be a guaranteed Basic Income (BI), which would put those last workers still languishing in fast food and other poor-paying retail jobs in demand, rather than jobs being in demand. And we could stop wasting resources and destroying the environment so that one more poor person can afford to eat today. (Think commuters driving 30 miles to a minimum wage job and you will understand what I am driving at.)

This would be a complete paradigm shift, one like no other in human history. For the first time, workers and consumers would be united in accomplishing their common purposes, namely a peaceful world that respects human nature and the environment.

Please consider BI as a basis for a more fair and equitable society. See basicincome.org and bein.org for more information.

Utter nonsense. Liberal capitalism is a new phenomenon. Fascism is an older one. Get you (hi)story straight.

Great article. One of the best ever published at Truthout. Must be studied by political activists everywhere.

America's regime can be described as a plutocratic military junta controlled by Zionists.

A provocative article.

I'm struck by a recurring theme :
Racism (which includes viewing immigrants as "other")
and Sexism are the handmaidens of fascism.

I my view these themes do not receive enough emphasis in this article,
though when I look at the U.S. today, I would say that misogyny
and racism are at the root of many of our problems.

Traditionally, the Fascist dictator is a white male who believes that he (and his group)
should reign supreme.(Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin-- and today, far-right conservatives in the
U.S. like Mitch McConnell, Trump, Pence, & Paul Ryan fit the profile.

Let me add another theme that doesn't receive the attention that it deserves in this piece:
A lack of respect for eduction (or "anti-intellecualism)
goes. hand in hand with Facism

Fascism flourished in Mussolini's Italy, and took root in the American South, in large part because in these places, education was not valued.

As a result, people were too ignorant to reject the Nazis, the KKK,
and "redneck" politicians who pretended to represent the working class
(while in fact caring little for working-class
women and working-class African Americans.)

If we want to fight racism, first we must teach our children to respect education--and ideas that don't fit into the "conventional wisdom."
Parent also need to make education a priority, and to make it clear that working hard in school is far more important than sports ,being popular or texting on a cell phone.

It is only with education that we can hope to undo the racism, the sexism and the
xenophobia which is destroying this country.

Racism also help explains why so many Americans resist the idea of
globalization.

They view China, and it people, as "other" and are horrified by the fact that
China is rising to become a global power that will rival the U.S.

In time, not only China, but African nations and other Asian nations will take their place in the world order.
(China has been wise enough to reach out to Africa as well as Latin America and if
the U.S continues to resist globalization, we will be left out of the pacts that they make
with each other.)

Though as the U.S.. because a multi-cultural nation, I predict that we will become part of a new global order.

In the U.S. the demographics are backed into the cake:
Before long, the white males who ruled the old nationalism and fascism will no longer represent the majority.

If anyone has ever seen the series, "The Day The Universe Changed" (James Burke), he laid out his theory that there were three philosophies that were introduced by Charles Darwin via his "Origin of the Species", from the statement that the best equipped to survive (the strongest?) do. One was Fascism, second, Communism ans, third, Social Darwinism which we've a lot of, as well as the other two, in the US.

As to liberalism causing Fascism, I don't see it. Liberalism allows most people tp live freely, which allows people pushing Fascism to achieve small goals when people don't block it at it's beginning. The problem is that there ae always some people.who feel they always know what's best for everyone else. I saw a poll in the late 2000's where people were asked if anyone had the right to tell them what they could read, watch or listen to. The resounding answer was, "No!". But when they were asked about others, the answer was very different.

Everyone ALWAYS sees their way of living as correct and, generally, cannot understand why everyone else cannot see that they are, obviously, correct.

When you say "communism" you must be referring to real-and-existing communism, which wasn't at all like the communism normal people were imagining: A peaceful world with resource sharing, not kleptocracy and waste. You are probably talking about the Soviet Union?

In the future, please take care to use the term "communism" with at least a qualifier distinguishing it from its original meaning. Otherwise we are just propagating the RW trope.

What I meant was the dictionary definition. IE, Fascism was based on one definition of Darwinism, the strongest were the ones to survive, and since the greatest civilization at that time was the Roman empire, but they were destroyed by the Goths (Aryans), so they were the best race to survive. In Communism, if the strongest survived, then there was no Supreme Being and so the State was most superior. In Social Darwinism, the rich were picked by the Supreme Being to be on top, where their job was to gather all the wealth they could and to hold it in trust for the poor people because they just couldn't handle it, a situation we are seeing again today.

Definition of communism

1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property

b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

2 capitalized

a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.

b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

d : communist systems collectively

https://www.merriam-webster...

Dictionary definition does not tell ME which sense you meant it in. Don't assume others will be able to simply deduce this either. Best to be precise and stipulate it; will lead to less miscommunication.

Thanks for the historical perspective. But there is another metric which is rarely, if ever, used to define the spectrum of socioeconomic systems, one of power concentration.

democracy = power is determined by voters
capitalism = power concentrates in owners; owners game the system to determine who has the opportunity to own
slave capitalism = power of owner extends to owning workers/laborers
feudal capitalism = power concentrates in owners to extent they control many work/labor conditions including wages and residency
communism = power concentrates in members of single state party committee
oligarchic capitalism = power concentrates in small number of owners
monopoly = power concentrates in one corporation and their owners
fascism = power concentrates in one political party

The point is that the concentration of economic power has parallels in the concentration of political power. The terms/names used to describe each system often overlap in meaning and thus, can be confusing. It would be better to use a sliding scale to represent power concentration; something along the lines of the Kinsey sexuality scale. On a scale of 0-10 (low to high) how is political power distributed? How is economic power distributed? Based on Gillens and Page, political power score is roughly 7.6 in favor of the economic elites <http: www.vox.com="" 2014="" 4="" 18="" 5624310="" martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained="">. Based on stock ownership, the economic power scale is about 6.6 - top 5% owns about 2/3 of stocks <https: www.salon.com="" 2013="" 09="" 19="" stock_ownership_who_benefits_partner=""/>. The latter is not the best metric of economic power; actual score is likely significantly higher. This type of granular information is more useful in accurately describing power relationships than misleading names/titles/terms.

Thank you for clearly defining YOUR definition of communism. As I replied to another poster here, the term "communism" is often conflated with its original meaning, and only helps the arguments of the RW.

That's my point, the semantics of political/economic systems are easily distorted. A metric of power concentration in this instance would be useful.

Excellent article, Mr. Forman. My wife and i will be taking up the fight locally in Ontario in the fall, with Jethro_T's comments very much in mind. We applaud you and are prepared to stand with all of like mind.

What fight is that precisely, and what do you plan on doing? See my long comment here. I think Basic Income is the solution, not more attempts to organize the dwindling percentage of people who are still workers in an increasingly automated economy. Just my opinion.

”You’re not paranoid if you think the world feels more unstable — it is. There’s a dangerous confluence of political, economic, and military phenomena that is producing a very hazardous international situation. … At the center of each maelstrom is the U.S. Government, and instead of acting as a promoter of peace and stability the Obama administration has been a catalyst of confrontation and war. …An especially combustible zone is the Ukraine, where the U.S. is engaged in what is becoming a full-fledged proxy war with Russia. ” The Obama administration’s decisive role in the Ukrainian conflict has received only a sliver of space from the U.S. media, even after an audio of Obama’s Under Secretary of State was leaked, exposing the U.S.’ direct leadership role in a coup that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected government.”http://www.counterpunch.org...

Obama followed in the footsteps of every American regime since the end of WWII. Reagan visited an SS graveyard and memorial and the Truman and Eisenhower regimes made extensive use of not-so-ex Nazis in their spy rings. Trump will continue Obamas policies.

Fascist movements are growing in the NATO region of Western and Central Europe. Large ultraright and neo-Nazi Islamophobic parties are a real threat in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Greece. Nowhere are they effectively challenged by fake leftists in social democrat parties like the Sozialistische Partei Österreichs, the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, the Partido Socialista Obrero Español, the Greek Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) or the Parti Socialiste because they’re pro-capitalist parties. Neither they or the old line capitalist parties like the Democrats or Republicans in the US have anything real to offer in the fight against fascism.

There is no imminent danger of fascism coming to power in the US or the EU because although it’s advanced, the death agony of capitalism is not such that it would lead the bankster class to create an extremely violent and well armed mass fascist street army to defeat unions and other mass movements of workers. The preconditions for fascism are the collapse and failure of capitalist 'democratic' government, the collapse or total defeat of unions and the left and growth of a mass fascist movement based on the middle, not the working class. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Liberalism is not a problem or a cause. Greed driven unaccountable vulture capitalism is the culprit. United execs should have gone to jail over the DC10 crashes attributed to engine maintenance short cuts. Same for GM execs over ignition switches. Same for PG&E over hexavalent chlorine poisonings. Same for Wells Fargo execs who ran a coercive workplace environment pushing employees into financial crimes. Same for Michigan government officials for lead poisoning. FIRST DO NO HARM.

Your attempt to highly qualify capitalism (at least 3 adjectives there!) does nothing to change the conversation. Capitalism IS (by definition) greed-driven, unaccountable (to other than its shareholders, perhaps), and vulturous (my word).

But you are right that liberalism (neoliberalism to be precise) is not a problem or a cause. Our problems are driven by a lack of appropriate social policy to match technological advances. Maybe check out Basic Income (BI). See bein.org and basicincome.org.

Edison said it best when electric lights were first turned on. Ingenuity and humanity have to be kept in balance.

Did he say it best, though? I have heard he plagiarized a lot of other people's work, so maybe he also stole some of their best lines also?

(Sorry. I just had to point that out...)

Excellent article. Although I have more questions than answers, Foreman goes a long way in supplying some of the history and analysis necessary for a new dialogue and the urgency of the same. As part of the same endeavor, educational articles about post-growth and de-growth economics would also be welcome, not only for what they may offer in the way of sustainability, but also in the sense of replacing consumerism, materialism and 'meritocracy' with other -higher - values.

The penultimate paragraph begins by asking, "How do we win this fight?" It then offers some advice of a general nature, which only hints at what's necessary. Let's first assume that the will for a prolonged general strike exists; how then to subsist without wages until victory is won?

The author suggests "...a vast network of workplace and community-based organizing committees..." and lets it go at that; I would add that those committees must take responsibility for ensuring that all are fed and sheltered, and that those in the community who can't care for themselves are looked after. So: communal gardens providing the food for communal meals, communal daycare for elders and communal schooling and recreation for kids, communal housing, and communal healthcare and transportation as needed---in short, an explicitly and comprehensively anticapitalist modus vivendi.

"The flow of energy through a system tends to organize that system."
--R. Buckminster Fuller

"Be the kind of change you wish to see in the world."
--Mohandas K. Gandhi

We can do this---in fact, we must do this, as the only alternative is extinction.

Excellent article. Of course the situation here in the U.S. is complicated by the fact that this society, that benefited in general though very unevenly from its status as Global Hegemon for a number of years, is now suffering again very unevenly from the ongoing demise of that position in the Global Capitalist Hierarchy.

We do have a ruling class that is exceptionally violent and brutal, the majority of whose outrages were committed overseas over the last 70 years. However, the police state and terror operations, first used against the Huk rebellion in the post WW 2 Philippines and later honed and further developed in Vietnam, Indonesia, Angola, Congo, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, among other places, will increasingly be inward directed as the crisis of American Empire and the decay of Capitalism continues.