Its efforts mostly take place away from the stadium, though. But it, too, felt compelled by current events to become more visible. If you support the same club we do, you are more than welcome to stand with us without fear of exclusion. Leander Schaerlaeckens is a soccer columnist for Yahoo Sports. Follow him on Twitter LeanderAlphabet. More from Yahoo Sports: Gordon's fantasy impact Possibilities in New England are tempting, but is it worth the risk? FC Yahoo April 18, Twitter Facebook Tumblr ] But this has been much less true in North America, although, in the early days of MLS, leftist New York MetroStars supporter groups pushed out a nascent right-wing element trying to shoulder its way in.
Autarky Class collaboration Corporatism Totalitarianism. Axis powers Montreux Fascist conference. The Nature of Fascism. Retrieved from " https: Anthropology Fascism Nationalism Political theories. Views Read Edit View history.
Mises Daily Articles
This page was last edited on 10 March , at Remember that in this same period, the American Left went through a huge shift. In the teens and s, the American Left had a very praiseworthy anticorporatist impulse. The Left generally opposed war, the state-run penal system, alcohol prohibition, and all violations of civil liberties. It was no friend of capitalism, but neither was it a friend of the corporate state of the sort that FDR forged during the New Deal. In and , the American Left had to make a choice. Would they embrace the corporatism and regimentation of the New Deal or take a principled stand on their old liberal values?
In other words, would they accept fascism as a halfway house to their socialist utopia? A gigantic battle ensued in this period, and there was a clear winner. The New Deal made an offer the Left could not refuse. And it was a small step to go from the embrace of the fascistic planned economy to the celebration of the warfare state that concluded the New Deal period. This was merely a repeat of the same course of events in Italy a decade earlier. In Italy too, the Left realized that their anticapitalistic agenda could best be achieved within the framework of the authoritarian, planning state.
Of course our friend John Maynard Keynes played a critical role in providing a pseudoscientific rationale for joining opposition to old-world laissez-faire to a new appreciation of the planned society. Recall that Keynes was not a socialist of the old school. As he himself said in his introduction to the Nazi edition of his General Theory , National Socialism was far more hospitable to his ideas than a market economy.
Flynn was a journalist and scholar of a liberal spirit who had written a number of best-selling books in the s. He could probably be put in the progressive camp in the s. It was the New Deal that changed him. His colleagues all followed FDR into fascism, while Flynn himself kept the old faith.
That meant that he fought FDR every step of the way, and not only his domestic plans. Flynn was a leader of the America First movement that saw FDR's drive to war as nothing but an extension of the New Deal, which it certainly was. But because Flynn was part of what Murray Rothbard later dubbed the Old Right — Flynn came to oppose both the welfare state and the warfare state — his name went down the Orwellian memory hole after the war, during the heyday of CIA conservatism. As We Go Marching came out in , just at the tail end of the war, and right in the midst of wartime economic controls the world over.
It is a wonder that it ever got past the censors. It is a full-scale study of fascist theory and practice, and Flynn saw precisely where fascism ends: When you run out of everything else to spend money on, you can always depend on nationalist fervor to back more military spending. One of the most baffling phenomena of fascism is the almost incredible collaboration between men of the extreme Right and the extreme Left in its creation. The explanation lies at this point. Both Right and Left joined in this urge for regulation.
The motives, the arguments, and the forms of expression were different but all drove in the same direction. And this was that the economic system must be controlled in its essential functions and this control must be exercised by the producing groups. Flynn writes that the Right and the Left disagreed on precisely who fits the bill as the producer group. The Left tends to celebrate laborers as producers. The Right tends to favor business owners as producers. The political compromise — and it still goes on today — was to cartelize both. Government under fascism becomes the cartelization device for both the workers and the private owners of capital.
Competition between workers and between businesses is regarded as wasteful and pointless; the political elites decide that the members of these groups need to get together and cooperate under government supervision to build a mighty nation. The fascists have always been obsessed with the idea of national greatness. To them, this does not consist in a nation of people who are growing more prosperous, living ever better and longer lives.
- Le ravissement de Marguerite Duras (LOeuvre et la Psyché) (French Edition).
- Annes Quest!
- The Fascist Threat;
- Mistakes Can Kill You: A Collection of Western Stories.
No, national greatness occurs when the state embarks on building huge monuments, undertaking nationwide transportation systems, carving Mount Rushmore or digging the Panama Canal. In other words, national greatness is not the same thing as your greatness or your family's greatness or your company's or profession's greatness. You have to be taxed, your money's value has to be depreciated, your privacy invaded, and your well-being diminished in order to achieve it. In this view, the government has to make us great.
Tragically, such a program has a far greater chance of political success than old-fashioned socialism. Fascism doesn't nationalize private property as socialism does.
How Trump presidency created quiet anti-fascist movement in America's soccer stadiums
That means that the economy doesn't collapse right away. Nor does fascism push to equalize incomes.
There is no talk of the abolition of marriage or the nationalization of children. Religion is not abolished but used as a tool of political manipulation. The fascist state was far more politically astute in this respect than communism. It wove together religion and statism into one package, encouraging a worship of God provided that the state operates as the intermediary. Under fascism, society as we know it is left intact, though everything is lorded over by a mighty state apparatus. Whereas traditional socialist teaching fostered a globalist perspective, fascism was explicitly nationalist.
It embraced and exalted the idea of the nation-state. As for the bourgeoisie, fascism doesn't seek their expropriation. Instead, the middle class gets what it wants in the form of social insurance, medical benefits, and heavy doses of national pride. It is for all these reasons that fascism takes on a right-wing cast.
It doesn't attack fundamental bourgeois values.
It draws on them to garner support for a democratically backed all-around national regimentation of economic control, censorship, cartelization, political intolerance, geographic expansion, executive control, the police state, and militarism. For my part, I have no problem referring to the fascist program as a right-wing theory, even if it does fulfill aspects of the left-wing dream. The crucial matter here concerns its appeal to the public and to the demographic groups that are normally drawn to right-wing politics.
If you think about it, right-wing statism is of a different color, cast, and tone from left-wing statism. Each is designed to appeal to a different set of voters with different interests and values. These divisions, however, are not strict, and we've already seen how a left-wing socialist program can adapt itself and become a right-wing fascist program with very little substantive change other than its marketing. Flynn, like other members of the Old Right, was disgusted by the irony that what he saw, almost everyone else chose to ignore.
In the fight against authoritarian regimes abroad, he noted, the United States had adopted those forms of government at home, complete with price controls, rationing, censorship, executive dictatorship, and even concentration camps for whole groups considered to be unreliable in their loyalties to the state. After reviewing this long history, Flynn proceeds to sum up with a list of eight points he considers to be the main marks of the fascist state. This is a very telling mark. It suggests that the US political system can be described as totalitarian. This is a shocking remark that most people would reject.
But they can reject this characterization only so long as they happen not to be directly ensnared in the state's web. If they become so, they will quickly discover that there are indeed no limits to what the state can do. This can happen boarding a flight, driving around in your hometown, or having your business run afoul of some government agency.
In the end, you must obey or be caged like an animal or killed. In this way, no matter how much you may believe that you are free, all of us today are but one step away from Guantanamo. As recently as the s, I can recall that there were moments when Clinton seemed to suggest that there were some things that his administration could not do. Today I'm not so sure that I can recall any government official pleading the constraints of law or the constraints of reality to what can and cannot be done.
No aspect of life is untouched by government intervention, and often it takes forms we do not readily see. All of healthcare is regulated, but so is every bit of our food, transportation, clothing, household products, and even private relationships. Mussolini himself put his principle this way: For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.
I submit to you that this is the prevailing ideology in the United States today. This nation, conceived in liberty, has been kidnapped by the fascist state. I wouldn't say that we truly have a dictatorship of one man in this country, but we do have a form of dictatorship of one sector of government over the entire country. The executive branch has spread so dramatically over the last century that it has become a joke to speak of checks and balances.
What the kids learn in civics class has nothing to do with reality. The executive state is the state as we know it, all flowing from the White House down. The role of the courts is to enforce the will of the executive. The role of the legislature is to ratify the policy of the executive. Further, this executive is not really about the person who seems to be in charge. The president is only the veneer, and the elections are only the tribal rituals we undergo to confer some legitimacy on the institution.
In reality, the nation-state lives and thrives outside any "democratic mandate. The idea here is that the whole of society is really shaped and controlled by a single will — a point that requires a leap of faith so vast that you have to disregard everything you know about reality to believe it.
And yet people do. The hope for a messiah reached a fevered pitch with Obama's election. The civic religion was in full-scale worship mode — of the greatest human who ever lived or ever shall live. It was a despicable display. Another lie that the American people believe is that presidential elections bring about regime change. This is sheer nonsense. We can trace this back and back in time and see overlapping appointments, bureaucrats, technicians, diplomats, Fed officials, financial elites, and so on.
Rotation in office occurs not because of elections but because of mortality. The reality of bureaucratic administration has been with us at least since the New Deal, which was modeled on the planning bureaucracy that lived in World War I. The planned economy — whether in Mussolini's time or ours — requires bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is the heart, lungs, and veins of the planning state.
And yet to regulate an economy as thoroughly as this one is today is to kill prosperity with a billion tiny cuts. This doesn't necessarily mean economic contraction, at least not right away.
Possibilities in New England are tempting, but is it worth the risk?
But it definitely means killing off growth that would have otherwise occurred in a free market. So where is our growth? Where is the peace dividend that was supposed to come after the end of the Cold War? Where are the fruits of the amazing gains in efficiency that technology has afforded? It has been eaten by the bureaucracy that manages our every move on this earth.
The voracious and insatiable monster here is called the Federal Code that calls on thousands of agencies to exercise the police power to prevent us from living free lives. It is as Bastiat said: The state has looted us just as surely as a robber who enters our home at night and steals all that we love. Syndicalist is not usually how we think of our current economic structure. But remember that syndicalism means economic control by the producers. It places by virtue of market structures all control in the hands of the consumers. The only question for syndicalists, then, is which producers are going to enjoy political privilege.
It might be the workers, but it can also be the largest corporations.