The U.S has been fascist ever since the signing of the constitution
Fascism is the concentration of power into the power of a powerful few after capitalists face a crisis, right? After the signing of the constitution this is exactly what happened in the fucking 1700's.
A man by the name of Daniel Shay inspired what effectively amounted to a general strike against the courts and rich for screwing over U.S peasent farmers (those types of farmers still exist to this day) and marched on an administrative capital before getting brutualized by the U.S army.
In response the arricles of confederation were scrapped and a stronger, more centralized, less people oriented goverment was instated.
Shay's rebellion still inspires Wobblies and only Shay's former stomping grounds have a decent chapter in Massachusets
Change My Mind:
Other urls found in this thread:
massline.org
m.youtube.com
anyforums.com
twitter.com
Power is power, whether wrapped in a blanket of propaganda or not
Bacon's Rebellion was what caused Black Slavery instead of White Slavery because when you're enslaving your own color it's kinda hard to maintain control.
Cowboy Movies are against the Bourgeoisie. A Von Mises author talked about it.
Cowboy Movies are Communist.
USA was oligarchic republic by design, and a pretty steeply unequal one at that. Less than 5% had (wealth weighted) voting rights, 1% actually voted. This is, however, definitely not fascism. It proceeds fully developed liberalism even.
You know, because fascists love balance of power!
Nah get that shit outta here. Call everything fascist and the words lose meaning and you sound like a liberal. What said is a lot more plausible.
(me) not that I'm dicksucking the constitution, but if they wanted to be fascist they wouldn't have bothered attempting/writing the fact that there was to be "balance of power" and make a way to have each branch accountable for the other. It's a decent idea run by and ruined by idiot capitalists.
That's fascism according to the leftist definition (i.e a small rich elite asserting dominance through force).
That balance of power is capitalist owned and they can order them to do whatever the fuck those Jewish Niggers want.
(me)
I also forgot to mention that the Shay's followers flew the (then liberal) red flag, so get that whole "not yet French revolutionish" enough stuff out
It's a meaningless statement. Noone operating Marxist methodology would call America Fascist.
Fundament of every existing and possible state is a monopoly on violence and at least some amount of centralisation obviously.
USA is evil
No shit, but this was a reaction to the people getting sick of the cappies shit and stopping the courts from paying them.
the American Bourgeoisie was progressive force until the end of reconstruction
Washington decried "tyranny of the mob", but ok
t. moralist
USA, like all things in civilizations, are a product of human species essence. There is nothing bad about evil, because that's what we all are.
it's true though
okay kid
go watch rick and morty some more
I don't really think it makes sense to call the US fascist. It definitely has some elements of fascism - hell, it basically invented some elements of fascism - but too many of the pieces are missing. Still, is correct. Like John Brown said: "the crimes of this guilty land can never be purged away but with blood."
The US is not fascist (and will never be fascist). Fascism is simply too far outside of the Angloid tradition to ever take root there or in Britain for that matter, and Anglo-American liberalism is actually worse than fascism imo. Probably the worst form of government ever invented.
Unfortunately, it was not possible for both Britain and America to lose in 1776, as both nations deserve nothing but contempt.
isn't it more plutocratic?
It keeps doing bad shit for imperialism to keep capitalism functioning. If any other country was in the position of America, they would do the exact same things.
Fascism can, and almost took place in the anglo world.
massline.org
1. “Fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most
imperialist elements of finance capital.”
2. Fascism is one of the two major forms of bourgeois class rule.
3. Whether or not a regime is fascist is primarily a question of how it goes about exercising its dictatorship over other classes—and especially over the proletariat and the masses.
4. How the regime treats revolutionaries and revolutionary parties (along with the militant mass movements they organize and lead) is especially key in determining whether a regime is a fascist one or not.
5. The role of terrorism.
6. Fascism and bourgeois democracy are theoretical extremes or archetypes; all actual regimes have elements of both types of bourgeois rule.
7. Regimes can be categorized as either fascist or bourgeois democratic based on whether they more closely approximate the fascist theoretical archetype or the bourgeois democratic theoretical archetype.
8. Individual laws or actions by the bourgeois state can be categorized as fascist if they correspond to the sorts of laws or actions typical of the fascist theoretical archetype, and whether or not they occur in a regime which we overall categorize as fascist.
9. Since fascism vs. bourgeois democracy is a matter of how the bourgeoisie rules, it is possible for it to rule in different ways in different areas (as well as at different times), and therefore to be a fascist regime in one area and a bourgeois democratic regime in another area.
10. Bourgeois democracy is unstable and periods of fascism are virtually inevitable—especially as the bourgeoisie faces a major crisis or nears its overthrow.
11. Struggling against fascist laws and policies of the government in a bourgeois democracy is a struggle for reforms.
The paper elaborates on all of these points, and also adds more after like case study on the US and India. IMO this is a very good read.
No, that's liberalism.
If you actully read a book youd know none of those were close to succeeding
There wasn't enough material wealth in existence in the country at the time nor was it concentrated enough for this definition to hold.
You don't think it strange or the least bit curious that the sons and grandsons of those fascist "sympathizers" went on to populate a government that waged a nearly century long war on communism around the world? That has relentlessly worked to erode workers rights and ensure that wealth is perpetually concentrated in their hands?
None of that seems the least bit suspicious to you?
Fascism is the porkies tightening the noose after people get pissed and nothing else, that's what happened in Shay's rebellion.
Was Pinochet not a fascist because he didn't preform some autistic screech about the Falange? Because he can't be if you don't think the U.S isn't.
Pinochet wasn't a fascist. He was an authoritarian conservative who killed some Communists. Fascism =/= Milton Friedman piloting a helicopter.
Mussolini cozying up to elites and ditching idiotic national syndicalism never happened I guess
No it isn’t. Fascism is when the bourgeoisie abolish liberalism to preserve capitalism. In the case of the US you have a somewhat pre-liberal society. If you are going to call that fascism then literally every state before the French Revolution was fascist.
Lol no you fucktard capitalism is the concentration of power. Period. Pretending that fascism has some monopoly over despotism is little more than an apology for the inherent violence of the liberal world order. Imperialism, famine, strike-breaking, assassination, conspiracy, oligarchy. All features of liberalism. All features of class rule.
That's how the rich reacted to Shay's ye olde red flag French style liberalism
The enlightenment happened before though the revolution.
Rome was fascist after the Gracchus brothers scared Mr. Patrician and forced monarchy onto peasants (muh Caesar), so yeah, the dark ages were fascist, but city states before Athens or Rome weren't since they didn't really revert back to anything or resist progress.
Rome was pretty Fashy even at the establishment of the Republic - the claste that took over were warrior-yeomen, and republican politics reflected that. Wealth and influence was measured in land, and a military carrer was absolutely mandatory to participate in Roman politics - Indeed, the military had their own assembly that could nominate magistrates to the Senate.
However, it is true that America could easily have been a communalist proto-socialist state if the New England Town's meetings and the legacy of the congregationalists and Free Gracers had taken primacy.
Washington cracked down on that shit hard, tho-
In most senses of the word, the Dark Ages represented a militarization of society - The modern fascist states are indeed the legitimate heirs to feudal society.
The establishment of the oligarchy was literally rich patricians dispensing with their king to clear the way for the exploitation of the poor with perpetual debt slavery. That's the "tyranny" the senators feared: the tendency for monarchs to periodically abolish all public debts and slavery.
jubilee is an interesting phenomenon and implies that there is a limit to exploitation before civilization collapses. and here we are 100 years after the new deal….
The rich Oligarchy didn't exist before the abolition of the Kingdom - Indeed there was a law that prohibited anyone from owning more than 500 acres of land, meaning that at the outset, wealth disparity amongst the warrior-yeomen was relatively low.
The reason oligarchs were able to arise in the first place was because wealth from slavery and plundering, slowly allowed certain well-to-do individuals to ignore the laws that were on the books.
Indeed, the "Grachii reforms" were mostly just a demand that the laws that were already on the books were upheld.
Is there a single republic that wasn't secretly an oligarchy?
America is an ms 13 run narcostate.
Holy shit it all makes sense
No, republics are oligarchies almost per definition.
It was settler-colonialist, not fascist. It's easy to confuse the two though since fascism borrowed a lot of elements from settler-colonialism. The capitalism that it had was far too undeveloped to be considered "fascist." For instance, (if I recall correctly) up until the 20th century a large majority of americans reported themselves as being "self-employed".
Pic only mildly related. Contrary to Sakai's bullshit the descendants of African slaves in the US are just as imperialist as the descendants of the indentured servants and landowners.
What.
That's how any representative system works.
Not really, it would look much like it does today, mainstream Progressive Liberal ideology is the descendant of New England Protestantism mixed with some Reform Judaism and a little bit of Liberation Theology in the 20th century.
Fun fact: fascist comes from italian fascio, meaning a bundle of twigs.
And guess what a bundle of twigs is in english?
The answer can be found in South Park S13E12
Those "self employed" people were peasent farmers living on borrowed land
m.youtube.com