WI: Fascist America

[The_Tsar]

This has been on my mind lately, and since the 1930's aren't my forte, I figured I'd post this. How do you make America fascist, if possible? Hopefully out of the Great Depression, almost like what happened in Germany. Who would be the leader? Obviously not Roosevelt. Well, chat amongst yourselves.

[David S Poepoe]

Why not Roosevelt? Fascism is a political movement on the leftside of the political spectrum. It shares the same roots - tho varying from country to country - with Progressivism.

I've been wondering about the possibility of such a similar form of government being founded by the Wilson Administration.

[Wolf]

This has been on my mind lately, and since the 1930's aren't my forte, I figured I'd post this. How do you make America fascist, if possible? Hopefully out of the Great Depression, almost like what happened in Germany. Who would be the leader? Obviously not Roosevelt. Well, chat amongst yourselves.

Well if that bloke, Giuseppe Zangara IIRC kills him before he has a chance to improve the nation, someone with more radical ideas along the lines of Hitler could rise to power. Or in 1936 Fascist sympathizer Charles Lindbergh, a popular figure and hero could be elected

[The_Tsar]

Why not Roosevelt? Fascism is a political movement on the leftside of the political spectrum. It shares the same roots - tho varying from country to country - with Progressivism.

I've been wondering about the possibility of such a similar form of government being founded by the Wilson Administration.

I always thought Fascism was as right as possible. Oh well, I guess that's up for debate.

And to Wolf,
I would never have thought of Lindbergh. Wow, he got himself caught up in a lot of things. A true celebrity. Who are you suggesting someone like Hitler?

[Bopater]

Remember, at this point in time the Dems control the South. People like Roosevelt are behind their Republican counter parts in terms of treatment of minorites/equal rights.

[Mark E.]

When running for president, Roosevelt was advised, in no uncertain terms, not to run for the office unless he was prepared to assume the role of dictator. After all, Germany, Italy and Russia (soon Spain) went that way.

Fortunately, the US had enough resources to avoid the extreme, but Roosevelt issued one intensely dictatorial edict a month after taking office: he outlawed gold, to the extent that citizens could not possess more than $100 in US gold coins after April, 1933. HE OUTLAWED MONEY!!

Actually, Roosevelt was a perfect example of a self-limiting dictator, dedicated to principles. Had a Franklin Delano Hitler emerged, history could have been very different and and we could have seen a fascist America.

By the way, the $100 limit was repealed in 1954 and gold was completely re-legalized on December 31, 1974.

[Fenwick]

Well I think FDR is a good person to use, perhaps not int h elong run but to simply set up a system of great Presidental powers which can be abused by another less moral President.

First you need the court packing plan to work. With that anything that FDR does can be covered by the Supreme Court.

[David S Poepoe]

Well I think FDR is a good person to use, perhaps not int h elong run but to simply set up a system of great Presidental powers which can be abused by another less moral President.

An important thing to be aware about with FDR is that he was a best an intellectual feather-weight and surrounded himself with a host of socialist thinkers throughout the New Deal years. Many that were critical of him not going far enough left.

I wouldn't use Lindburgh since he's been done to death - and it would really be hard NOT to find someone who really thought Mussolini and Fascism wasn't the way of the future in the 1920s and 1930s.

However, it is very important to remember that Fascism is quite different than Nazism. Nazism has the additive of anti-semitism, which Fascism never had.

[Fenwick]

An important thing to be aware about with FDR is that he was a best an intellectual feather-weight and surrounded himself with a host of socialist thinkers throughout the New Deal years. Many that were critical of him not going far enough left.

I wouldn't use Lindburgh since he's been done to death - and it would really be hard NOT to find someone who really thought Mussolini and Fascism wasn't the way of the future in the 1920s and 1930s.

However, it is very important to remember that Fascism is quite different than Nazism. Nazism has the additive of anti-semitism, which Fascism never had.

While I personally do not think Huey Long was in favor of a fascist system, I could see him promoting sa more radical change to the economy, and the social system of America. So take FDR with his ability to appeal to the people, Long with his actions amongst the more radical, Wallace for his liberal views, and perhaps the way for a Fascist America is by seeking a cabal of leaders, and not a single individual.

As for Nazism it seems a wholly German ideal to me. Fascism in America I never saw as coming from the barrel of a gun, nor with a massive conspiracy. I always saw it as smiling politicans, and hungry citizens. People would gladly give up freedom for security, even with all the talk of American pride.

[Blizrun]

Have a successful Business Plot. Boom, fascist America.

[Fenwick]

Have a successful Business Plot. Boom, fascist America.

The issue with that is the man chosen to "lead the masses" was against the plot.

[Mark E.]

The president's power to pardon and to suspend habeas corpus could easily be misused to create a quasi-dictatorship. You can talk about the success of checks and balances in the governmental system, but the fact is that the US has been resourceful enough never to go far to the extreme.

[David S Poepoe]

The president's power to pardon and to suspend habeas corpus could easily be misused to create a quasi-dictatorship. You can talk about the success of checks and balances in the governmental system, but the fact is that the US has been resourceful enough never to go far to the extreme.

I don't think the president has the power to suspend habeas corpus. Doesn't that rest with the Congress? The dictator Abraham Lincoln usurped congressional authority in doing so.

[boredatwork]

Fascist America - easy.

Have the WW1 wartime socialism under WWilson remain in place. Throw in a recession or two (even a 'great' one) and some international tension, and you'll be well on your way to a Fascist, and even rabidly racist America.

[Mark E.]

The legislative article of the constitution does say this:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Didn't congress give Lincoln this extra authority?

[Sam]

Why not Roosevelt? Fascism is a political movement on the leftside of the political spectrum. It shares the same roots - tho varying from country to country - with Progressivism.

I've been wondering about the possibility of such a similar form of government being founded by the Wilson Administration.

Bollocks. And you can't trust Jonah Goldberg on anything.

As to a Fascist America, hmm. You would need to seriously degrade the USA's institutions and democratic traditions. The easiest way would involve the seccession of New England and the upper Midwest, but that involves such an early POD we probably would not see Fascism as such evolve.

Another way would be a far worse Great Depression. Say we have a Republican victory in 1916, Dems in the twenties, and a hardcore conversative in 1932, during the Great Depression. He follows policies - such as staying on gold - which dramatically worsen the economic situation. Hey presto! Huey Long in 1936, with a much more radicalized american people to work with.

Of course if France - which stayed on gold until 1936 - escaped Fascism, America probably would too. But it's the best I can do.

[Johnrankins]

The legislative article of the constitution does say this:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Didn't congress give Lincoln this extra authority?

He didn't even need it since the Civil War was a case of rebellion.

[Faeelin]

Remember, at this point in time the Dems control the South. People like Roosevelt are behind their Republican counter parts in terms of treatment of minorites/equal rights.

Actually, you're confusing the Southern Democrats with the Democrats overall.

[Faeelin]

Fortunately, the US had enough resources to avoid the extreme, but Roosevelt issued one intensely dictatorial edict a month after taking office: he outlawed gold, to the extent that citizens could not possess more than $100 in US gold coins after April, 1933. HE OUTLAWED MONEY!!


So you don't think states have the power to decide what's legal tender without being dictatorships?

[MerryPrankster]

So you don't think states have the power to decide what's legal tender without being dictatorships?

He unilaterally confiscated private citizens' stocks of gold by executive order. That was illegal.

Even if deciding what's legal tender and what's not should be decided through the proper legal channels, not by executive fiat.

[Nietzsche]

Well. It depends. What kind of 'Fascist America' are you talking about here? One where, instead of a Mussolini or Hitler-like character, the main parties are extremely far-right, but stay separate over some issues? Or the Mussolini, one man, one nation Fascism?

The former is much easier to achieve.

[Faeelin]

He unilaterally confiscated private citizens' stocks of gold by executive order. That was illegal.


Did the courts think so?

[Chengar Qordath]

The issue with that is the man chosen to "lead the masses" was against the plot.

Well, I'm sure there's ways Smedley Butler's mind can be changed. As I recall he was fairly sympathetic towards the Bonus Army, so perhaps if the second Bonus Army suffers just as badly as the first one he could end up radicalized.

OTL Roosevelt handled the second Bonus Army rather skillfully, which is why it's pretty much a historical footnote compared to the first one. However, one of the things FDR did to win over the veterans was to send his wife to mingle with them, which provides possibilities for a PoD to cause all kinds of trouble if something bad happens to her.

[Mark E.]

Another way would be a far worse Great Depression. Say we have a Republican victory in 1916, Dems in the twenties, and a hardcore conversative in 1932, during the Great Depression. He follows policies - such as staying on gold - which dramatically worsen the economic situation. Hey presto! Huey Long in 1936, with a much more radicalized american people to work with.

In the twenties, there was no clear-cut line between liberals and conservatives, since the parties had grown together. Had a democrat been in office in 1929, the republicans would have reverted to the left wing stand that marked their origin. The players would have been different.

[Snake Featherston]

I don't think the president has the power to suspend habeas corpus. Doesn't that rest with the Congress? The dictator Abraham Lincoln usurped congressional authority in doing so.

If Lincoln was a dictator, he was the Sulla kind...

suspending the Constitution, but with full intention to step down. Lincoln was planning to step down in 1864 had he lost, which he would have if General Sherman hadn't won Atlanta. No 20th Century dictator would have considered such a thing, or made plans for it.

[MerryPrankster]

Did the courts think so?

I don't know if it ever went to the court.

Furthermore, the courts (for awhile) also thought Jim Crow was legal.

[David S Poepoe]

Bollocks. And you can't trust Jonah Goldberg on anything.

Thats what you say. While I don't tend to believe everything that everyone or anybody says, I certainly shouldn't trust you either. However, good points are raised and it doesn't hurt doing that.

[Admiral Canaris]

While I personally do not think Huey Long was in favor of a fascist system, I could see him promoting sa more radical change to the economy, and the social system of America. So take FDR with his ability to appeal to the people, Long with his actions amongst the more radical, Wallace for his liberal views, and perhaps the way for a Fascist America is by seeking a cabal of leaders, and not a single individual.

I'd add Eisenhower as military power and ruthlessness. Heh, I actually did a timeline on this long ago, though it was rather ASBish.

[Admiral Canaris]

Have a successful Business Plot. Boom, fascist America.

So I'm not the only one to have read The Panay War...

http://www.changingthetimes.net/samples/darkvalley/panay_war.htm

[Snake Featherston]

Bollocks. And you can't trust Jonah Goldberg on anything.


Thats what you say. While I don't tend to believe everything that everyone or anybody says, I certainly shouldn't trust you either. However, good points are raised and it doesn't hurt doing that.

Sure...

but trusting Jonah Goldberg to be objective about liberalism and fascism is like trusting Maxim Gorky to be objective about Stalinism and Trotskyism....

[Sam]

In the twenties, there was no clear-cut line between liberals and conservatives, since the parties had grown together. Had a democrat been in office in 1929, the republicans would have reverted to the left wing stand that marked their origin. The players would have been different.

A lot depends on the character of the President elected in 1932. The Republicans seem a lot more likely to nominate a fiscal conservative who embraces policies that, unintentionally, make the Depression worse.

Thats what you say. While I don't tend to believe everything that everyone or anybody says, I certainly shouldn't trust you either. However, good points are raised and it doesn't hurt doing that.

Are you suggesting that "Liberal Fascism" raised good points? If so, name three.

[David S Poepoe]

Are you suggesting that "Liberal Fascism" raised good points? If so, name three.

Off the top of my head.

1. Fascism and Nazism are different and not one and the same - at least historically.

2. Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives had some pretty strange and frightning ideas about restructuring government and the nation.

3. The New Deal was inspired by Wilson's wartime economy.

4. Fascism is right wing only in regard to it being right of communism but still left of center politically.

5. Socialism was a popular idea internationally from the late mid to 19th century to the early 20th century and the Great War had a tremendous impact how the concept of socialism developed differently in each country.

Thats a few.

[Snake Featherston]

Off the top of my head.

1. Fascism and Nazism are different and not one and the same - at least historically.

2. Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives had some pretty strange and frightning ideas about restructuring government and the nation.

3. The New Deal was inspired by Wilson's wartime economy.

4. Fascism is right wing only in regard to it being right of communism but still left of center politically.

5. Socialism was a popular idea internationally from the late mid to 19th century to the early 20th century and the Great War had a tremendous impact how the concept of socialism developed differently in each country.

Thats a few.

So then it was internationalist?

Liberal Fascism is incorrect, Fascism and Nazism are both economically Left, but politically and socially on the Right. They focused too much on irrationality as a guide as opposed to the more rational-seeming Soviets. Fascist ideology as a rule tended to glorify the military and the nation far more so than was typical of Communist regimes. Fascism also tended towards a more esoteric, I guess is the word for it, sort of unifying factor than the more extoteric nature of Soviet and Soviet-inspired regimes.

[Faeelin]

I don't know if it ever went to the court.

Furthermore, the courts (for awhile) also thought Jim Crow was legal.

And it was.

Whether or not it was just, well.

[Josephus]

Fascism is ideologically on the extreme right, it just uses the methods of the left and cloaks itself in quasi-left rethoric. That's why it was so successful. Traditional conservativism didn't have much appeal for the common worker. But Nazism and Fascism were as closely linked to big business interests as, say, modern day US Republicans. Only that they played the worker side of the class divide, too, by setting up state-run quasi-unions instead of outright banning all worker representation.

[Snake Featherston]

Fascism is ideologically on the extreme right, it just uses the methods of the left and cloaks itself in quasi-left rethoric. That's why it was so successful. Traditional conservativism didn't have much appeal for the common worker. But Nazism and Fascism were as closely linked to big business interests as, say, modern day US Republicans. Only that they played the worker side of the class divide, too, by setting up state-run quasi-unions instead of outright banning all worker representation.

Fascism, maybe.

I'm not so sure Hitler's state really qualifies as pro-Capitalist....

[David S Poepoe]

So then it was internationalist?

Liberal Fascism is incorrect, Fascism and Nazism are both economically Left, but politically and socially on the Right. They focused too much on irrationality as a guide as opposed to the more rational-seeming Soviets. Fascist ideology as a rule tended to glorify the military and the nation far more so than was typical of Communist regimes. Fascism also tended towards a more esoteric, I guess is the word for it, sort of unifying factor than the more extoteric nature of Soviet and Soviet-inspired regimes.

Now, I would agree with you there. Not that Liberal Fascism is wrong, but with the rest of you statement. I have seen it mentioned that Fascism is usually presented as the 'Third' or 'Middle Way' between Classic Liberalism and Conservatism.

However, the contention that Fascism is politically and socially right escapes me when I look Hitler's manifesto.

True, socialism was internationalist. I've often believed that if the Great War hadn't happened then both the French and the Germans would have seen the Socialists likely coming to power (or sharing power) in the next elections.

[David S Poepoe]

Fascism is ideologically on the extreme right, it just uses the methods of the left and cloaks itself in quasi-left rethoric. That's why it was so successful. Traditional conservativism didn't have much appeal for the common worker. But Nazism and Fascism were as closely linked to big business interests as, say, modern day US Republicans. Only that they played the worker side of the class divide, too, by setting up state-run quasi-unions instead of outright banning all worker representation.

I would consider it likely that the only reason big business interests connect with either Fascism or Nazism is it is better to work with them rather than be nationalized. Fascism is not of the extreme right since it conflicts with the ideas of capitalism. Also I think a problem does arise when there is a general idea pervading society and it is interpreted differently individually. There can be a business owner that embraces socialism and supports it, but he also has to make a living and prosper in order to further his beliefs in socialism. So there will be a modification of the general tenents while they are also embraced.

Business, in general, is oppurtunistic and will support whatever side or ideology there is that will allow it to prosper.

[Fenwick]

I would consider it likely that the only reason big business interests connect with either Fascism or Nazism is it is better to work with them rather than be nationalized. Fascism is not of the extreme right since it conflicts with the ideas of capitalism. Also I think a problem does arise when there is a general idea pervading society and it is interpreted differently individually. There can be a business owner that embraces socialism and supports it, but he also has to make a living and prosper in order to further his beliefs in socialism. So there will be a modification of the general tenents while they are also embraced.

Business, in general, is oppurtunistic and will support whatever side or ideology there is that will allow it to prosper.

But Fascism by the Italian definition is Corporations working together to run the government. As they are the holders of jobs, money, and power they have a say. Mussolini said that Fascist should be called Corporationism. So calling it left leaning is hard as it is secure in the economy and big business which is traditional right side leaning.

[Faeelin]

Fascism, maybe.

I'm not so sure Hitler's state really qualifies as pro-Capitalist....

Indeed. You can tell the German industries were suffering by the record at a time of wage stagnation.

[Snake Featherston]

Indeed. You can tell the German industries were suffering by the record at a time of wage stagnation.

If "economic freedom" equals "Do as I tell you or you get a bullet in the back of the head," then the PRC under Mao must have been the most economically free society on the planet.

[David S Poepoe]

But Fascism by the Italian definition is Corporations working together to run the government. As they are the holders of jobs, money, and power they have a say. Mussolini said that Fascist should be called Corporationism. So calling it left leaning is hard as it is secure in the economy and big business which is traditional right side leaning.

I believe that there is some question as to if Mussolini really said that about Corporatism. There is some indication that he may never have said that. Also corporatism, in its historical context, and are not directly linked with corporations (ie. businesses).

From wikipedia:

Historically, corporatism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is held by civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and/or professional groups. These civic assemblies are known as corporations (not the same as the legally incorporated business entities known as corporations, though some are such). Corporations are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over the social and economic life of their respective areas. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When the political and economic power of a country rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place.

However, I will grant you that I would consider the US, in general, may be tipping towards a form of corporatism with the repeated mergers of airlines, banks, etc.

[basileus]

Why not Roosevelt? Fascism is a political movement on the leftside of the political spectrum. It shares the same roots - tho varying from country to country - with Progressivism.

Enough with this lie.:mad::mad::mad: Fascism was at bthe service of the established powers-that-be against the workers' movements. It was TREASON to the n-th power of any form of socialism.

[Admiral Canaris]

I've said it before: the Nazis built giant industrial combines, subsidised with government funds, to outcompete the private firms and press prices down. They completely rejected the capitalist view of supply and demand setting the prices; to them, national interests should govern production, not private profits. Furthermore, they tended to nationalise or otherwise interfere with "big business" that got in their way (Rheinmetall, Junkers, IG Farben are a few examples). How are such policies and such a stated disregard for the market pro-business?

[edvader]

Back when Ian had some Alternate History Scenarios with something called Dark America.This should be read if the scenario is available.Ian.do you still have the Alternate History section with scenarios like Dark America?I will check my print out and try to come up with a summary .

[Sam]

Off the top of my head.

1. Fascism and Nazism are different and not one and the same - at least historically.

2. Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives had some pretty strange and frightning ideas about restructuring government and the nation.

3. The New Deal was inspired by Wilson's wartime economy.

4. Fascism is right wing only in regard to it being right of communism but still left of center politically.

5. Socialism was a popular idea internationally from the late mid to 19th century to the early 20th century and the Great War had a tremendous impact how the concept of socialism developed differently in each country.

Thats a few.

Maybe I should have said "points which support the assertion that Fascism was a left-wing movement", an assertion which is, as I said before, bollocks.

[RedRalphWiggum]

I always thought Fascism was as right as possible. Oh well, I guess that's up for debate.

It isnt, this is a bizarre argument occasionally trotted out by people who want to convince you black is white. In almost every sense Fascism is right-wing.

[Faeelin]

If "economic freedom" equals "Do as I tell you or you get a bullet in the back of the head," then the PRC under Mao must have been the most economically free society on the planet.

I really don't understand your point here.

It seems like you'd like to say that any oppressive government that interferes in the economy is left-wing. Which is anice way of establishing a circular argument that no right-wing government can be oppressive.

[Faeelin]

I've said it before: the Nazis built giant industrial combines, subsidised with government funds, to outcompete the private firms and press prices down. They completely rejected the capitalist view of supply and demand setting the prices; to them, national interests should govern production, not private profits. Furthermore, they tended to nationalise or otherwise interfere with "big business" that got in their way (Rheinmetall, Junkers, IG Farben are a few examples). How are such policies and such a stated disregard for the market pro-business?

On the other hand, they also had a habit of handing out contracts and factories to loyal companies like party favors. Certainly, the fact that industry supported them is a sign of their orientation. Unless you think that the leaders of Germany's cartels were all leftists.

The Nazis aren't really either left or right in any conventional sense of the term.

[MerryPrankster]

The Nazis aren't really either left or right in any conventional sense of the term.

Not left-wing, not right-wing, just insane.

[Admiral Canaris]

On the other hand, they also had a habit of handing out contracts and factories to loyal companies like party favors. Certainly, the fact that industry supported them is a sign of their orientation. Unless you think that the leaders of Germany's cartels were all leftists.

The Nazis aren't really either left or right in any conventional sense of the term.

Or maybe they viewed them as better than the alternative? I imagine many Russian industrialists would've supported Kerensky against the Bolsheviks, though he was a Socialist himself.

Though classifying the Nazis on the traditional left-right scale is difficult, I'll give you that. Some parts of their foreign and social policy were definitely right-wing. On the other hand, many others were leftish. In all, it was less about any systematic ideology and more about what individual bigwigs thought.

[David S Poepoe]

Though classifying the Nazis on the traditional left-right scale is difficult, I'll give you that. Some parts of their foreign and social policy were definitely right-wing. On the other hand, many others were leftish. In all, it was less about any systematic ideology and more about what individual bigwigs thought.

I think you are absolutely right here. Because of nazism and fascism being a hybrid of both left and right it is difficult to place them on the political spectrum. They are simultaneously liberal and conservative by appealing to followers from both sides. So it would be inheritently incorrect to consider them as being exclusively of one side or the other.

[Jaded_Railman]

I'll say it again:

You can't properly place industrial era ideologies like communism and fascism on the left-right scale, something that emerged at the tail end of the commercial era of the 1700's. It's a primitive, out-dated model of politics.

Fascists were collectivist in nature, so they share more in common with socialists than with liberals in that regard. They were, however, also very culturally conservative, and nationalist (which started as a 'left-wing' position, mind) rather than internationalist. I've heard it said that Bolshevism is international socialism and Nazism was national socialism, which works rather well from certain perspectives.

[Snake Featherston]

I'll say it again:

You can't properly place industrial era ideologies like communism and fascism on the left-right scale, something that emerged at the tail end of the commercial era of the 1700's. It's a primitive, out-dated model of politics.

Fascists were collectivist in nature, so they share more in common with socialists than with liberals in that regard. They were, however, also very culturally conservative, and nationalist (which started as a 'left-wing' position, mind) rather than internationalist. I've heard it said that Bolshevism is international socialism and Nazism was national socialism, which works rather well from certain perspectives.

So what then is Socialism in One Country?

:confused:

[CanadianGoose]

I am very surprised that nobody mentioned Sinclair Lewis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here

[Grimm Reaper]

CanadianGoose, because most of us refuse to refer to the author whose work ultimately led to the miniseries V and the even more unspeakable television series.:eek:


One fundamental question is whether you believe an expansion of government to be automatically leftist. If so then you must conclude that any government at any point in history which had to handle a war must have been leftist, regardless of any of the details of that government.

[Admiral Canaris]

What gives? I liked the V series. Sure, it's improbable and a little crazy, but no more so than most made-for-TV stuff.