I was thinking of the way Bertram Gross used it, in this review of his book.
http://www.eclectica.org/v1n1/reviews/wharton_friendly.html
Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America by
Bertram Gross
M. Evans: New York
410 pp.
Bertram Gross worked as an insider. He taught political science at Hunter
College (CUNY) and
served as executive secretary of President Truman's Council of Economic
Advisors. In this latest
major book he seems resolved to tell all, tell it straight, set down the
insights-- and some of the
errors--of a career. He acknowledges dozens of students and colleagues. The
notes cite 440
quotations and sources.
Fascism emerged in 1919 in Milan (after Italy came Germany, Japan, and
Spain). It supplanted loose
working arrangements that jelled during world war 1. Manufacturing and
finance had drawn closer.
Industrialists, alongside government officials on wartime agencies, saw
firsthand the beauties of
economic planning and cooperation. Unlike communists, the fascists--while
uncouth--did not menace
the survival of old structures.
In seeking the gist of fascism Gross skips the optional extras: the single
charismatic leader, the
one-party dictatorship, rigid censorship, regimentation of
industry/commerce/finance, etc. What
remains is big government in alliance with big business: corporate
authoritarianism that subverts
constitutional democracy.
World war 2 broke the great depression of 1929-39. Would hard times return
with peace? Global
events alarmed the West: 1945 Ho Chi Minh, 1947 Gandhi, 1949 Mao Tsetung,
etc. America's
economy grew problematic, as well. The US responded vigourously, with a
"remarkably flexible--even
to the point of sharp internal conflicts--structure of business-government
partnership" (p. 34). It saw
that without reforms, only federal spending could fend off another crisis.
But heavy spending on
welfare and public works might actually alter the economy. It might shift
demands among industries,
create new channels and institutions (remember TVA?), even redistribute
income. On the other hand,
an arms buildup as industrial policy could rally the economy with little
risk of change to structures.
Some transnationals evolved into conglomerates. Components spread to
different sectors and might
cluster--to foster oligarchic cooperation. In finance, a lead sector in the
expanding golden
international, a constellation of banks would be called a "consortium" or
"group." A cluster might
embed its activities in networks or complexes of research institutes,
foundations, law and accounting
firms, etc. One example is the automobile-highway-petroleum-trucking
complex. With a boost from
President Eisenhower's Highway Trust Fund, this complex helped to promote
suburban growth (and
to undermine mass transit in the cities). Who are the individuals who run
this political contraption,
those who constitute the US Establishment? Gross sketches a ziggurat: a
terraced pyramid of power.
At the peak dwell the ultrarich, near their corporate overseers (most of
them unknown to the public)
and chief executive network, including a righteous White House. These
provide strategic guidance.
(The Business Roundtable and a Canadian organization, initials BCNI, spring
to mind.)
Some of their lawyers and accountants--valets of the ultrarich--have lifted
tax avoidance to high art.
"Like an old-fashioned lady's hoop skirt, the corporation's annual statement
conceals far more than it
reveals and directly touches no sensitive parts.... (Some) reserves, slush
funds, and political
contributions never appear..." (p. 60).
Economist Paul Samuelson: "If we made an income pyramid out of a child's
blocks, with each layer
portraying $1000 of income, the peak would be higher than the Eiffel Tower,
but almost all of us
would be within a yard of the ground" (p. 59). The book gets graphic. Charts
describe Three Worlds
(First, Second, Third), trace stages in making policy/opinion/law.... Tables
show who goes where to
school, the apex's apex, FBI riot-control phasing strategy, corporate crime,
etc.
Obstacles to a sudden pounce would likely cause friendly fascism to creep in
on little cat feet. Inertia,
the US Constitution, rifts among the great ones all combine to require
subtlety--silent, usually
piecemeal encroachments--in its relentless logic. A thrust at one level may
be followed by a pause or
temporary retreat at another level. Superficial reforms might flow from
publicized episodes of
repression (as at Kent State, Jackson State, Attica, Pine Ridge...).
In manipulating information, we see a departure from classic fascism. Then
it was ceaseless
propaganda backed by spies and informers, to bind elite support and to
mobilize masses--often using
the new technology of radio. The friendly way is with monitoring (using
opinion polls and focus
groups) and ad hoc communications aimed at passive acquiescence. Faceless
oligarchs manage the
minds of elites via learned journals, the business press, and educational
programs. They mystify and
immobilize the masses via the hypnotic use of electronic media, mainly
television.
The book expresses sympathy for civic enforcers, a lowly station in the
established order. They must
contend with larceny, burglary, and robbery--forms of self-employment that
vary inversely with
available jobs. "Police susceptibility to graft is closely connected with
morale breakdowns created by
`war against crime' rhetoric.... The defeated foot soldiers in this phony
war are hemmed in between a
criminal- justice system which is corrupt or inefficient, radicals who brand
them as pigs or fascists,
and intellectuals who see them as incompetent or stupid" (p. 113).
Gross offers faint hope of averting neofascism. He does prescribe raising
aspirations: setting forth
clear lofty goals, broad enough to embrace a great majority. But
expectations? He calls for realism--to
reduce frustration and apathetic withdrawal. Gross asserts that help from
insiders is both essential and
available. "[M]any co-optees will change colors again" (p. 380). Bubbling
upward from all levels of
the Establishment are longings for fulfilling employment disconnected from
consumer exploitation,
environmental degradation, or militarism.
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: March 26, 2001 8:58 AM
To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Is government becoming irrelevant?
At 07:50 26/03/01 -0500, you wrote:
>snip, snip,....
>
>
>Ed Weick
>
>I would agree with Keith that all of this is taking us somewhere, but I
>would very much like to know where.
>
>
>===
>
>Anybody recall the term "friendly fascism"???
>
>Arthur Cordell
In suggesting that our present sort of electoral "democracy" is heading
towards self-destruction and will be replaced by another specialist-forum
type of government -- the early signs of which we can already discern -- I
do not think we need to be too apprehensive. Like Ed Weick I am also
reasonably optimistic.
"Friendly fascism"? Not a chance of this or any other type of totalitarian
form of government. The genie of information/communication (i/c) is now
well and truly out of the bottle. Besides being a positive catalyst for
institutional change, there is also the huge negative potentiality of i/c
for action against government (in the developed world) if it ever reverted
to repression. If anything, and if necessary, the potentiality of the
latter could grow more steeply than the former -- but I don't think it
would ever need to come to that.
Keith Hudson
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
