This is reminiscent of Naomi Klein's "No Logo" in which, in some 500 pages,
she documents the many ways in which private interests have intruded
themselves into what was once regarded as public space and have created our
present day mass culture.
Ed Weick
> 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]
> ________________________________________________________________________
