The Rise of Fascism World Wide

Marxism as a serious political ideology is dead. Communism as a serious political ideology is dead. No one really truly practices or even believes in communism, even the Chinese have long abandoned Marxism as an economic system. While the Chinese pretend to practice communism, they no longer talk of a communism revolution, but instead Chinese leaders talk of a Chinese hegemony challenging the United States. International communism has been replaced by Chinese nationalism. Marxism is dead, communism is dead, but fascism is still alive, and only we don’t call it that. Chavez calls himself a socialist but he is fascist. The Chinese still have a Communist Party but it is a communism that evolved into Chinese version of fascism. Russian Vladimir Putin has rolled back much of the political and press freedom institute from the 1990’s and replaced it with a Russian version of fascism. For the modern day fascist, the state is king; long live the state.

This brings us to what has happened over the past two decades since the collapse of the communism, namely the replacement of Marxism with a virulent form of fascism world wide. While the Chinese may call themselves communism, they have drifted away from a communist system to a Chinese version of fascism, as the Chinese may allow the peasants to keep more of their income, it is a right that Chinese government allows and view it as a gift for the people not a natural right that Chinese enjoy.

As Tiananmen Square showed twenty one years ago and the recent Chinese battle with Google reinforced, the Chinese will not tolerate dissension. While the Chinese may allow selective economic freedom, they will not allow free speech or for that matter freedom of any form not approved by the state. Freedom of religion and the freedom of the Press are not allowed as the Party approves what is said on pages of newspapers or state run television. When Google pulled out of China, it was admission that for Google to operate in China, they could not operate freely but could only operate unless they cooperated with the government to censor their own people.

The recent announcement of a Chinese General that the goal of the Chinese is to challenge the United States is just another indication that the Chinese is behaving not as a communist state but a power seeking its own advantage. (It could be easily argued that being a fascist state does not mean that a nation will seek expansion beyond their borders. Spain under Franco chose not to seek empire and didn’t join either Germany or Italy into World War II, despite that they help put him in power. China interest beyond its border is just old fashion nationalism and old fashion balance of power. China is not interested in spreading international communism, but becoming a superpower in its right.)

Putin’s Russia may be following the Chinese into a Russian version of a fascist state while he has reversed Russian movement toward the West in the 1990’s. Heritage Foundation Ariel Cohen noted recently, “Russian anti-Americanism remains entrenched and politically expedient phenomenon among the country’s governing elites.” Putin’s have essentially shut down free press that grew up in the Yetsin era after the Soviet Empire collapse. Ariel Cohen observed that is little independent media left in Russia complete with black list of pundits not allowed to appear on Russian television and anti-Americanism propaganda is routinely dispersed through movies, internet and documentaries.

For the Russian, their goal is the re-establishment of the Soviet Empire or at least recovering much of Greater Russia including Ukraine, and just like China, the new Russia is not about reviving a Soviet Communism regime, but a nationalist Russia that will rival United States and be the leading European power. The recent Ukrainian election produced a pro-Russian President at the head of that state and the present Ukrainian policy will turn back to Russia. Putin and his successor have produced a state in which basic freedom are back under siege and a society under a Russian version of fascism.

One only has to look at a map to understand that on the Eurasia continent exists two modern day Fascist States developing side by side, 11 time zones from Ural to the Pacific and beyond the Great Wall. What is missing is a clear philosophy, but fascism was never a philosophy that had its version of Marx with a how to book. Fascism was the right wing of the Marxist movement as Jonah Goldberg observed in his book, Liberal Fascism. Fascism economic policy was socialist to the core and while it allowed private property and private corporations, corporations that only existed to serve the state.

The new fascism has arrived in South America in the person of Hugo Chavez who is the modern day Benito Mussolini. While he often appears as a comical person; he is dangerous as he formed alliances with Russia and Iran. Chavez has used his oil money to spread his version of socialistic fascism (which could be classified as duplication since fascism is a form of socialism) throughout South and Central America. Chavez talks of his beliefs of socialism but international Marxism died when the Berlin wall came crashing down. Chavez has rid himself slowly of an independent press and essentially became cult of personality.

For Chavez, the state controls all and whatever the people receive; it is a gift of the government. Chavez has his own allies in Ecuador, Bolivia, and is helping Cuba survive the continuation of the Cuban communist state economic mismanagement which has evolved into a Cuban version of National Socialist state. (Cuba has become National Socialism without goose steps but the old graying Castro beard has replaced the Hitler mustache.)

What we are witnessing is a rise of nationalism and state control throughout key nations of the world and the drive to freedom has stalled (Even the United States we have seen the index of economic freedom decline from free to mostly free.) Since the Reagan years, democracy and freedom have spread worldwide but today, there is a revolt against Anglo-Saxon vision of the economic freedom and political freedom.

In China, market reforms have produced wealth and increasing number of middle class, but the Chinese government has been resistant to political and religious freedom. Communism as an ideal died when the cold war ended in a Western victory. The rise of Islamism extremist is a reaction against Western ideas but this has lead to increase resistance to the spread of freedom. But this resistance is split between a religious fever represented by radical Islam and typical old fashion nationalist opposition. For the Chinese and Russians, opposition to the West is based not on ideology but renew nationalistic pride and restoration of empire. For Russian, the denial of freedom is tied to the attempt to restore Old Russian Empire that has been retrenched. It is not about spreading communism and the former KGB Putin is not interested in restoring a communist in Russia or throughout the world but he does want Russia to restore in its place among the world leaders. As for China, they are a rising power who are looking for their own place in the world, and at the moment, are looking to being a Pacific power if not the premier Pacific power.

The Chinese and Russian authoritarian government represented a return of a national socialistic state without the goose step and racial animosity that formed the backbone of Hitler national socialistic state. Both states will tolerate private corporation or allowing market reforms to increase economic wealth but as mention previously, both government view that market reforms or private corporation serve the state.

As for Chavez, he is a nothing more than a modern day Caudillo; a typical Latin American strongman, only he uses socialistic ideals to justify his power grab. Talk of socialism makes Chavez appeal to his fellow leftist worldwide, which explains why some Hollywood elites like Oliver Stone and Sean Penn worship this Mussolini reincarnation, for he says all the right things about governing for the people. It may be a lie but it is the comforting lie.

Fascism is making a comeback and what makes it dangerous is that it comes in different ways. It masquerades as an Islamic state, a Chinese Marxist state, a Russian authoritarian nation, or a Spanish-speaking oil-producing nation run by a Mussolini look-a-like.


I agree, it does come in many forms. Like a conserative democracy claiming to stand for freedom.

The two main criteria for fascism are unequivical, fervent nationalism and a government who co-opts large corporate interests. No politcal movement in the world fits this bill better than the American Right.

You know it's true.

     Facisim is not per say nationalistic at all...that is the Nazi form of socialism otherwise known as national socialism or Nazi facisim...the new twist is a hybred between international Facisim and international Comunism where the union leaders are partenered into the junta of governence with big business-government partnership with government officials and with world government undertones.  Basically the only difference between Facisim and Comunism (both-socailism/marxist) is the superior "corporate structure" if you will of Facisim.  where Comunism is rule by party, Facism is rule by higherarchy of loosley partenered corporate elite (like the Mafia).  The new form of Facism/Comunism includes union bosses (learned by mafia influence in unions) in partenership with big business (see GM) where formerly there was contention with big business and unions vis a vis the difference between Communism and Facism. 
     In America the Constitution limits the government to rule by no one,,,instead, rule of law is the American model, the difference between democratically represented Republic and pure Democracy is the difference between rule of law and rule of the majority, while in both Facism and Comunism and the neo hybred are Rule of the Leaders.
     This is what is being attempted for some time in America and has reached a head.  The next couple of  years will reveal weather the USA will rediscover it's Rule of law Constitutional fundimentals or be fundimentally transformed into some form of rule of man governence, probably a hybred of the new international Facistic socialism; leading eventually to either rebirth as a rule of law country or into totalitarionism.   

Mr. Wright does a great job of illustrating part of the problem.  We are not a nation under a rule of law.  In fact, one might argue that we never were.  This is due to the choice of policy makers since the beginning to choose the path of least resistance (i.e. the path of political expedience) over the path of principle.  Our  nation did this initially with  respect to the question of slavery--ultimately almost destroying the nation in the civil war--and at around the same time during a few very essential landmark court decisions that still influence our rule of law to date.  One of these is the 1787 case of Calder v. Bull which virtually gutted the 'ex post facto' provisions of the federal constitution.
While I do believe in the theory of our democracy and the risk we face currently of following the world into a period of fascism, (or as economist John Kenneth Galbraith called it more appropriately, a period of 'technocracy'), I also believe that the restorative path is to restate our nation's principles and grow our democracy.  For too long, democracy in this nation has rested on the laurels of its past rather than proactively pursue long-term solutions to overcome many of the consequences of poor past decisions.  There have been a few exceptions.  Most states, for example, learned from the aforementioned decision of Calder v. Bull and enacted both "retroactivity" and "ex post facto" clauses in their state constitutions.  However, those states whose constitutions predate the federal constitution do not have such protections for their citizens.  We must, therefore, work to re-assert the federal republic in its former theoretical structure with a balance between state and federal rights.  For too long, the Tenth Amendment has been practically useless.  Further, we often weaken the constitutional framework by beating our chests and lamenting that the constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights 'protect criminals.'  We lack the courage to remind the public that these rights are in fact intended to protect the people from a potentially arbitrary and capricious government. We lack the courage to live by our principles and to consider the LONG-TERM consequences of not doing so.

© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy