1MuellerWill A MuellerSippel, GarfieldHST-272 FASCISM AND COUNTER REVOLUTIONJune 7, 2011

Civil liberties are described by the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy as In general, the rights to freedom of thought, expression, and action, and the protection of these rights from government interference or restriction. Civil liberties are the hallmark of liberal, democratic free societies. In the United States, the Bill of Rights guarantees a variety of civil liberties, most notably freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, expressed in the First Amendment.[footnoteRef:1] Civil liberties are very much the foundation of American democratic ideology, in contrast citizens of the totalitarian fascist and communist states of Europe in the early twentieth century lived in the absence of such rights. Fascist ideology places a tenant on the people to place the nation before all else the good of the nation precedes personal needs, wants, or whims. Variations on the implementation of Marxist ideology resulted in less of an outright suppression or exclusion of such rights. Sowell writes that Marx him self was less focused on the ideas of civil liberties and their place in a government or society. For Marx the concept of dictatorship did not at all revolve around questions of civil liberties, one-party rule, etc., but around the question of de facto control of the institutions of society. Marx saw contemporary institutions as dominated by capitalists, through intellectual-ideological influence as well as economic power. [footnoteRef:2] [1: Civil Liberties. The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2005.] [2: Sowell, Thomas. "Karl Marx and the Freedom of the Individual." Ethics 73, no. 2 (1963): 119-125.]

Giuseppe Mazzinis ideas of nationalism coupled with his religious beliefs lend to promote the idea of the state as a tool to the ends of the people. Without Country You have neither name, token, voice, nor rights, no admission as brothers into the fellowship of the Peoples. You are the bastards of Humanity. Soldiers without a banner, Israelites among the nations, you will find neither faith nor protection; none will be sureties for you. Do not beguile yourselves with the hope of emancipation from unjust social conditions if you do not first conquer a Country for yourselves; where there is no Country there is no common agreement to which you can appeal; the egoism of self-interest rules alone, and he who has the upper hand keeps it, since there is no common safeguard for the interests of all.[footnoteRef:3] Country is the means by which people attain faith and protection. With the power of the people residing in the nation to which they belong the strength of that nation becomes of personal interest to each individual. Personal prosperity is intrinsically intertwined with the prosperity of the nation. Mazzini touches on the laws, which govern a nation he express issue law not reflecting the will of the people. The law must express the general aspiration, promote the good of all, respond to a beat of the nation's heart. The whole nation therefore should be, directly or indirectly, the legislator. By yielding this mission to a few men, you put the egoism of one class in the place of the Country, which is the union of all the classes.[footnoteRef:4] [3: Mazzini, Guiseppe, and Ashurst Venturi Emilie. Guiseppe Mazzini: a memoir. London: Alexander & Shepheard, 1885.] [4: Mazzini, Guiseppe, and Ashurst Venturi Emilie. Guiseppe Mazzini: a memoir. London: Alexander & Shepheard, 1885.]

Mazzini is critical of other European nations, which he decries as being hypocritical insofar as their actions within compared to their outward actions. There are countries in Europe where Liberty is sacred within, but is systematically violated without; peoples who say, Truth is one thing, utility another: theory is one thing, practice another. Those countries will have inevitably to expiate their guilt in long isolation, oppression, and anarchy.[footnoteRef:5] His assertation that the systematic violation of Liberty by a nation ultimately leads to isolation, anarchy and oppression does not appear to be to far off base from the reality of the results of such activity. The criticisms he articulates demonstrate reverence for the ideals that are personified through individual or civil liberties. These ideas attempt to find a reconciliation of the ideas of the power and necessity of the country and the identification and protection of the rights of the people. [5: Ibid.]

Francisco Franco of Spain implemented a brand of fascism in Spain that only somewhat resembled the fascist governments of Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany. Francos brand of fascism drew heavily on his Spanish Military grooming and of his religious tenants. Franco said in his speech after assuming control of the Spanish government Spain is reorganizing within a broad totalitarian concept through those natural institutions which assure its nationality, its unity, and its continuity. The establishment if a strong principal authority which is implied in this movement will not have an exclusive military character; rather is it the inauguration of a functional regime, through the harmonious action of which all the capability and energy of the nation will manifest its self.[footnoteRef:6] In contrast with Mazzinis ideas in Italy Franco admittedly desired not only totalitarian rule, but for him self to be the totalitarian ruler instilling a national unity through absolute control his legitimacy backed by the military. Franco detested the organization of labor unions, and the way by which labor unions dictate or negotiate the terms of their labor. Francos views of labor unions or (syndicates) are broadly negative in that they are subservient to political interests and not in the best interest of the people or the greater good of the nation. Francos opposition to labor union is an indirect opposition to civil liberties, in suppressing labor unions control can be exerted over several areas of public life. Franco went on to say This great national movement demands of every one faith and enthusiasm, and includes the sacrifice of everything that in this holocaust of our land can be spared.[footnoteRef:7] While Francos control is wrought not only from the backing of the people, it is more so enforced through his control of the military, where in comparison Hitlers control was mainly derived through the devotion of the people. [6: Franco, Francisco. 10 1, 1936.] [7: Ibid.]

Marshal Henri Philippe Petain in France gave a speech in which he spoke on the freedom of people to choose their occupation. We shall tell them that it is fine to be free; but that real 'Liberty' can be attained only in the shelter of a protecting authority which they must respect and obey. We shall not be content to give them the liberty to die of hunger, even if this liberty confers on them the right to drop a ballot in a box every four years. We shall recognize their right to work - not, however, at any occupation they may choose, for in this domain freedom of choice will be limited within the possibilities of the economic situation and the demands of the national interest.[footnoteRef:8] The restriction of an individuals right to the choice of an occupation or lack of an occupation blatantly restricts individual liberties in a number of ways. Petain contented that this restriction of an individuals occupation promotes national economic interests, the nation comes before the individual. Petain in a radio address he gave spoke about the fear of the destruction of liberty, Thus we shall have the rebirth of the true elites elites which former regimes spent years in eliminating. These new elites will constitute the framework which is necessary to the development of the well-being and dignity of all. Some people will fear, perhaps, that the new hierarchy will destroy a liberty which is dear to them, a liberty that their fathers purchased at the cost of their lives. They must not worry on that score. It is authority which is necessary to safe guard the states liberty, authority is the guarantee of individual liberty against coalitions of private interest.[footnoteRef:9] Petains contention that the strength of the nation is of the utmost importance is very similar to the rhetoric of Franco, individual liberties are expendable at the best interest of the nation. [8: Council on Foreign Relations. "Marshal Ptain and the "New Order"." Foreign Affairs 19, no. 2] [9: Petain, Marshal Henri Philippe. "Radio Address." 10 1, 1940.]

Petain continually defends that the loss of liberty will not affect the common man. The good of the nation is dependent on the subservience of the individual, This system in no way affects the liberty of men except those men whose liberty consists in speculation through personal or political interest.[footnoteRef:10] While there are similarities between Petain, Franco and Mazzini, they all built off of the tenant that the nation is first and foremost and anything and everything fall in line behind the nation. The notion of national strength being necessary for personal strength and fulfillment negates the necessity of civil liberties in all of these iterations of fascism. Generally the premise seems to be that while it may appear that civil liberties are limited, in reality they are not because it is the restriction of said liberties that lend to national strength, which in turn promotes personal benefit. [10: Ibid.]

The Marxist-Lenin ideology approaches the issue of civil liberties from some what of a different view point, the ideology focuses on masses and not the strength of the nation, simplistically the strength of the nation lies in the strength of the people opposed to the fascist ideology of the people drawing the strength from the nation. The self-realization of the individual was the highest goal of Marxian socialism. The "masses" or the working class were to be the instrumentality of the envisioned revolutionary change, but it was the individual as such who was to be liberated in the post revolutionary scheme of things. The abolition of classes was not to be for the purpose of making all men uniform atoms in society, not to destroy variation, but to make the individual rather than the class the unit of variation.[footnoteRef:11] The Marxist goal of individual self actualization being a pillar in the theoretical perfectly communist utopia a society in which there is no need for government or military, where all people are equal. The idea that individuals can exist without governance if there safety is ensured by the rationality of all of the members of society, no need for law because their would be no action that would require the implementation of law. [11: Sowell, Thomas. "Karl Marx and the Freedom of the Individual." Ethics 73, no. 2 (1963): 119-125.]

Marx expressed views also on a specific civil liberty that has been an important part of America from the beginning of the revolution to now. He wrote extensively on the freedom of the press and censorship. From the standpoint of the idea, it is self-evident that freedom of the press has a justification quite different from that of censorship because it is itself an embodiment of the idea, an embodiment of freedom, a positive good, whereas censorship is an embodiment of unfreedom, the polemic of a world outlook of semblance against the world outlook of essence; it has a merely negative nature.[footnoteRef:12] In the examination of freedom of the press and censorship Marx the justification for freedom of press lies in the embodiment of the idea, where conversely censorship is the opposite of that in the restriction or silencing of an idea. The notion that ideas are an individuals right is in contrast to the fascists insofar as they would agree to the standpoint as long as those ideas promote their ideas, the strength of the state and the good of the nation. [12: Marx, Karl. On Freedom of the Press and Censorship . Vol. 1. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.]

Marx outright opposition to censorship is echoed in a passage from his work On Freedom of the Press and Censorship, The censorship law, therefore, is not a law, it is a police measure; but it is a bad police measure, for it does not achieve what it intends, and it does not intend what it achieves.[footnoteRef:13] Marx contention that censorship laws are by proxy police actions make sheds them in a light very much akin to other actions that would be considered police actions. Methods by which those in power exercise that power to remain in power, the essence of a totalitarian government, regardless of the guise that the power wielded is a benefit to the people. Every restriction of freedom is a factual, irrefutable proof that at one time those who held power were convinced that freedom must be restricted, and this conviction then serves as a guiding principle for later views.[footnoteRef:14] Restriction of freedom as a conviction of retaining and asserting power as a leader demonstrated by the restriction of civil liberties in order to preserve the leadership of a totalitarian leader. [13: Ibid. ] [14: Ibid.]

In the United States we have a long history of defining our civil rights and evolving those definitions through time based on circumstance. From the Civil War through the World Wars into the twenty first century America as a nation has broadened strengthened and modified what and how things fall under the scope of civil liberties and the extent to which the can be exercised. Hardin writes on the propose of the state in relation to protecting the people The focal concern of the great civil libertarian tradition is how to design a state to protect people against each other while not interfering in their lives beyond what is necessary to maintain social order.[footnoteRef:15] In reconciling the issue of constraining civil liberties for any reason be it in the time war in the extreme or to a reason as simple the protection of the citizens due to some sort of change be it in technology or culture. It becomes important to take into account the possible affects of such a restriction and the possibility of the benefit of doing so. In restricting civil liberties it may very well be conceived that a government is displaying fascist tendencies, the argument then shifts to defining civil liberties and the extent to which the can be granted and restricted. [15: Hardin, Russell. "Civil Liberties in the Era of Mass Terrorism." The Journal of Ethics 8, no. 1 (2004): 77-95.]

During World War II the interment of Japanese Americans was arguably an extreme infringement upon and restriction of many if not all of the civil rights of American citizens. The government to prevent or circumvent any action by this group against the country and other Americans justified the confinement of this group of people. The questions that were considered in doing so one would assume would have been what risk is posed by this group of people at large, is the lack of knowledge of a risk a justification for a risk perceived or not? The government of the United States not immune to acting in error later apologized for the action citing race prejudice, war hysteria, and failure of political leadership in the apology. The action its self is reminiscent of actions in Nazi Germany under Hitler, while not as extreme as the Holocaust. The incarceration of a selected portion of a population based on anything other than the violation of the laws of a country is not only egregious but arguably a distinct tenant of fascism. The exclusion, expulsion, internment, incarceration, and genocide of any group citizens of a country for any reason even if so determined as lawful in that country is an extreme exercise of the control of a government. This action in an of its self does not necessarily lend to fascism, genocide has occurred several times where in contrast to the genocide which took place by Bosnian Serb forces in the ninetys where the action was attributed to ethnic cleansing in an attempt to eliminate Bosnian Muslims.In the wake of the September 1st, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States in New York, Washington D.C., and rural Pennsylvania where Al Qaida terrorists under the direction of Osama Bin Laden the United States passed a law known as the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act substantially reduced restriction on law enforcement agencies in searching financial, telephone, email, and other electronic communications, in doing so greatly reducing the expectation of privacy to all American citizens. A concession that arguably many are willing to make if in doing so it enables the government from preventing atrocities similar to the attack on the World Trade Center. Questionably though giving the government the legal power to invade the lives of individuals on a whim grants them considerable power. Where though is the line drawn between the security of a nation and fascism? In general, devices for internal security are probably those that put us at greatest risk. In some degree, this claim seems confounded by the current U.S. concern with homeland security, with the external threat to security as justification for internal actions. The second omission is lack of definition of or derivation of the specific rights that the state is supposed to protect.[footnoteRef:16] [16: Hardin, Russell. "Civil Liberties in the Era of Mass Terrorism." The Journal of Ethics 8, no. 1 (2004): 77-95.]

Posing the question of what are the nations obligations to specific rights and in what capacity, secondly are these rights unequivocally absolute? Furthermore, somewhat reminiscent of the utilitarian concept of the greatest common good at what point are the negative effects on an individual or group of individuals morally and ethically acceptable in promoting the good of the whole? Where things become intrinsically more complicated is the question of at what point in promoting the greatest common good do begin to move towards being harmful? Ensuring the safety and security of the people of a nation is in no way shape or form fascist it is by nature the duty and purpose of the nation and by proxy the government of that nation. To make the argument of fascism being a slippery slope one you move down and are then unable to recover from would be a misnomer. The product of fascist ideology has often ended with, in the eyes of history a less than favorable outcome. To determine the point at which democracy or any other form of government transitions to fascism is a task, which requires a consensus of the particular features that comprise a fascist government. As it stands now fascist government is comprised of a totalitarian leader of a single national party, a commitment to the nation or hyper nationalism of the populous, strengthened through indoctrination and nationalization of industry, for the benefit of the nation as a whole over the individual and individual interest. Many of the fascist ideals are not negative or deserving of the negative connotation that they have received as a byproduct of fascism in practice. In our own country politically we have arguably enacted policy and legislation that resembles policies that you may find in a fascist nation. From Japanese internment camps to the various iterations of the Patriot Act, all infringe on perceived civil liberties. In a capitalistic environment such as the United States of America nothing is free, as the world changes and as the threats to our individual safety and security transform and adapt we do and are expected to pay for our safety and security with pieces of our civil liberties. While legislation and action by the government may be reminiscent of fascism the restriction of civil liberties in and of its self does not amount as a step towards fascism.

BibliographyCivil Liberties. The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy Third Edition. 2005. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Civil Liberties (accessed 05 22, 2011).Council on Foreign Relations. "Marshal Ptain and the "New Order"." Foreign Affairs 19, no. 2 (1941): 671-673.Franco, Francisco. 10 1, 1936.Hardin, Russell. "Civil Liberties in the Era of Mass Terrorism." The Journal of Ethics 8, no. 1 (2004): 77-95.Mazzini, Guiseppe, and Ashurst Venturi Emilie. Guiseppe Mazzini: a memoir. London: Alexander & Shepheard, 1885.Marx, Karl. On Freedom of the Press and Censorship . Vol. 1. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.Petain, Marshal Henri Philippe. "Radio Address." 10 1, 1940.Sowell, Thomas. "Karl Marx and the Freedom of the Individual." Ethics 73, no. 2 (1963): 119-125.

HST 272 Final Exam Essay Spring Quarter 2011

You are to write a paper on one of the following topics. It must be handed in no later than Tuesday, June 7th, 2011 by 2:00 p.m., in the office of either Instructor. DO NOT PUT IT IN A HISTORY DEPARTMENT MAILBOX OR SLIP IT UNDER A DOOR. IT MUST BE HANDED IN, IN PERSON. Late papers will be severely penalized. [Early papers are accepted].

The paper must be done on a word processor. Use the spell/grammar checker to eliminate errors in English. The paper must have one-inch margins all around, done in a standard font [such as Times Roman] and be 12-point in type size. The paper should be double-spaced, and be a minimum of eighteen pages and a maximum of thirty pages. Papers that do not conform to these rules will lose a substantial amount of credit.

The paper, regardless of the topic you choose, will be in two parts. One, a full summary and comparison of the authors mentioned in the question, and inclusion of information, views and opinions stated in class about the topic, two, your own views of the issue, including whether or not you agree or disagree with the various authors and why. Be as specific as possible in stating your own views and the reasons for them. Part Two should be at least half the total length of the paper.

Marxists, Fascistic and Democrats have different views about the role and permissibility of civil liberties in a society, those embodied in the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. What would Marxists, Mazzini, Franco, Petain, and the several Fascist authors say about such rights? Do any limits on traditional freedoms, even in wartime, amount to a step toward fascism? Being specific and giving examples, what are your views on this question?