[A-List] Sex, Lies and Fascism....Again?

["Mark Jones" <markjones011@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Margaret Wyles
July 17, 2000



"By virtue of her nature and destiny, woman is man's mate. Over and above
the necessity of working together, it is man's and woman's duty to preserve
man himself. In this most noble mission of the sexes, we also discover the
basis of their individual talents which Providence, in its eternal wisdom,
gave to both of them immutably. Work honors both man and woman. But the
child exalts the woman alone."

This claptrap, exclusive of its arcane language, could have ushered forth
from the Dr. Laura voice box on any given day. It was, in fact, excerpted
from Hitler's election proclamation of 1932.

"The teaching of the youth to appreciate the value of the state and the
community derives its strongest inner power from the truths of Christianity.
Loyalty and responsibility toward the people and the [nation] are most
deeply anchored in Christian faith. For this reason it will always be my
special duty to safeguard the right and free development of the Christian
school and the Christian fundamentals of all education."

High sounding words -- not from Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson -- but
directives from the youth program of the Third Reich.

We could stop here, satiated with a mere slap at religious fundamentalism by
linking them to fascist Germany. However the relevance of the issue becomes
clear as we examine how fascist propagandists made use of a repressed
psychosis and directed the population to act in accordance with "state." It
is my contention that similar methods have been used and are currently being
used in this country as well, resulting in repressive measures that would
have been viewed with horror just 20 or 30 years ago. The return to capital
punishment, a burgeoning prison population, hate crimes, an increase in
allegations of police brutality, a near obsession with drug use, the
state-sanctioned demonization of uncooperative nations and nationalities,
are all evidence of such a trend.

The word fascism is bandied about rather indiscriminately, often ascribed to
any repressive measures the state might undertake. Yes, fascism is
repressive, racist, reactionary. But what distinguishes a fascist regime
from your run-of-the-mill dictatorship is that it draws its strength, its
lifeblood from the middle class. It is important to understand that fascism
did not BEGIN with Auschwitz, but with just such high sounding words as
quoted above, amplified by a zealous appeal to nationalist pride. Likewise,
German expansion did not BEGIN with a scenario for world domination, but
with the more modest "humanitarian" task of protecting German nationals in
other countries. It would be years before the vicious nature of fascism
would be revealed behind this cloak of respectability.

Germany, prior to the rise of fascism, was one of the most socially and
culturally advanced countries in Europe. Supported by the middle class as
well as the working class, the ideas of a more equitable society based on
socialist ideals had stirred the land, and a move in a progressive direction
appeared inevitable. Yet the country made a 180-degree turn and embraced
fascism. Why? The answer is more than an historical curiosity, as it
provides not only a framework for understanding current societal phenomena,
but also a warning that it could be repeated. The signs are already here
that propagandists, who play on the insecurities and ambivalence of the
middle class (the major point of discussion later on), have attempted to
corral the frustrations of middle class and redirect them to the designated
scapegoats, both here and abroad. A drastic economic downturn, such as that
experienced in pre-war Germany, could spell equally disastrous results.

In our more recent past, in a less dramatic way, we can examine the factors
that preempted the progressive impulses born in the 1960's. While not a
political revolution in the sense that the power structure did not change,
the turbulent 60's created, at the least, a social and cultural revolution.
The doors to the fragile, reified structures of middle class America were
thrown open, first by the Civil Rights movement, and then by the more middle
class student anti-war movement, which rode on the coattails of a revolution
already in progress. It is hard to imagine in these quiet times the sense of
possibility that was felt as people experimented with different lifestyles,
joining together to display their power in the streets. We felt nothing
could stop us -- nothing could separate us. After all, "The whole world was
watching."

But the end of the Vietnam War did not lead to world peace, and the efforts
of the Civil Rights movement yielded progress only for the few and,
arguably, a backward leap for the many. Instead of taking advantage of the
momentum that had been created, the movement was derailed as many of us came
back to the same institutions we had vehemently opposed just a few years
before. We discarded our visible signs of rebellion and emerged, both men
and women this time, in tasteful suits and designer labels to evidence our
success in a world we had previously disavowed, and our failure, as well, in
making real the dreams we shared of a more equitable and peaceful world.
Apart from the practical necessities of "having to make a living," it is my
contention that we were impeded in our progress by unrecognized
psychological impulses that moved in concert with the very real and directed
attempts to restore order.

As student activists, we were energized by our newfound freedoms. Yet we
feared them as well. Unwilling to take the risk of possible loss and incur
the responsibility of reconfiguring our society, we chose the security of
the known -- no matter how dissatisfying -- rather than taking a shot at the
brass ring. In the end, we were more conservative than we imagined as we
sought refuge in reactionary politics, abdicated our responsibility as well
as our freedom, and went home to daddy whom we elected in the form of Ronald
Reagan. All that remained of the left was a sense of guilt and a merely
defensive posture against the reactionary tide that would overwhelm and
dismember much of the progress that had been made.

In his book, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Wilhelm Reich explores the
psychological basis to explain why the middle class willingly surrendered
all of its power, not to the seemingly benign character of a Ronald Reagan,
but to the sadistic embodiment of the authoritative father in the form of
Adolf Hitler. Reich submits that "it is the authoritarian family (and
resultant sexual repression) that represents the foremost and most essential
source of reproduction of every kind of reactionary thinking; it is a
factory where reactionary ideology and reactionary structures are produced.
Hence, the 'safeguarding of the family,'... is the first cultural precept of
every reactionary policy.' This is what is essentially concealed behind the
phrase 'safeguarding of the state, culture, and civilization.' (emphasis
added) That being the case, any revolution must of necessity call into
question the sexual relationships within the society, as well as the more
obvious political and socioeconomic ones. How often, in fact, have we heard
that the family (the traditional composition, of course) is the
"cornerstone" of society and with it the values thus associated: individual
achievement, hard work, self sacrifice. As other possibilities of sexual and
familial relationships bleed through in the form of gay couples, open
marriages, single moms, the state itself feels threatened and acts
accordingly.

The temporary playtime of the 60's was easily squelched by mild repressive
tactics, both ideologic and economic. Almost overnight flag burning turned
into flag waving. Once defiant and proud, we now viewed our sexual rebellion
with some embarrassment, as we slipped on white wedding gowns and tuxedos
and surrendered to the inevitable. One could argue that this merely
evidenced a natural maturing process from rebellious adolescence to
responsible adulthood. But what differentiated the 60's is that people began
questioning the viability and desirability of heretofore sacrosanct
institutions, from the macrocosm (the nation, the corporation), to the
microcosm (the family). The ruling parties understood the implications of
such revolutionary (versus merely rebellious) thinking and moved quickly
both overtly (through assassinations and imprisonment of dissidents) and
covertly, through a concerted effort to control the media, and thereby the
minds of a public simmering with frustration.

The political and economic situation in pre-war Germany, mired in deep
depression, on the verge of violent revolution, required far more drastic
measures, with commensurately drastic results. The repressed instincts and
economic frustrations of the German middle class were initially channeled
into fabricated notions of honor and duty and their mystical consciousness
quickened with reminiscences of a grand fatherland that could now be
resurrected from its mythological past.

It is important to note that it was the middle class in both cases that was
charged with the task of maintaining vigilance over society's morals and
returning society to order and it was the middle class that was assigned to
the task of quelling the revolution. As Reich points out, "Owing to its
character structure, the middle class has a social power far in excess of
its economic importance. It is the class that preserves nothing less than
several thousand years of patriarchy and keeps it alive with all its
contradictions."

We presume the rich are different and we are not much troubled by their
debauchery -- in fact, we revel in it. Witness the endless gossip in People,
the Enquirer, and the vicarious pleasure derived from the tawdry behavior of
the entertainment, financial and political elite. The Kennedys who continue
to be forgiven every indiscretion even in these "different" times. The poor?
Hell, better they debauch than rebel. But we know we have a problem when
white girls from good homes get pregnant in high school. The glue is shaken
loose, towers crumble.

It is not from some high moral ground that the preachers of religionism
constantly reinforce, along with their political constituency, the
importance of the "nuclear family." Instinctively, if not actually, they
understand as did the creators of the Third Reich that the nuclear family is
the nation state in microcosm, and the woman, the mother, held responsible
for keeping it all together. By extension, any breach of sexual mores
outside of state sanctioned marriage must, at the very least, be accompanied
by apologia. Thus the bizarre scenes of an angry president, emasculating
himself in front of the nation, seeking forgiveness for the crime of
pleasure. That the institution of his marriage might appear vacuous and
empty is of no importance. The importance is that the institution be
preserved at all costs. Pretense supercedes substance. Might not the same be
said of the country as well?

Like nation states, families are cut off from and opposed to one another,
their interests in competition with -- rather than cooperation with -- other
families (nations). It is not an accident that it is the "nuclear" family
rather than the extended family that is held forth as the ideal, because
extended families are based more on mutually negotiated cooperation, rather
than fixed, societally defined ones. Poor Hillary had no idea the venom that
would be unleashed at her innocent suggestion that it takes a village to
raise a child. God forbid we should gather together in some tribal
configuration and share the burdens and pleasures of raising children!

Third Reich propagandists, themselves repressed, played on the latent fear
of uninhibited sexuality which is intrinsic to a patriarchal, authoritarian
society. Jews and communists (both of which, not coincidentally, challenged
the existing economic structure) particularly were singled out, and
described as sexual degenerates, perverse purveyors of unspeakable sexual
crimes. Skilled propagandists, the fascists operated upon the emotions of
the people, and avoided relevant arguments as much as possible. A
foreshadowing of the 30-second sound bite, perhaps? While progressives held
forth rational argument, appealing to higher instincts, they neglected to
understand and address a more powerful element upon which the propagandists
preyed - fear. They imagined -- wrongly -- that the people would welcome
newfound freedoms, yet that is what they feared most.

How could it be otherwise? Having internalized the repressiveness of a
patriarchal society, they were not themselves free individuals. Like the rat
in the cage who is suddenly offered freedom, they cowered in the dark
corners hoping for protection from above, venting their frustration and rage
at the scapegoats offered them to appease their hungry appetites. By
pointing to the alleged "perversions" of demonized subgroups, reactionary
politicians played on the unarticulated fears of a sexual freedom that would
lead to the complete unraveling of the structure of society.

>From an economic perspective as well, the peculiar insecurity of the middle
class makes them vulnerable and attracted to fascism. Caught in the "middle"
between those few of wealth and power and the restless underclass below,
they are ambivalent about their allegiance. They are uneasy as they realize
they are the mere lapdogs of the rich who require their services (at least
for the time being) to maintain their power and wealth. They are the
bankers, the ad men, and the attorneys, middle managers, who contribute
little of tangible use to society as a whole, but add much to the cost of
everything from sneakers to real estate. The sole function of the middle
class is not to produce anything tangible, but to maintain order. Order in
the streets, order in the stock market, order in the home, order in the bed.

They do so at a great cost to their psyche. The greater the economic
constraints and the social tension, the greater the need to repress more
generous instincts. What cannot be held in comfortably or sedated by Prozac
or bubble gum entertainment, is directed to find its expression in vicious
attacks on demonized subgroups. Ghettos, a bulging prison system,
concentration camps are merely the logical extension.

In the same way that the "moral majority" was used to eventually push back
the economic, sexual and social freedoms gained in the 60's and 70's, Third
Reich propagandists enlisted the middle class to prevent an economic crisis
from becoming a social revolution. Populist notions of individual freedom
and a national return to glory were used to lure the middle class into
believing that their future lay with those already in power, that the system
which seemed dead was merely in need of triage.

The elite in England, France and the United States initially supported
fascism as a means of quelling a revolution they feared might reach their
own shores, adding the element of respectability to mask the barbarous
intent. They realized, as we have not, that fascism is merely the strong arm
of capitalism, its ruthlessness quotient determined by the strength of its
opposition and the seriousness of the economic environment.

Like children admonished by a stern father, middle class members of each
rebellion doubt their own instincts, fear the uncertainty of a mass
revolution that was never theirs to begin with, and return to the safety of
their middle class environment. Only with a true revolution, that overturns
the existing order, and in which the "father" is completely deposed, will
irreversible change come into effect. And so there is a sigh of relief as a
confident Reagan restores order and glory to an ambivalent America by first
bringing the hostages home. Remarkably difficult questions cease. In their
place? Symbols -- goose-stepping, flag waving -- used to deflect us from
real issues, much as a parent unable to answer a child's reasonable question
resorts to "That's why. It's the way it always has been."

Order finally restored, the forces behind the kindly Ronald Reagan and his
successors and the charismatic Adolph Hitler remove their velvet gloves to
reveal the iron fists. Free now to go about their original intent, the true
puppet masters turn their attentions outward to Poland and Iraq, and inward
to our pocketbooks. The tax reform promised in exchange for our silence
merely means a tax break for the rich (like the present attempt to repeal
the estate tax). Our concern for health care turned on its head with
privatization to feed the coffers of the HMOs.

They would suggest that were I to be broke, I would be better off robbing
the homeless man than the suit in the Mercedes. As absurd as it may seem, we
have been deluded by such a ridiculous notion. If we question the logic of
this suggestion, we are fed reams of indecipherable economic drivel to
explain why those with millions can less afford to be generous than the
poor.

We are told we must surrender our natural sexuality, and that of our
offspring, to maintain the moral fiber of this nation. In turn, we're
directed to vent our frustration at the licentiousness of the gays who, in
their unabashed celebrations of sexuality, seem, frankly to be having more
fun than we are. We are told that corporations must enlist our support in
these "competitive" times by working harder, expecting less. We are told the
wealth accumulated at the top will "trickle down" to us but when we ask for
health care, job security, a 30-hour workweek, or a six-week vacation, we
are told the nation cannot afford it.

In the kind but proud figure of Ronald Reagan we are assured that our future
is secured -- he, the nation, will take care of us. But when we ask
questions, he turns a deaf ear. Finally, they serve up one of our own, a
draft dodger who must now kowtow to the military, a drug user who must have
us imagine he never enjoyed it, a man with a lustful appetite who would have
us believe otherwise. Like us, he has become the sycophantic puppet of the
rich and powerful. We imagine we are different, but we are not. Tails
between our legs, we have gone back to dad -- to the state -- again beggars
at the trough. We feel betrayed, and not a little guilty, as the implied
promises made to us for our complicity are thrown by the wayside.

When we complain that our economic woes have increased, they suggest we
blame the Jews or the welfare mothers or drug users. We believe the threat
so imminent from these people we must build more and more prisons to house
the now 2 million inmates, who will suffer merely a more gentrified, but no
less hopeless, fate than those who were herded into concentration camps.

How could the civilized German people not know? They knew. Just as we know
every day as we stumble over the homeless on our way to Starbucks. Indeed,
not 6 million this time. A more discrete hundred or so are served up to
eternity for the crime of being poor. Having surrendered our power, we are
powerless to do anything.

Other than merely saccharine reminiscences of more interesting times, it is
surprising how little analysis has been done of the failure of the 60's
revolution to move forward against the reactionary forces that moved against
it. That we were co-opted -- either by choice or by ignorance -- to stand in
the way of progress, cannot be denied.

And now? As discontent begins to rumble underneath the façade of the
"democracy," what is it that we should do? It is true that there have been
few moments of modern social history in which people in general have felt
more powerless, few moments in which the complexity of the social order can
have seemed so forbidding or endowed with such massive permanence.

The beast does seem to be everywhere. On the television, the radio, the
home. His military power is unparalleled; he owns the government, the
corporation, and the churches. We imagine we cannot escape his clutches, and
by exhorting his evils in a seemingly endless stream of written outrage, we
merely add ammunition to his invincibility. Yet he is vulnerable.

The fact that he needs to control everything speaks of his vulnerability
rather than his strength. He cannot go to war and count on us to support his
efforts with even one human life. He must ask for ever increasing funds to
imprison the discontented. He must hire and train special police forces to
contain the most moderate of protests held in "designated" areas.

He is vulnerable because he knows he has nothing to offer us but more work,
less security, more self-sacrifice. But he will only truly be vulnerable
when we all no longer believe, when we refuse, at the least, to do his
bidding.