Beforehand [0] the author of this text, Butler, the most respected general in the US at that time was offered to lead a coup d'etat to overthrow FDR and then to become effectively a dictator.
Ironic considering that FDR's economic reforms were openly modeled on fascist Italy, and FDR was on good terms with Mussolini. He was also in the process of following Mussolini's lead and attempting to overthrow the American institutions that were in his way. He had already gone out of his way to install a KKK member on the Supreme Court, and was planning to double the size of the Supreme Court if they wouldn't accept his unconstitutional changes.
The article even admits this by quoting articles written at the time that were calling for a fascist takeover of the country and supporting FDR's goals in this direction. Many were terrified that this was indeed what FDR was planning.
This whole thing about Butler coming out and saying it was the other way around, and fascists were tying to overthrow FDR was just a political point scoring. This article even admits that if something like that even happened it was at best a “a cocktail putsch.”
This is just the typical rewriting of history from people who refuse to face their ashamed past.
There are indeed several aspects to it:
- suppression of labor unions and other political organisations that go against the interests of the ruling class, using mob violence
- a nationalist/religious/wtv ideology portaying anyone discussing orders as a dangerous enemy (dividing the people in the name of unity)
- the will to at least temporarily ignore the rules of normal, consensual arbitration within the society, to face dangerous times (for the ruling class, thus their initial approval/encouragements).
- to various degrees, the new regime goes out of hands and also ends up terrorizing the ruling class.
Many different movements/regimes in history matched with several of those points. Many military coups are called "fascist" despite they lack the "mob violence" aspect, relying instead on the support on some external army's paratroopers. And many exceptional regimes ignoring past laws temporarily to face a dire situation are also labeled as "fascist", despite they make little use of violence.
Fascism is a very specific political ideology, based on Marxism, and involves (what they call a third-way economic policy) transforming the state into an amalgamation of trade unions working together to create a socialist state. It does not have different meanings to different people. It has only one meaning. The problem is just that many people refuse to know what the word means because it is a dirty word and they don't like how similar it is to their own ideology.
>There are indeed several aspects to it: - suppression of labor unions and other political organisations that go against the interests of the ruling class, using mob violence
This is the exact opposite of fascism. Not only were trade unions the center of the fascist state, but it was mandatory for people to be a member of one.
I was going to go over your other points, but they are so vague that I can't really even discuss them.
Fascism explicitly opposes Marxism, and "trade unions" under fascism were simply fascist-run organizations designed to suppress labor power. The Italian fascists banned non-fascist trade unions, and the fascist "union" was essentially run by the employers' association.
FDR was scheduled to address the American Legion (mostly WW1 veterans), an organization supported by conservative money and in the middle of most of the conspiracy allegations, at its convention at the end of September and start of October of 1933. An early draft of his remarks had him asking the veterans to serve as paramilitary reserve police to maintain civil order in the face of a collapsing economy. But he killed the whole idea, pivoting to be a much kinder and gentler middle-of-the-road kind of a guy. He was hitting his stride with no reasons to be tyrranical.
Where you from, partner?
Or on things he had done in New York State as governor.
> Supreme Court if they wouldn't accept his unconstitutional changes
His changes, and the Congress's changes, which the American people had overwhelmingly supported in his 1936 reelection where he won by overwhelming margins which almost decimated GOP representation in DC.
Also with Roberts switch in time that saved nine, the Supreme Court accepted many of the reforms.
FDR had reduced judge pensions, which kept the GOP judges on the bench longer and gave them an axe to grind. He did not have to act like Mussolini he could have just broke his campaign promise about judge pensions and have seen a lot of retirements by 1936.
The US never came anywhere near the conditions that gave rise to fascism in Italy and Germany.