Fascism’s Ties to Capitalism: Dr. Michael Parenti interviewed by Dave Emory (1993) (Why I never knew that JP Morgan tried a fascist military coup in US)

“Well, I get that fascism is something very closely linked to the crises in capitalism. I think you’ve done some very good programs on this, and you’re absolutely right—especially much of the literature after the 1940s, well into the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s—that has emphasized fascism as an irrational movement. Much of the television treatment also just shows these guys goose-stepping and Sieg Heiling, focusing on cult themes, blood purity, and all that sort of stuff.

But fascism had a very rational side. By rational, I mean it served the interests of some very real people. It’s not only about who supported it, like big businesses, but also about whom the Nazis supported when they came into power. When you had the crisis of capitalism, fascism became an attempt at a final solution to the class struggle. They destroyed the trade unions, eliminated all the left political parties, and even took out the centrist and moderately progressive parliamentary groups. They destroyed any form of political democracy, cut inheritance taxes for the rich, and drastically reduced wages by half. This happened in Italy as well as in Germany.

As a result, profits increased tremendously. German cartels even became complicit in the worst crimes. They looked the other way and gave Hitler support, even under the table. It reached the point where some major industries in Germany were using slave labor from the concentration camps—literally working people to death. The profits were immense when they no longer had to pay workers even a minimal wage. When you get labor practically for free, just for a little bowl of gruel at the end of the day, it makes a huge difference.

You even had companies like Krupp and IG Farben making special requests for new labor camps to be built near their factories so that they’d have ready access to cheap labor. So, this is the way I see fascism: it is ultimately in the service of capitalism. Much of US intervention throughout the Third World follows the same pattern. Under the guise of fighting communism, they claim they’re fighting to save democracy, but in reality, they’re supporting fascism to protect capitalism.”

5:02

“Question: How would you equate or relate the rise of fascism with the Great Depression? Or would you say that’s incorrect?

Response: Well, there were a number of factors. It was the crisis of German and Italian capitalism relative to English, French, and other Western European competitors, and there was also the falling rate of profit they were experiencing. One thing Mussolini did in Italy and Hitler did in Germany was to declare that there was a crisis and a threat, which they named as communism and the left. But the left was never really powerful enough in either of those countries to seize state power.

The crises weren’t from the Bolsheviks, the Communists, or any particular ethnic group; they were from within the system itself, rooted in enormous contradictions: a falling rate of profit, declining consumption, especially in heavy industry, which was in crisis and needed new exports, imports, protections, and so on. Fascists used convenient, often irrelevant scapegoats to direct the blame elsewhere. For example, the German people, feeling exploited by the cartels, were directed to blame Jews, trade unionists, communists, Freemasons, and others. Nazi propaganda wasn’t entirely irrational—it carefully targeted specific grievances.

Hermann Goering even remarked, “If we are lunatics, then lunacy becomes us,” emphasizing that although the Nazis seemed extreme, they weren’t unintelligent. Their propaganda was calculated. To farmers, they blamed the high-interest rates on Jewish lenders; to workers, it was the Jewish bankers; to small business owners, it was the large Jewish-owned department stores; to the middle class, it was Jewish trade unionists. They honed their messaging to create these “enemies” and direct attention and hostility toward them.

In America, there are echoes of similar tactics. Just as George Bush’s Willie Horton ad or the emphasis on affirmative action and quota systems shifted blame, the fascists targeted convenient groups to deflect from real systemic issues. People have real grievances about the system—working-class people, like “Bubba” and “Joe Redneck” or “Archie Bunker,” feel the squeeze. But instead of focusing on the actual causes, they’re encouraged to direct their anger at marginalized groups, whether that’s Black people, Jewish people, or “welfare chiselers.”

Huey Long was right: if fascism ever came to America, it would come under the banner of “Americanism” or “super-patriotism,” not with a swastika.”

10:21

“What I predicted over a year ago is that we’re witnessing the “third-worldization” of the United States. I recently came across a quote from a CEO of a major corporation, which I don’t have on hand, but it essentially said that until we can get labor costs down to levels seen in places like Brazil and South Korea, there won’t be shared benefits from increased productivity. They’re very open about it—that’s the model: Brazil, South Korea. When they talk about a “global economy,” they mean American workers competing directly with third-world workers who are already working for starvation wages.

The result? Quality blue-collar jobs have been nearly wiped out, with perhaps defense jobs as the last holdout where one can still find a well-paying, blue-collar position. That’s why there’s so much media attention showing defense workers and their concerns. But I don’t recall seeing the same kind of attention or sympathy for workers in fields like daycare, public health, or libraries facing job cuts and closures.

What we’re seeing is a kind of third-worldization: an increase in underemployment, with more than a third of the U.S. workforce now in insecure jobs. Many of those who do have jobs are in positions as casuals, temps, adjuncts, or day laborers—contract workers with no benefits and uncertain hours. It’s like one big “waterfront shape-up”; you never know if you’ll be working tomorrow, and most don’t get 40 hours a week. Labor unions have been broken down over time, and while the political framework of democracy might remain, the class structure is shifting dramatically. The working class is being heavily suppressed.

Different countries accomplish this in different ways. In some places, like El Salvador, unions are broken with death squads that systematically target and kill labor leaders. In the U.S., the approach is less overt but no less effective—through laws like Taft-Hartley, strict regulations on organizing, and court injunctions. The methods may be less violent, but the goal remains the same: channeling a larger portion of national income to the top one or two percent of the population. That’s exactly what’s happening now. While millions face wage losses and reduced earning power, those at the very top are richer than ever.

So, that’s my crystal ball.”

23:01

“Next week, I’ll be discussing and analyzing in detail a topic I haven’t addressed before: Hitler’s 1931 speech before the Industry Club of Düsseldorf. In that speech, Hitler argued that democracy itself was inherently subversive, equating it with communism. He was speaking to a group of industrial leaders who were very receptive to his message. Essentially, he suggested a quasi-Calvinist view, telling these industrialists that democracy was dangerous because, as superior individuals, they had reached their societal positions due to their abilities. Allowing democracy, he argued, would enable the people to redistribute wealth, which he saw as counter-evolutionary and thus harmful to society. He equated democracy with communism.

This speech convinced most of Germany’s industrialists and financiers to support Hitler and the Nazi Party over other reactionary parties in Germany. This is the point I’ll explore next week.

Many American academics today, however, overlook the political economy of Nazism, ignoring Hitler’s appeal to Germany’s big capitalists. Instead, they focus on superficial similarities, like the large parades and authoritarianism shared by the Nazis and Communists, and label them as two totalitarian twins opposed to capitalism, which isn’t accurate. The 1931 Düsseldorf talks are a prime example that counters this narrative.

David, am I correct in recalling that it was at that 1931 meeting when German industrialists decided to fund Hitler significantly? They were impressed by him, and from 1931 to 1933, the Nazis ran extensive campaigns, using cars, loudspeakers, and radio to reach towns across Germany. With significant funding, their votes surged. That meeting was indeed pivotal in the rise of German fascism and holds relevance for contemporary political discussions.

While I’m not a Marxist, I share a similar interest in bringing historical awareness of fascism to a modern audience. Understanding these events, particularly today, is crucial as we reflect on how many American financiers and industrialists supported fascist powers in World War II and even attempted a coup against Franklin Roosevelt in 1934.”

26:25

“In 1934, there was an attempt to stage a coup to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt, an event unknown to many Americans. Wealthy industrialists attempted to persuade General Smedley Butler of the U.S. Marines to lead the effort, hoping he would rally the military against Roosevelt. Butler, known for his integrity and popularity among enlisted men, was chosen because of his strong rapport within the ranks. The plan was for him to wield real power under the guise of a “cooperative” government while leaving Roosevelt as a figurehead due to the crisis.

Butler, however, exposed the plot. I have a copy of the congressional report on this incident from the McCormack-Dickstein Committee, which investigated the matter. Certain names and details, such as connections to J.P. Morgan and other powerful figures, were censored or omitted from the final report, but journalist Lawrence Spivak managed to document some of these details at the time.

McCormack defended the omissions by claiming they lacked absolute proof. It’s notable, though, that even with significant information, these high-profile individuals were neither prosecuted nor widely publicized. The plotters’ choice to approach Butler, an honest and outspoken figure, backfired as he exposed their scheme. They had also considered General Douglas MacArthur, who was connected to Morgan interests through his father-in-law, Edward Stotesbury, as the original leader for the coup.

Next week, I’ll delve deeper into the 1934 coup attempt, the McCormack-Dickstein Committee, Smedley Butler’s whistleblowing, and MacArthur’s connections, shedding light on the broader context of this critical yet often overlooked episode.”

Meanwhile, Wikipedia is like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot. I love that I actively try to understand history and think I know a lot, and then suddenly I come across a gem like this that I knew nothing about. But of course, it’s just a plot, a conspiracy. Personally, I trust General Smedley Butler far more than I trust J.P. Morgan. By the way, I’ve quoted General Smedley Butler a few times before.

38:35

“Media bias is often criticized as being “liberal,” but the reality doesn’t support this. Mainstream media tends to serve corporate interests and is generally conservative or centrist. If right-wing groups had their way, media would solely praise free enterprise, promote anti-communist themes, and suppress stories like unemployment rates, environmental disasters, or corporate scandals. In truth, many stations and publications already fit this description.

For instance, right-wing figures like Rush Limbaugh, William F. Buckley, and other conservative commentators dominate television, with several shows at their disposal. However, progressive or leftist voices with a critical stance toward corporate power are nearly absent. The concept of “liberal media” is more myth than reality.

Interviewer: Reed Irvine, head of the conservative group Accuracy in Media, exemplifies this skewed perspective. He has strong links to the former World Anti-Communist League and attempted to push me off the air. 

Parenti: During a panel discussion with him, I pointed out the irony: he claimed liberal bias while his columns were widely syndicated in over 100 newspapers and aired on numerous radio stations. By contrast, a consumer advocate like Ralph Nader, who’s far less left-leaning than Irvine claims, was only featured in about 20 small newspapers due to ownership by conservative, wealthy interests.

This trend in corporate-owned media shows how economic realities are often suppressed, such as declining union membership, falling from 40% to around 17%, and the struggles of working-class Americans. Reporting on these facts isn’t “leftist”—it’s simply reality.

This suppression of alternative perspectives in the media mirrors broader political patterns. For example, Croatian nationalists with fascist histories receive favorable media treatment while atrocities are selectively reported. Croatian President Franjo Tuđman, known for anti-Semitic views, was even invited to a Holocaust Museum event in Washington. Meanwhile, news of genuine atrocities like those in Angola often goes unreported; as former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali pointed out, a single day in Angola’s conflict saw more deaths than the entire siege of Sarajevo.

Today’s San Francisco Examiner provides a perfect example of media distortion, reporting a “major attack” by Bosnian Serbs on Sarajevo, yet only nine casualties were noted, hardly justifying the language used. Such exaggerated reporting feeds the push to divide Yugoslavia into small, right-wing republics, each easily influenced by foreign powers—essentially “banana republics” in Europe. This strategy aligns with larger multinational corporate and capitalist interests, echoing historical patterns where economic forces and fascist movements become intertwined, one of the core areas of my ongoing research.”

48:30

“The lack of awareness surrounding the roles of Croatian and Montenegrin separatists in initiating the Yugoslav crisis, and the involvement of the U.S. and Germany, has largely gone unnoticed—even within progressive media. Few outlets have addressed these issues, as many in the media are hesitant to explore what they see as “conspiracy theories,” misunderstanding the nature and prevalence of such strategies.

Conspiracies are frequently tools for national security states to maintain power and wealth concentration. Governments use various means, including propaganda, media manipulation, and election interference, but they also engage in covert actions, plots, and conspiracies. To dismiss this reality is to ignore concrete historical examples like Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the Savings and Loan (S&L) scandal. In the latter case, the Justice Department itself identified “a thousand conspiracies” involving theft, bribery, and fraud.

It’s naïve to assume that those in power never conspire or deceive. They openly classify information under “national security” and “top secret” labels, shielding their actions from public scrutiny. The need for laws like the Freedom of Information Act shows how much effort is required to access even small fragments of hidden information. Yet some in alternative media still struggle to recognize the depth and impact of these conspiracies, suggesting that their perspective may not be as “alternative” as they claim.”

50:35

“One major point I’ve emphasized is the continuity between U.S. national security operations abroad and within its borders. There’s an evident “Third World-ization” of America, as we’ve discussed, and I’m interested in how you view domestic national security policy in light of this shift.

I see an ongoing trend of repressive measures domestically—surveillance, red squads, and an increasingly militarized local police force in various cities. Personally, I’ve been under surveillance, had my picture taken by plainclothes officers, and experienced phone tapping, not necessarily by federal agencies like the FBI, but sometimes by local police departments and their red squads. This type of activity continues to echo McCarthyism, as individuals with left affiliations or outspoken views struggle to access influential roles in government, media, and even the civilian sector.

Surveillance extends to labor organizers, environmental activists, peace advocates, and others working toward positive societal change, often stigmatized as criminals or “eco-terrorists,” while those exploiting the system are exalted as leaders. Thanks to voices like yours, we can keep listeners aware of these realities. The solution isn’t to despair, but to organize, educate, agitate, and push back.”

McCarthyism still exists, which is why I can’t post what I’m sharing on The Duran and in many other places. You still can’t discuss these subjects with a lot of people, and that’s why our only hope is platforms like The Duran, where free speech and freedom still mean something. Want to help? Want to take part in freeing people than spread the word about places like The Duran? This is part of our organizing, educating, and PUSHING BACK. If more people turn to sources like The Duran instead of CNN and The New York Times, then we might finally start having real public conversations about the real world.

By the way, anyone who is against the Green agenda, like me, shouldn’t view Parenti’s comments on “eco-terrorists” negatively. He’s not talking about the Green agenda or figures like Greta Thunberg, who is a globalist plant. While their carbon taxes and carbon offsets are created to burden and oppress the Third World and prop up a broken capitalistic system, there are still real ecological problems. In my view, the biggest ecological issue isn’t carbon but rather trash and polluted, poisoned water.

“But as far as we know, the actual expression ‘carbon footprint’ was seemingly coined—or at least introduced and popularized—by BP as part of a 2004 to 2006 campaign where they spent more than $100 million per year rebranding themselves as ‘Beyond Petroleum.’”

Parenti discussed this in 1993, while the events we’re against began in 2004. So please, don’t view him negatively for mentioning “eco-terrorists”; he’s not supporting the globalist Green agenda.