The rise of fascism?

[K-man]

Does this remind anyone of a situation that developed in a neighbouring country eighty years ago?

Since winning control of Tiszavasvári's local council three years ago on a pledge to fight "Gipsy crime", the party has been on a vigorous clean-up campaign, banning prostitution, tidying the streets, and keeping a watchful eye on the shabby Roma districts at the edge of town. It even swore in its own Jobbik "security force" to work alongside the police, only for the uniformed militia, which drew comparisons with Hitler's brown-shirts, to be banned by Hungary's national government.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...where-Hungarian-Jews-fear-for-the-future.html

 

[Sukerkin]

This is what UKIP and the BNP (with the EDL providing 'muscle') could so easily turn into here in Britain if we are not careful.

 

[Makalakumu]

Fundamentally, fascism is the merger of State and corporate power. You don't need to throw down any racism or anti-immigrant cards in order to pass this thresh hold. Noting this, there are a lot of governments that have fascist leanings.

 

[K-man]

Fundamentally, fascism is the merger of State and corporate power. You don't need to throw down any racism or anti-immigrant cards in order to pass this thresh hold. Noting this, there are a lot of governments that have fascist leanings.

That's a bit harsh.

Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation and asserts that nations and races deemed "superior" should attain living space by displacing ones deemed "weak" or "inferior".


Fascism promotes the establishment of a totalitarian state. The Doctrine of Fascism states, "The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people." In The Legal Basis of the Total State, Nazi political theorist Carl Schmitt described the Nazi intention to form a "strong state which guarantees a totality of political unity transcending all diversity" in order to avoid a "disastrous pluralism tearing the German people apart".
Fascist states pursued policies of social indoctrination through propaganda in education and the media and regulation of the production of educational and media materials. Education was designed to glorify the fascist movement and inform students of its historical and political importance to the nation. It attempted to purge ideas that were not consistent with the beliefs of the fascist movement and to teach students to be obedient to the state.


Fascism denounces capitalism not because of its competitive nature nor its support of private property that fascism supports; but due to its materialism, individualism, alleged bourgeois decadence, and alleged indifference to the nation. Fascism denounces Marxism for its advocacy of materialist internationalist class identity that fascism regards as an attack upon the emotional and spiritual bonds of nationality and thwarting the achievement of genuine national solidarity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

The Bharatiya Janata Party in India, Yisrael Beiteinu in Israel, the Panameñista Party in Panama, and the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan in the Filippines are the only fascist parties to have been part of their country's government in the past 60 years. Isn't it ironinic that Israel has one of the few influential fascist parties?

In the 2009 election the party won 15 seats, its most to date, making it the third largest party in the previous Knesset. In the 2013 election, the party won 11 seats, running on a joint list with the Likud party.

We don't really think of India as 'fascist' but ...

The Bharatiya Janata Party; translation: Indian People's Party; abbreviated BJP) is one of the two major parties in the Indian political system, the other being the Indian National Congress. Established in 1980, it is India's second largest political party in terms of representation in the parliament and in the various state assemblies.
The Bharatiya Janata Party designates its official ideology and central philosophy to be "integral humanism", based upon a 1965 book by Deendayal Upadhyaya. The party advocates Hindu nationalism and social conservatism, self-reliance as outlined by the Swadeshi movement, and a foreign policy centred around key nationalist principles. The party's platform is generally considered to the right-wing of the Indian political spectrum.
The BJP led the national government along with a coalition of parties of the NDA from 1998 to 2004, with Atal Bihari Vajpayee as Prime Minister, thus making it the first non-Congress government to last a full term in office. Since its election defeat in the 2004 general elections, the BJP has been pivotal amongst the opposition parties in parliament.

Panama? Not sure I'd call it 'fascist', but, OK.

At the last legislative elections, 2 May 2004, the party won 19.2% of the popular vote and 17 out of 78 seats. In presidential elections held the same day, its candidate, José Miguel Alemán, finished a poor third, with 16.4% of the vote.

The Filippines under Marcos may have been fascist but now?

You might look at some of the Arab nations like Syria, or Iraq under Hussain, but I would argue that they are more like military supported dictatorships. So where are the "lots of governments that have fascist leanings"? :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

So where are the "lots of governments that have fascist leanings"? :asian:

This is the problem with defining forms of government with historical examples. The definition get's too narrow and suddenly you miss how things have changed over time. Fascism in the past isn't going to be like fascism now or in the future.

The one thing all fascism has in common though is that corporations run the government. Even Mussolini recognized this. He said that "...fascism could more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is the merger of State and corporate power."

Noting this, I think it could be safely said that most western governments are moving in this direction. As multinational interests gain more influence and shape State entities to their interests, the totality of the "free world" becomes less free.

I think it's safe to say that most right wing politics in the western world is fascist leaning.

 

[K-man]

This is the problem with defining forms of government with historical examples. The definition get's too narrow and suddenly you miss how things have changed over time. Fascism in the past isn't going to be like fascism now or in the future.

The one thing all fascism has in common though is that corporations run the government. Even Mussolini recognized this. He said that "...fascism could more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is the merger of State and corporate power."

Noting this, I think it could be safely said that most western governments are moving in this direction. As multinational interests gain more influence and shape State entities to their interests, the totality of the "free world" becomes less free.

I think it's safe to say that most right wing politics in the western world is fascist leaning.

Mmm. Right! Or is it right?

This quote: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Does not appear in Enciclopedia Italiana 1932, although often cited to this source. It is very likely not an accurate quote. If anyone can find a source, please post the cite here. The quote has been debated and removed from the Wikipedia pages. Best to post it and then point out it is Questionable.--Cberlet 13:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Benito_Mussolini

Now fascism is fascism. It is the same now as it was in the beginning. Under fascism corporations do not run government. A strong dictator runs the government. A corporation may prosper under fascism if it suits the needs of the dictator. Sorry Maka, but you can't change the accepted meaning of a word just to suit your argument.

So I think it is safe to say, NO Western governments are even vaguely approaching fascism and that includes the US which is probably the most right leaning country in the world, and that is not a compliment. :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

You can learn more about corporatism here.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

At the very least, I think fascism may fall under this umbrella. The point that I'm trying to make is that I think you are defining fascism to narrowly.

Whether or not Benito said this, I guess is debatable (according to wiki lol), but the assertion that fascism is the merger of state and corporate power is not.

Ultimately, if you don't think the US has taken a hard turn toward fascism, I think you have to check your definitions. From my perspective, this country is deeply involved in that ideology.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is something you may find informative...or not.

http://rense.com/general37/char.htm

The 14 characteristics of fascism. How many Right Wing parties in western countries exhibit these characteristics?

 

[K-man]

You can learn more about corporatism here.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

At the very least, I think fascism may fall under this umbrella. The point that I'm trying to make is that I think you are defining fascism to narrowly.

Whether or not Benito said this, I guess is debatable (according to wiki lol), but the assertion that fascism is the merger of state and corporate power is not.

Ultimately, if you don't think the US has taken a hard turn toward fascism, I think you have to check your definitions. From my perspective, this country is deeply involved in that ideology.

I don't think Corporatism as defined in your reference applies to the US or any Western nation. If you believe Mussolini actually said that perhaps you could provide the evidence. Fascism is definitely not the merger of state and corporate power so that assertion is just plain wrong.


With regard to your reference, point 9. "Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite."

This is refuted in a discussion on fascism ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fascism/Archive_2

9. This is partially true. The Fascists protected buisnesses so far as they were beneficial to the welfare of the nation. Although, many buisnesses were reorganized, all buisnesses were forced to join the fascist "corporations", and some buisness leaders felt betrayed by the Fascists. Laissez faire capitalism would "protect" companies more than fascism's corporatism I think. I'd say the fascists regulated buisness more than protected it.

I have no idea why you have such a poor opinion of your country and your elected representatives. America is not anywhere near fascist and although you have a system of government that I personally would not like to live under, it is looked upon by most of the world as a great 'democracy'. The reason I don't like what you have is that money buys your representation. You don't have ordinary people representing ordinary people. You have a two party system which really precludes other parties from having a say which has allowed an extreme right wing system to develop. Now, you guys have to live with hwat you have but it would be great to see you working at making it better, rather than winging about how bad it is.
:asian:

 

[Sukerkin]

I just wanted to interject with a quick "Well done" gentlemen for dealing with what could be an adversarial confrontation in a manner that caused information to flow without giving and taking offence :bows:.

 

[billc]

Franco's fascism...more socialism...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/leftist_mythology_of_the_spanish_civil_war.html

Foss and Gerahty during the war wrote of Franco: "He was in no sense a 'Fascist' leader. At the outside, when the present struggle broke out, there were not more than 8,000 Falangistas in Spain, and even that party was not 'Fascist'"

[ii] and they note that if Franco wins: "Spain...will be in essence a Socialist State."

Hamilton writes of Falangist icon Primo de Rivera: "[His] views on the Church, the landowners, the age-old problems of Spain, were decidedly Left-wing. Even making allowance for the fact that such radical views are a customary part of fascist tactics, the similarity of his views to those of extreme Leftists was remarkable. In the spring of 1936, for example, when he was contesting a by-election at Cuenca against a Socialist candidate, he professed complete agreement with the views of his opposition on all except one point - autonomy for Catalonia and the Basque provinces"[vi] and Hamilton observes that "Many extreme Leftists in fact had joined the Phalanx."[vii] Cardozo wrote in his 1937 book, The March of a Nation: "There are Falangists...little different from the Socialists they have been fighting"[viii] and quotes Franco: "I want Labour to be protected in every way against the abuses of Capitalism."

Why people are confused about fascism, socialism and communism to this day...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/rethinking_the_political_spect.html

Thank Joseph Stalin


Indirectly yet powerfully, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin is responsible for the classic political spectrum commonly used to show the relationships between schools of political thought and the systems they engender. This is what happened:

Adolf Hitler's National Socialist movement was, as the name clearly says, a party of the left. While not explicitly Marxist-Leninist, National Socialism accepted the essentials of that worldview while adding Germanic racial supremacism to the mix. This is not the place to lay this out in detail, but it is part of the historical record. Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism includes the best recent treatment of the subject. Thus it was not astonishing that in 1939 Hitler and Stalin found ample common interests to establish an alliance, nor did it astonish that Communist Party members in the West almost unanimously took up support for Nazi Germany. The alliance simply recognized the ideological kinship between the two.

Then in 1941, Hitler turned on his fellow socialist and invaded the Soviet Union. How was Stalin to explain or rationalize this turnabout? What ideological signboard could he put around Hitler's neck that would make sense in the Soviet political context?

Certainly Stalin could not let it appear he had been duped by a fellow socialist, nor could he allow Hitler to give socialism a bad name. The solution was to label the bad guys, Hitler and the Nazis, as polar opposites of the good guys, Stalin and the Communists. Fascism - a leftist, socialist doctrine - was abruptly and absurdly labeled a phenomenon of the extreme right.

From 1941 onward into the postwar era, Soviet propaganda, diplomacy, and scholarship consistently depicted Nazism as a right-wing phenomenon, communism on the left, with the Western powers arrayed on a vague spectrum somewhere in between. Western academics and journalists fell into the same practice, often but not always because of their own leftist sympathies. Few bothered to contest the analysis and assumptions that underlay the new model, and it was a convenient way to depict and describe political camps. Thus the classic political spectrum of the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century became second nature to everyone, not just to communists.

 

[granfire]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaand billie shows up......:lfao:

 

[K-man]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaand billie shows up......:lfao:

Actually I'm happy Billi is here. The article he has posted is an interesting concept. Where it is incorrect is, it turns wrong at both ends of the spectrum into wrong at one extreme and right at the other extreme. In fact this spectrum is stopped short of the right wing extreme which is logically no regulation or law which is anarchy. Under some conditions such as those existing in China, an authoritarian system is possibly justified or even necessary for an ordered society.

Although the loss of freedom is evident in both, I don't agree that fascism and communism are at the same end of the spectrum but possibly, if the scale was circular rather than linear it may well bring the two opposites closer. :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Fascism is definitely not the merger of state and corporate power so that assertion is just plain wrong.:asian:

I'm sorry, K-man, but people have recognized the merger of corporations and government in nations that have been called fascist for a long time.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fascism

Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionismwas necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.
Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

Pay particular attention to the bolded. Western nations currently do most of these. The US is involved in all of these. Like I said before, most right wing politics in western nations are in fact fascist leaning.

Lastly, no nation transforms into a fascist nation overnight. They do so by taking steps and many times people actually voted for these small increments.

 

[K-man]

I'm sorry, K-man, but people have recognized the merger of corporations and government in nations that have been called fascist for a long time.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fascism



http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html



Pay particular attention to the bolded. Western nations currently do most of these. The US is involved in all of these. Like I said before, most right wing politics in western nations are in fact fascist leaning.

Lastly, no nation transforms into a fascist nation overnight. They do so by taking steps and many times people actually voted for these small increments. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Come on Maka, read what you are posting. There is a huge difference between a fascist state controlling the corporations and corporations controlling the fascist state. It is the state dictating to corporations that gives validity to Billi's point about Fascism and Socialism.

But, your bolded section applies to governments across the whole scale. Communist governments such as China, Russia and Nth Korea all have massive armies and huge military expenditure. Does that make the US communist? In times of depression or reduced growth it makes sense for a government to invest in capital works to provide employment at the time and infrastructure for the future, even if they have to borrow to do so. It is wrong to borrow to pay for recurrent expenditure such as wages or worse still, interest. To invest in infrastructure in tough times does not make a government fascist.

Even printing money does not make a government fascist. If done for the right reason it can act to devalue the currency and protect local production from the competition of low cost economies such as we are experiencing from China, Taiwan, Indonesia and India. We had the same thing post war from Japan but that effect diminishes as the countries standard of living rises. Unfortunately the US printing money is for a totally different and unsustainable reason. It still doesn't make the US fascist.

From your quoted article ....

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Does that really sound like America? None of that applies to Western nations including the US. :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Come on Maka, read what you are posting. There is a huge difference between a fascist state controlling the corporations and corporations controlling the fascist state. It is the state dictating to corporations that gives validity to Billi's point about Fascism and Socialism.

No, not really. If corporations gain enough influence in government that they can tip regulatory power to reduce competition, give themselves no-bid contracts, and bailout losses on the tax-payers dime, that's just another path to fascism. Corporations control the state to tell other corporations what to do. Chicken/Egg.

Here is a theatrical performance of my point.

But, your bolded section applies to governments across the whole scale. Communist governments such as China, Russia and Nth Korea all have massive armies and huge military expenditure. Does that make the US communist? In times of depression or reduced growth it makes sense for a government to invest in capital works to provide employment at the time and infrastructure for the future, even if they have to borrow to do so. It is wrong to borrow to pay for recurrent expenditure such as wages or worse still, interest. To invest in infrastructure in tough times does not make a government fascist.

Even printing money does not make a government fascist. If done for the right reason it can act to devalue the currency and protect local production from the competition of low cost economies such as we are experiencing from China, Taiwan, Indonesia and India. We had the same thing post war from Japan but that effect diminishes as the countries standard of living rises. Unfortunately the US printing money is for a totally different and unsustainable reason. It still doesn't make the US fascist.

I think what you are missing is that all of those things are steps along the path toward fascism. I wouldn't say that any nation is outright fascist, but most are leaning that way. The US is leaning farther than some, see the article I post below.

Another thing that you are missing, and this is sort of implicit in what you are saying, are the justifications for all of these steps toward fascism. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Of course it makes sense to invest in huge infrastructure projects. Of course it makes sense to print money to pay for unpopular programs. Of course it makes perfect sense to spend over a trillion dollars a year on defense. We're surrounded by enemies. The economy is so bad and people need help. We need jobs! We need to put (insert nation here) first!

All of that is fascist propaganda. This is how nations get to fascism! Behind all of those arguments are corporations who are shaping the political landscape and feeding at the public trough all for "national interest". Now, imagine how slick this process goes when the corporations own the media and the government. Here's an example, Phill Donahue was one of the few newscasters to speak out against the Iraq War. He worked for the American Network of MSNBC who is largely owned by General Electric, a company that makes billions in defense contracts. Here is Donahue's words on this.

http://billmoyers.com/2013/03/25/the-day-that-tv-news-died/

When I reached him by phone recently in New York, Donahue said of the pressure the network put on him near the end, “It evolved into an absurdity.” He continued: “We were told we had to have two conservatives for every liberal on the show. I was considered a liberal. I could have Richard Perle on alone but not Dennis Kucinich. You felt the tremendous fear corporate media had for being on an unpopular side during the ramp-up for a war. And let’s not forget that General Electric’s biggest customer at the time was Donald Rumsfeld [then the secretary of defense]. Elite media features elite power. No other voices are heard.”

This is fascism, K-man, this is what it really looks like now.

Does that really sound like America? None of that applies to Western nations including the US. :asian:

I beg to differ again.

Here are ten things the US has done to lurch toward fascism. If this country isn't careful, it's going to be there faster than people realize.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

Pay close attention to this paragraph K-man

It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist shift you see the profile of barbed wire against the sky. In the early days, things look normal on the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on, as WH Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere - while someone is being tortured, children are skating, ships are sailing: "dogs go on with their doggy life ... How everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster."

The US isn't alone on this path, I believe. I think we can see corporate power gobbling up governments across the globe and taking steps toward fascism.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here are a couple more articles that show how the whole world is lurching toward fascism.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/04/201142612714539672.html

Facing the crisis calls for an analysis of the capitalist system, which has undergone restructuring and transformation in recent decades. The current moment involves a qualitatively new transnational or global phase of world capitalism that can be traced back to the 1970s, and is characterised by the rise of truly transnational capital and a transnational capitalist class, or TCC. Transnational capital has been able to break free of nation-state constraints to accumulation beyond the previous epoch, and with it, to shift the correlation of class and social forces worldwide sharply in its favour - and to undercut the strength of popular and working class movements around the world, in the wake of the global rebellions of the 1960s and the 1970s.


Emergent transnational capital underwent a major expansion in the 1980s and 1990s, involving hyper-accumulation through new technologies such as computers and informatics, through neo-liberal policies, and through new modalities of mobilising and exploiting the global labour force - including a massive new round of primitive accumulation, uprooting, and displacing hundreds of millions of people - especially in the third world countryside, who have become internal and transnational migrants.


We face a system that is now much more integrated, and dominant groups that have accumulated an extraordinary amount of transnational power and control over global resources and institutions.

If you look at this as the mechanism and the next article as the effect, I think you'll start to see a different point of view.

http://lewrockwell.com/rockwell/fascist-threat192.html

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police State as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive State the unlimited master of society.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This describes mainstream politics in America today. And not just in America. It’s true in Europe, too. It is so much part of the mainstream that it is hardly noticed any more.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It is true that fascism has no overarching theoretical apparatus. There is no grand theorist like Marx. That makes it no less real and distinct as a social, economic, and political system. Fascism also thrives as a distinct style of social and economic management. And it is as much or more of a threat to civilization than full-blown socialism.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This is because its traits are so much a part of life – and have been for so long – that they are nearly invisible to us.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]If fascism is invisible to us, it is truly the silent killer. It fastens a huge, violent, lumbering State on the free market that drains its capital and productivity like a deadly parasite on a host. This is why the fascist State has been called The Vampire Economy. It sucks the economic life out of a nation and brings about a slow death of a once thriving economy.[/FONT]

 

[K-man]

No, not really. If corporations gain enough influence in government that they can tip regulatory power to reduce competition, give themselves no-bid contracts, and bailout losses on the tax-payers dime, that's just another path to fascism. Corporations control the state to tell other corporations what to do. Chicken/Egg.

Show me One example in the world of this occurring. It didn't occur in Italy and it didn't occur in Germany. Those were the two most notable fascist states in history. In those times companies gave themselves nothing. They were allowed to exist on the bais that they produced what the state required and in the case of Germany it was principally armaments.

Here is a theatrical performance of my point.

I'm sorry, your point was totally wasted on me. It had nothing to do with fascism.


I think what you are missing is that all of those things are steps along the path toward fascism. I wouldn't say that any nation is outright fascist, but most are leaning that way. The US is leaning farther than some, see the article I post below.

And I think that what you are missing is that governments of all persuasions from communist, socialist, fascist, left leaning, right leaning and in the middle will all, at times, make similar decisions because we all live in the real world and our governments have to live with reality. Because one government makes a decision that is the same as a different style of government doesn't mean those governments are the same.

Another thing that you are missing, and this is sort of implicit in what you are saying, are the justifications for all of these steps toward fascism. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Of course it makes sense to invest in huge infrastructure projects. Of course it makes sense to print money to pay for unpopular programs. Of course it makes perfect sense to spend over a trillion dollars a year on defense. We're surrounded by enemies. The economy is so bad and people need help. We need jobs! We need to put (insert nation here) first!

It is not only not implicit in what I am saying, it is 90% misrepresenting everything I have said. It makes sense to invest in infrastructure projects in times of high unemployment or economic downturn to maintain a skilled and available workforce and to keep an economy moving forward rather than allowing it to collapse. It makes absolutely no sense to print money to pay for unpopular programs. That is just totally stupid. It may make sense to spend a trillion dollars a year on defence if it is necessary. If it is not necessary then it will cripple your economy just as it did for the Soviet Union. You might be surrounded by enemies. Then again you might just be paranoid. Economies can be bad in all systems and in all systems there will always be people who need help. Nothing here has anything to do with fascism.

All of that is fascist propaganda. This is how nations get to fascism! Behind all of those arguments are corporations who are shaping the political landscape and feeding at the public trough all for "national interest". Now, imagine how slick this process goes when the corporations own the media and the government. Here's an example, Phill Donahue was one of the few newscasters to speak out against the Iraq War. He worked for the American Network of MSNBC who is largely owned by General Electric, a company that makes billions in defense contracts. Here is Donahue's words on this.

All I ask is for one example of a situation from history where the corporations have created a fascist state.

http://billmoyers.com/2013/03/25/the-day-that-tv-news-died/

Once again, nothing to do with fascism. If your companies and corporations are overly influencing you media that is a problem of media ownership. In Australia we don't have the problem because our media is regulated. You guys don't want regulation so suck it up sunshine. You can't have it all ways because big business can only be trusted for one thing. To line its pockets with your money.

This is fascism, K-man, this is what it really looks like now.

Fascism is what fascism was. Fascism was Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini. You can call what you have now whatever you like but it has absolutely nothing to do with fascism.

I beg to differ again.

Here are ten things the US has done to lurch toward fascism. If this country isn't careful, it's going to be there faster than people realize.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

Interesting. Loads of conspiracy theory in a 6 year old article. And, what has happened since. Has America become less of a country as that article would suggest? That was also the time of George W. He copped a few bad bounces and made a few bad decisions but it didn't destroy the country. You had the opportunity to change government, which you did. You elected a new President, then your government system wouldn't allow him to implement reforms. Obama is hardly your typical fascist dictator. But more so, just who is Naomi Wolf. What gives her authority? What she writes is her opinion. I for one choose to take her thoughts with a huge grain of salt.

Pay close attention to this paragraph K-man

I did Maka. I don't see any barbed wire against the sky just as I don't see elephants climbing over my fence. America turning into a fascist state anytime soon is about as likely as my backyard turning into a zoo.


The US isn't alone on this path, I believe. I think we can see corporate power gobbling up governments across the globe and taking steps toward fascism.

As I challenged above name a couple of those countries and tell me which companies are doing the gobbling.

Now with regard to your Aljazeera piece. William Robinson is not unfamiliar with controversy. As an educationalists he pointed out; "The whole nature of academic freedom is to introduce students to controversial material, to provoke students to think and make students uncomfortable."

He can say what he likes as an academic to make you think and question. What proves to me he is on shaky ground is when he says ... "A 21st fascism would not look like 20th century fascism. Among other things, the ability of dominant groups to control and manipulate space and to exercise an unprecedented control over the mass media, the means of communication and the production of symbolic images and messages, means that repression can be more selective (as we see in Mexico or Colombia, for example), and also organised juridically so that mass "legal" incarceration takes the place of concentration camps. Moreover, the ability of economic power to determine electoral outcomes allows for 21st century fascism to emerge without a necessary rupture in electoral cycles and a constitutional order."

What that means is he has taken some of the criteria from 20th century fascism and changed the rest to suit his own ends. If you take a dog (Fascist)and a pig (any other system) and cut them in half then put them back together so the dog has the pig's hindquarters, you no longer have a dog or a pig. So make up a new word. What was the one you kept using? Corporatism? Fine, I can go with that but it is still not fascism and the whole world is not lurching towards fascism despite you assertions to that effect.

As to Rockwell. The fact that he is Mises Institute says it all. Total loss of credibility with that one. :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

K-man language is always changing and the definitions we use at one time often get updated as time passes. I think you might be a little stuck in the past on this. Fascism is a product of power mixing with government. The power has to come from somewhere first. How else would dictators rise to power? Where do fascist parties get all of their money?

Financiers and corporations always make it possible.

So, if we can move foreward with the definition of corporatism instead of fascism, that is fine by me. Perhaps fascism is simply too emotional and to large of a perjorative. By the way, what do you think about the merger of state and corporate power?

 

[K-man]

So, if we can move foreward with the definition of corporatism instead of fascism, that is fine by me. Perhaps fascism is simply too emotional and to large of a perjorative. By the way, what do you think about the merger of state and corporate power?

I think it would be disastrous in every conceivable way. I understand totally your fears in that direction. The US is far more vulnerable to that than countries like the UK and Australia, not that we are immune but the Westminster system of government has some advantages not found in the US system.

One of the problems of a representative republic is who gets to be the representative. No one is going to get elected in the US if they don't have massive amounts of money backing them up, and money always comes with strings attached. Where does most money come from? Big business. What do they want in return? Value for their dollar spent. So they buy your vote on the floor regardless of what your constituents feel. Sure, you have to toe the party line but it is probably the party that did the deal in the first place. In the US you have most of the world's biggest businesses and in return for such things as lower taxes and trade incentives they will bankroll your election campaign. That is not the way a democracy runs but once a politician has had his nose in the trough it's really hard to get it out.

So to sum up there are a number of things that should be kept totally apart for the good of any country ... Politics, Religion, Business and the Judiciary. That is possibly because I don't trust lawyers, I don't trust religeous leaders, I don't trust those who head big business and I certainly don't trust politicians. :asian: