General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs the USA now a fascist state?
Last edited Thu Apr 24, 2014, 08:54 AM - Edit history (1)
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism as it is the union of state and corporate power" ~ Mussolini
And he invented fascism so he should know. Given that a report a few days ago found that the USA was now an oligarchy and that the FCC yesterday capitulated entirely to the two-tier internet that corporations want, is it now accurate to call the USA a fascist (i.e. corporatist) state?
Remember that tanks in the streets, racism, genocide, etc are not required for a nation to be fascist.
Why or why not?
EDIT: If you can't be bothered to explain why not beyond simple denial, DON'T RESPOND.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and apparently the entire country for this reason.....there is not much left. We might see a reprieve if we can pull it out in the Midterms.....but beyond that....looks pretty bleak. Usually things get REALLY ugly before change comes to the oligarchy and not a lot or many peaceful options left truth be told....sad truly sad.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Sadly, there are too many Dems who are also wedded to corporate payola.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that are the problem....sheesh. For crying OUT LOUD! Can we EVER give that a rest. There is ALOT that is wrong....the handful of Blue Dog Dems left is hardly the problem. The Liberal Caucus (the biggest caucus mind you) rules the party in the House AND we have the majority in the Senate.....BUT we have the Supreme Court AND the House Republicans working in tandem at WAR with the American Middle Class....
and YOU find opportunity to punch Democrats because of it
(THAT is the problem)
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)But let's be honest, they're just the political arm of corporate America anyway. What I'm saying is that it takes an extraordinary amount of cash to be elected. That cash will, at least in part, come from corporations (especialy now the SCOTUS has put elections up for bid). When that report declared the US an oligarchy, they didn't just mean Republicans. Hell, I supported Obama (I'm British so I couldn't vote for him) but he put a corporate insider as the head of the FCC and that's led to the FCC just caving on net neutrality.
Yes, any Democrat is better than any Republican because the Dems might be spineless but at least they aren't actually sadistic. But the money is ruling Congress now, on both sides (albeit, not to the same degree). Yes, there are reasons to hope (Alan Grayson, Elizabeth Warren), I just don't have much hope that they'll be able to win out against corporate money.
Maybe I'm just unreasonable because I quit cigarettes today (after a month on an e-cig and a few ciggys, I finally gave up the ciggys) or maybe I'm just disheartened because I only just remembered to take my meds but I don't have much hope left.
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)I weaned down on analogs for 2 weeks (after a 12 year near-pack/day habit) while I gradually increased the vaping, and had NO problem when I finally dumped the cancer sticks and started vaping only. I honestly barely noticed, it wasn't uncomfortable at ALL. And I haven't had an analog in going on a year now ... take it back I had a couple drags off a real one at one point about 6 months into the vaping-only period. I was stuck in a hotel after a cancelled flight, causing me to have to spend the night away from my e-juice source (which was depleted), with no car or anything to get around ... and I almost puked from actually smoking the real thing. I immediately hiked 1.5 miles to a gas station that sold 'njoy' (normally I use a proper vaping setup) so I wouldn't have to actually smoke while I waited for the replacement flight.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I've been gradually weaning myself off them and onto my e-cig for the last month but today is the first day of no analogs at all. It's weird, man. I'm not getting nicotine cravings but I'm feeling that there's something missing (maybe the clouds of smoke).
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)It's a bit of a struggle right now and I'm almost cuddling my e-cig like a security blanket.
d_r
(6,907 posts)it gets better. I swear it does.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)The Plutocrats have Republican and Democratic politicians playing a Harlem Globetrotters v. The Washington Generals game. While we watch and believe we are seeing a REAL contest, the Plutocrats make off with our money and we are left to blame the other team!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Jesus Christ.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)And it's always bad.
randys1
(16,286 posts)I dont blame her.
Like I tell everybody, I dont blame a rabid dog for being rabid.
In other words, people like the Koch Bros, Scalia, McConnell, Ryan, Rove, Clarence idiot Thomas, Limbaugh, Hannity, it makes sense they hate America but they do it to make money, they work to destroy the middle class to profit because they know the truth. So blaming them for being horrifically ugly, terrible human beings is a waste of time, they are, they know they are, and that is that.
What I cannot stand for one more god damn minute is the idiot who will RACE to the polls with not enough money in the bank to buy a tank of gas to vote for them because he knows they hate Black people and he hates Black people and they hate Gay people and he hates Gay people so they must be the team for him.
M O R O N S
yurbud
(39,405 posts)it won't be much help if they are Democrats who are republicans in all ways but guns, god, gays, and something that starts with g that stands for fear of other races and religions.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Dont overlook the armored assault vehicles most every police force in the country now has.
They dont have those things just for bragging rights.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I'm a Brit so I don't see them.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)They exist, but it is not something regularly seen.
2naSalit
(86,646 posts)But when you consider that Idaho has three of them for a population of just over 1.5 million... do you really need to "see" them? Just knowing that they have them is bad enough. And remember, there were several internment camps in the state back in the 40s, at least one has been restored for alleged historic purposes.
Just sayin'
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)from across the county. A parade of sorts. It was extremely chilling and looked like an invasion force. They were all over the place, but as you say, you don't normally see them, and certainly not in force like this demonstration of power. It looked like a North Korean parade of force. It was chilling and sickening.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)are now a complete fascist State. And for a variety of reasons, I don't think it can be reversed.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)You're just doing teh same thing as the guy downthread, rubbishing the question to avoid having to come up with an argument.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I'm not going to participate any further in your thread.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)And you didn't present any argument against it, you just dismissed it out of hand. Feel free to shove off.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Wow, aren't you sweet.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Glad I don't personally know you.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)For example if an adult asked me to prove that we landed on the moon because they believe the moon landing was faked, or to prove evolution because they believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, I don't feel any need to answer the question.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I'm of the opinion that every question should be answered so that those who are not willfully stupid but merely ignorant, can be led to truth.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)I suspect that darkangel218 meant that there's no need to explain to anyone who understands the meaning of the word... and no point explaining to those who already made up their minds on false evidence.
I could, for instance, point out the difference in merging corporatism and the state with the state in control of corporations (actual fascism) and a merger the other way around (which appears to be what you think is the case... and is not fascism)
I could also point out that the use of "corporation" by mid-20th-century faschists bears little resemblance to what we today consider corporations.
Or... I could just point out that you're repeating a frequently-used quotation that Mussolini never actually said.
The source of the quotation is a pair of authors whose premise is that America has declined to fascism... so your weak protestations that you're merely asking the question... not taking a stance... are pretty transparent.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I'm slightly unclear on what you mean in your second paragraph though. Could you elaborate? The premise that corporatism means the state in control of corporations strikes me as very similar to teh right-wing meme that fascism is on the left and really just socialism.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)avebury
(10,952 posts)of the army groups tasked with dealing with civil unrest and police departments are gearing up with more and more military style weaponry/vehicles.
Response to avebury (Reply #6)
Drunken Irishman This message was self-deleted by its author.
hack89
(39,171 posts)avebury
(10,952 posts)For the first time ever, the US military is deploying an active duty regular Army combat unit for full-time use inside the United States to deal with national emergencies, including terrorism, natural disasters and civil unrest.
Beginning today, the First Brigade Combat Team of the Third Division will be placed under the command of US Army North, the Armys component of the Pentagons Northern Command (NorthCom), which was created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with the stated mission of defending the US homeland and aiding federal, state and local authorities.
http://agonist.org/army_deploys_combat_unit_in_us_for_possible_civil_unrest/
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/military-plans-squash-civil-unrest-usa
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/7/us_army_denies_unit_will_be
National Guard might be a factor as well:
http://www.infowars.com/north-carolina-national-guard-rapid-reaction-force-civil-unrest-training-photos/
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)With the trajectory we are going on I wouldn't be surprised if it was at least a de facto fascist state by 2035.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Total elimination of net neutrality in all respects, no restrictions on campaign donations at all, extremely high wealth inequality, eliminationist rhetoric and nascent plans of action, and dismantling in a functional sense whistleblower protections even further.
To compound this is the effects automation will have on unemplyment and underemployment in the next two decades. We are probably looking at a total automation of the logistical backbone of the market (transport) and a sustained progression towards further automating industry. 20% unemployment will lead to interesting times indeed.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I think eventually, there will have to be state intervention to preserve transport jobs. Oh, it'll be sold as safety but really, it'll be because even Republicans think having 20% unemployment is likely to lead to the populace storming the Bastille.
Then again, given how easily the public can be trained to direct their class resentment downwards and how easily the public are placated by tv, religion, sports, take your pick, I wonder if the revolution will ever come to America. I mean, if teh average guy has been trained to direct his frustration at the black guy on welfare and trained not to think any more deeply than is required to change teh channel....
I don't know, dude. I just despair sometimes. Net neutrality is gone. The planet is dying and a quarter of teh US populace are climate change deniers. Elections are now, in effect, auctions (I fully expect teh limit on contributions to an individual to be struck down as soon as the SCOTUS get their hands on a case). The Supreme Court is the most radical, politicised and reactionary in US history. One of the cable news channels is actively trying to start a new civil war. What reason is there to hope?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The notion of corporate power overcoming the state is a rather new one; we're in uncharted territory and comparisons with the past can be more misleading than illuminative.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)However, the idea that Italy had a command economy seems to me to come from teh same misinformation that claims the Nazis were really socialist. Yes, Mussolini awarded government contracts and tried to direct the corporate sector, as all heads of state do, but to call it a a command economy is, I think, overstating the case.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Mostly seems focused around decisive market intervention but still very much capitalistic. There doesn't seem to be much planning behind it as well, being mostly reactionary policies to events in the market.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I think that engaging with this kind of nonsense seriously risks being counterproductive, because it may lead to people thinking it's worth taking seriously. I think that the best response is probably ridicule and derision.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)This is a very good game, don't answer the question, just ridicule it. That way, you never have to bother coming up with a decent argument and you get to look totally above it all.
FSogol
(45,488 posts)Unfortunately for him, he hadn't realized that a big portion of the guests were from various South American countries and had come here to avoid actual dictatorships. He was severely ridiculed.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)there is no longer any substantive distinction between Government and Corporation.
That certainly signals that we are well on our way toward Fascism, if we are not already there.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Effectively, "are we there yet?". Given that the SCOTUS has now legalised all but the most brazen bribery (and I fully expect them to legalise unlimited contributions to candidates as soon as they get a case), politicians are now brought and sold by corporate donors, the Pentagon is now more-or-less merged... Are we there yet, can we call it fascism now?
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)The Trilateral Commission was founded at the initiative of David Rockefeller in 1973. Its members are drawn from the three components of the world of capitalist democracy: the United States, Western Europe, and Japan. Among them are the heads of major corporations and banks, partners in corporate law firms, Senators, Professors of international affairs -- the familiar mix in extra-governmental groupings. Along with the 1940s project of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), directed by a committed "trilateralist" and with numerous links to the Commission, the project constitutes the first major effort at global planning since the War-Peace Studies program of the CFR during World War II.
The new "trilateralism" reflects the realization that the international system now requires "a truly common management," as the Commission reports indicate. The trilateral powers must order their internal relations and face both the Russian bloc, now conceded to be beyond the reach of Grand Area planning, and the Third World.
In this collective management, the United States will continue to play the decisive role. As Kissinger has explained, other powers have only "regional interests" while the United States must be "concerned more with the overall framework of order than with the management of every regional enterprise." If a popular movement in the Arabian peninsula is to be crushed, better to dispatch US-supplied Iranian forces, as in Dhofar. If passage for American nuclear submarines must be guaranteed in Southeast Asian waters, then the task of crushing the independence movement in the former Portuguese colony of East Timor should be entrusted to the Indonesian army rather than an American expeditionary force. The massacre of over 60,000 people in a single year will arouse no irrational passions at home and American resources will not be drained, as in Vietnam. If a Katangese secessionist movement is to be suppressed in Zaire (a movement that may have Angolan support in response to the American-backed intervention in Angola from Zaire, as the former CIA station chief in Angola has recently revealed in his letter of resignation), then the task should be assigned to Moroccan satellites forces and to the French, with the US discreetly in the background. If there is a danger of socialism in southern Europe, the German proconsulate can exercise its "regional interests." But the Board of Directors will sit in Washington....
The Trilateral Commission has issued one major book-length report, namely, The Crisis of Democracy (Michel Crozier, Samuel Huntington, and Joji Watanuki, 1975). Given the intimate connections between the Commission and the Carter Administration, the study is worth careful attention, as an indication of the thinking that may well lie behind its domestic policies, as well as the policies undertaken in other industrial democracies in the coming years.
The Commission's report is concerned with the "governability of the democracies." Its American author, Samuel Huntington, was former chairman of the Department of Government at Harvard, and a government adviser. He is well-known for his ideas on how to destroy the rural revolution in Vietnam. He wrote in Foreign Affairs (1968) that "In an absent-minded way the United States in Vietnam may well have stumbled upon the answer to 'wars of national liberation.'" The answer is "forced-draft urbanization and modernization." Explaining this concept, he observes that if direct application of military force in the countryside "takes place on such a massive scale as to produce a massive migration from countryside to city" then the "Maoist-inspired rural revolution may be "undercut by the American-sponsored urban revolution." The Viet Cong, he wrote, is "a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist." Thus "in the immediate future" peace must "be based on accommodation" particularly since the US is unwilling to undertake the "expensive, time consuming and frustrating task" of ensuring that the constituency of the Viet Cong no longer exists (he was wrong about that, as the Nixon-Kissinger programs of rural massacre were to show). "Accommodation" as conceived by Huntington is a process whereby the Viet Cong "degenerate into the protest of a declining rural minority" while the regime imposed by US force maintains power. A year later, when it appeared that "urbanization" by military force was not succeeding and it seemed that the United States might be compelled to enter into negotiations with the NLF [National Liberation Front] (which he recognized to be "the most powerful purely political national organization" , Huntington, in a paper delivered before the AID-supported Council on Vietnamese Studies which he had headed, proposed various measures of political trickery and manipulation that might be used to achieve the domination of the U.S.-imposed government, though the discussants felt rather pessimistic about the prospects....
In short, Huntington is well-qualified to discourse on the problems of democracy.
The report argues that what is needed in the industrial democracies "is a greater degree of moderation in democracy" to overcome the "excess of democracy" of the past decade. "The effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups." This recommendation recalls the analysis of Third World problems put forth by other political thinkers of the same persuasion, for example, Ithiel Pool (then chairman of the Department of Political Science at MIT), who explained some years ago that in Vietnam, the Congo, and the Dominican Republic, "order depends on somehow compelling newly mobilized strata to return to a measure of passivity and defeatism... At least temporarily the maintenance of order requires a lowering of newly acquired aspirations and levels of political activity." The Trilateral recommendations for the capitalist democracies are an application at home of the theories of "order" developed for subject societies of the Third World.
The problems affect all of the trilateral countries, but most significantly, the United States. As Huntington points out, "for a quarter century the United States was the hegemonic power in a system of world order" -- the Grand Area of the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations]. "A decline in the governability of democracy at home means a decline in the influence of democracy abroad." He does not elaborate on what this "influence" has been in practice, but ample testimony can be provided by survivors in Asia and Latin America.
As Huntington observes, "Truman had been able to govern the country with the cooperation of a relatively small number of Wall Street lawyers and bankers," a rare acknowledgement of the realities of political power in the United States. But by the mid-1960s this was no longer possible since "the sources of power in society had diversified tremendously," the "most notable new source of power" being the media. In reality, the national media have been properly subservient to the state propaganda system, a fact on which I have already commented. Huntington's paranoia about the media is, however, widely shared among ideologists who fear a deterioration of American global hegemony and an end to the submissiveness of the domestic population.
A second threat to the governability of democracy is posed by the "previously passive or unorganized groups in the population," such as "blacks, Indians, Chicanos, white ethnic groups, students and women -- all of whom became organized and mobilized in new ways to achieve what they considered to be their appropriate share of the action and of the rewards." The threat derives from the principle, already noted, that "some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups" is a prerequisite for democracy. Anyone with the slightest understanding of American society can supply a hidden premise: the "Wall Street lawyers and bankers" (and their cohorts) do not intend to exercise "more self-restraint." We may conclude that the "greater degree of moderation in democracy" will have to be practiced by the "newly mobilized strata."
Huntington's perception of the "concerned efforts" of these strata "establish their claims" and the "control over... institutions" that resulted is no less exaggerated than his fantasies about the media. In fact, the Wall Street lawyers, bankers, etc., are no less in control of the government than in the Truman period, as a look at the new Administration or its predecessors reveals. But one must understand the curious notion of "democratic participation" that animates the Trilateral Commission study. Its vision of "democracy" is reminiscent of the feudal system. On the one hand, we have the King and Princes (the government). On the other, the commoners. The commoners may petition and the nobility must respond to maintain order. There must however be a proper "balance between power and liberty, authority and democracy, government and society." "Excess swings may produce either too much government or too little authority." In the 1960s, Huntington maintains, the balance shifted too far to society and against government. "Democracy will have a longer life if it has a more balanced existence," that is, if the peasants cease their clamor. Real participation of "society" in government is nowhere discussed, nor can there be any question of democratic control of the basic economic institutions that determine the character of social life while dominating the state as well, by virtue of their overwhelming power. Once again, human rights do not exist in this domain.
The report does briefly discuss "proposals for industrial democracy modeled on patterns of political democracy," but only to dismiss them. These ideas are seen as "running against the industrial culture and the constraints of business organization." Such a device as German co-determination would "raise impossible problems in many Western democracies, either because leftist trade unionists would oppose it and utilize it without becoming any more moderate, or because employers would manage to defeat its purposes." In fact, steps towards worker participation in management going well beyond the German system are being discussed and in part implemented in Western Europe, though they fall far short of true industrial democracy and self-management in the sense advocated by the libertarian left. They have evoked much concern in business circles in Europe and particularly in the United States, which has so far been isolated from these currents, since American multinational enterprises will be affected. But these developments are anathema to the trilateralist study.
Still another threat to democracy in the eyes of the Commission study is posed by "the intellectuals and related groups who assert their disgust with the corruption, materialism, and inefficiency of democracy and with the subservience of democratic government to 'monopoly capitalism'" (the latter phrase is in quotes since it is regarded as improper to use an accurate descriptive term to refer to the existing social and economic system; this avoidance of the taboo term is in conformity with the dictates of the state religion, which scorns and fears any such sacrilege).
Intellectuals come in two varieties, according to the trilateral analysis. The "technocratic and policy-oriented intellectuals" are to be admired for their unquestioning obedience to power and their services in social management, while the "value-oriented intellectuals" must be despised and feared for the serious challenge they pose to democratic government, by "unmasking and delegitimatization of established institutions."
The authors do not claim that what the value-oriented intellectuals write and say is false. Such categories as "truth" and "honesty" do not fall within the province of the apparatchiks. The point is that their work of "unmasking and delegitimatization" is a threat to democracy when popular participation in politics is causing "a breakdown of traditional means of social control." They "challenge the existing structures of authority" and even the effectiveness of "those institutions which have played the major role in the indoctrination of the young." Along with "privatistic youth" who challenge the work ethic in its traditional form, they endanger democracy, whether or not their critique is well-founded. No student of modern history will fail to recognize this voice.
What must be done to counter the media and the intellectuals, who, by exposing some ugly facts, contribute to the dangerous "shift in the institutional balance between government and opposition"? How do we control the "more politically active citizenry" who convert democratic politics into "more an arena for the assertion of conflicting interests than a process for the building of common purposes"? How do we return to the good old days when "Truman, Acheson, Forrestal, Marshall, Harriman, and Lovett" could unite on a policy of global intervention and domestic militarism as our "common purpose," with no interference from the undisciplined rabble?
The crucial task is "to restore the prestige and authority of central government institutions, and to grapple with the immediate economic challenges." The demands on government must be reduced and we must "restore a more equitable relationship between government authority and popular control." The press must be reined. If the media do not enforce "standards of professionalism," then "the alternative could well be regulation by the government" -- a distinction without a difference, since the policy-oriented and technocratic intellectuals, the commissars themselves, are the ones who will fix these standards and determine how well they are respected. Higher education should be related "to economic and political goals," and if it is offered to the masses, "a program is then necessary to lower the job expectations of those who receive a college education." No challenge to capitalist institutions can be considered, but measures should be taken to improve working conditions and work organization so that workers will not resort to "irresponsible blackmailing tactics." In general, the prerogatives of the nobility must be restored and the peasants reduced to the apathy that becomes them.
This is the ideology of the liberal wing of the state capitalist ruling elite, and, it is reasonable to assume, its members who now staff the national executive in the United States....
http://www.chomsky.info/books/priorities01.htm
How much of this have come to pass?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and don't. That's when it becomes a difference between the citizens and the aristocrats.
When you aren't made accountable, you realize that you can act with impunity.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Cliven Bundy just had what was, in effect, an armed staredown with the government and won. Apparently, if you're a rich white dude, you can just ignore the law.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)What that says is that the Powers That Be still have some fear of the power of the People - such that they believe a Phony Democracy is necessary. And that tells me that they don't have sufficient Black Shirts or their equivalent to keep control if they 'pull back the curtains', as Zappa says:
The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.
Time for action is NOW. There's this guy WillyT.....
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)or do they just thinks it's easier to keep them placated? The average Joe no longer directs his class resentment at the rich bastards, he now directs it at the poor black guy on food stamps. That's if he hasn't been totally placated by tv (corporate controlled) or fundie religion (corporate ally). The tanks in the streets cost money and disrupt things whereas keeping the Joes placated and resenting each other is cheap and lets things continue. Divide and conquer isn't exactly new tactics but they are effective ones.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)The idiots are still a small AMPLIFIED minority.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I'm a Brit so my main connection to the US is by internet (and a few friends). US media gives that minority a much louder voice than perhaps their numbers warrant. That said, given media's power to shape opinion.....
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)If you care about people, it shows and people respond.
But even that won't last forever.
Get out. Talk to your fellow citizens. And for God's sake, don't let the bullshit put in your head to stop you, stop you.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 24, 2014, 09:06 AM - Edit history (1)
Well, I don't use flyers and political buttons. I start by asking how they're doing and then listening.
Now, once in a Blue Moon, I've been known to hijack a thread....
On Edit:
Its not walking up to a stranger and starting. You develop a sense for when it's right. Did a lot of hitchhiking when I was a kid.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)For health reasons, I'm pretty much housebound. My only connection to teh world comes through my broadband pipe. And I don't talk to people I don't know well. Too frightening (yes, I'm aware that's not rational, I'm mentally ill).
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)On edit: If you see that in yourself, I'll bet you're reaching inside for change...
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)That's why I take the meds, why I see my doctor every two weeks and my shrink once a month. The real fucker about being mentally ill is that you know that what you're feeling is irrational but you can't prevent yourself feeling it anyway. Over time, I've become unemployed, lost my mobility, what few friends I have drifted away. All I have left now is the world through my monitor.
And my So and my cats. The three of them have saved my life numerous times.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)been there. Looking back, sometimes my fault, sometimes not.
Every time it seemed like a permanent state. False hope galore, etc. etc.
Each time, as they say, giving way to more fruitful years.
May you be as lucky.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)When we are finally asking this question, the answer is yes. Police state, Surveillance State, brutality against peaceful protesters.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)But teh fact is: Republicans are now just teh political arm of big business; the SCOTUS has been captured, politicised and turned into simply the legal arm of the GOP (I'm honestly expecting a 5-4 decision that conservatrives get their own way on everything soon); half the bloody Democrats are brought off by corporate money; the planet is dying and 23% of teh public just denies that teh problem exists...
I guess I'm just despairing.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Cruelty, bigotry and intolerance is being fostered by right wing television and radio 24/7.
The poor, the disabled and the elderly are essentially being characterized as useless undeserving eaters.
The government might have intentionally ignored specific intelligence warning of 911(duh).
The government faked the intelligence in favor of a preemptive war with Iraq.
We have the greatest military might in the history of the world but would rather people go without food, shelter, education and heath care than cut military spending.
The government allowed Wall Street criminals a get out of jail free plan.
And there are many other reasons to be alarmed.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)And the FCC just caved on net neutrality, which means our best hope of organising real reisstence to this crap is now in corporate control.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The FCC's action is a blatant disregard for preserving free speech. And this while the supreme court says that money equals free speech.
What is there left to say? This nation is fucked.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Keep in mind that America didn't consider itself to be all that special. We weren't a "Superpower" or an Empire or anything else. We weren't interested in world affairs if they weren't directly affecting us. After WWII we touted our middle class to the world as a product of capitalism and we wrote laws to allow our corporations to go international and act as our ambassadors to help sell the idea of capitalism. While the rest of the world had most of their industry bombed we were in full production. We let guys in suits push their ideas upon an unsuspecting world all the time believing we were the good guys as we overthrew elected governments and installed Right Wing Dictators that would enforce corporate contracts at gunpoint. We let our CIA eliminate labor leaders and claimed it was all in the name of "freedom from the Evil Communists".
This is my theory of why the middle class is vanishing. It was artificially created to sell Capitalism globally but now that the Soviet Union is no longer out there the Middle Class is considered to be an expense on the books that's not needed anymore.
And to answer your question, YES. We have BEEN under Fascism for some time now.
Malloy pointed it out during the Bush Years.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)My take on it is that the hangover from teh Cold War has made the American public so gunshy of anything that might sort of look vaguely similar to socialism in the right light, that it's allowed politics to spiral way too far in the opposite direction. I'm British and maybe you're not aware of this but even your liberals would be centre-right anywhere else in the world and the only socialist in Congress (Bernie Sanders) would be considered a centreist in the rest of teh civilised world.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Bernie is characterized as an extremist by the US media. But polls indicate the American people are exactly where Bernie is on the issues.
In much the same way, the media paints President Obama and Hillary Clinton as some sort of wild eyed liberals when nothing could be further from the truth.
The media defines politicians dishonestly to serve a hidden agenda.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)It's not a coincidence that the USA is both the most right-wing country in the free world and also teh most corporate dominated.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Frankly, I would LIKE to see America go back to being one nation amongst many. I'd like to see our media cover the goings on at the United Nations. Americans think the U.N. is the place you go to sell a war and think of it as a useless debate club but the rest of the world takes it seriously. If Americans knew how many times we have used our veto power to block votes for things the public would support they would be appalled.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)But there are some concerning pre-fascist formations, and some individual states are further along in that area than others.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Because every time we take a step away from fascism by electing a Democrat, we get a bunch of people who are supposedly on our side ready to tear that Democrat down because fascism doesn't disappear immediately after the election.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Essentiually, too many Democrats are compromised by corporate money. I have four big issues that I care about: Net neutrality, global warming, poverty/welfare and gay rights. On gay rights, the Obama admin has been first class, bravo to them. On global warming, not much has been done and certainly, nowhere near enough (although I accept that Republicans in Congress meant a lot can't get done). On net neutrality, the FCC, headed by an Obama appointee, just totally caved. On poverty/welfare, the poor are now in even worse straits but I accept that we can entirely blame the Republicans for that.
It's not enough to elect anyone wearing a blue tie. They need to be the right kind of Democrats, ones who will actually fight for liberal positions. Yes, any Democrat will always be better than any Republican but that's like saying a stubbed toe is better than decapitation. One party is centre-right, the other is controlled by frothing madmen.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And people wonder why we're losing.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Essentially, doesn't there have to be a point where we say "no, that's not good enough"?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)If you can't accept that after a generation of heading in the wrong direction, that taking a few small steps in the right direction is the only right & moral choice rational people can make, then you're in for lot of disappointment. Just don't expect the rest of us to stand by while you try & drag good Democrats down.
brooklynite
(94,592 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Warren and Sanders are great pols. I mean that, I think the two of them are among the best of a generally motley crew (which sounds like damning with faint praise but wasn't meant to be). And I'd love to believe that they'll make a difference. But...
Warren and Sanders are portrayed by the media (which is entirely corporate) as wild-eyed extremists. I'm British and my view of the US is necessarily through your media and I don't think even American liberals understand quite how right-wing your media is. Sanders would be a centreist here and Warren is well within mainstream leftie politics. But your corporate media portrays them as something akin to Trotsky. Even the supposedly liberal MSNBC has three fucking hours of Joe Scarbrough every morning. And Maddow, Satan's Name, she's great but she's one woman with five hours a week and struggling to keep up with the endless tide of bullshit the right throws out. And she's struggling within a corporate structure at MSNBC.
The SCOTUS has been entirely politicised, the most radical and most conservative court in US history and I fully expect them to just let the rich give as much as they like to politicians the se3cond they get a case that they can twist to cover that. And they're just going to strike down any law that conservatives dislike. I'm half-expecting a 5-4 ruling that conservatives get their own way on everything.
So the SCOTUS is now just teh legal arm of teh GOP, the GOP is just the political arm of big business and too many of teh Democrats are compromised. Because getting elected these days takes a massive amount of money and that money will likely come from corporate donors, especially now that our only real way to counter that (the internet) has been handed over to the corporations to do as they like with (I'm talking about the FCC's total cave on net neutrality).
Meanwhile, the Democratic president proposed what was essentially a Republican health plan, birthed by teh Heritage Foundation. He's proposing cap-and-trade, a Republican plan that does virtually nothing about teh problem at a time when we need to be imposing hard limits on carbon emissions and jailing CEOs who break them. I don't know as much about the drone war as I should but what I do know isn't encouraging. The Democrats too often try and be fascism-lite.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)without fear of any repercussions whatsoever, the question of whether or not we are living under "fascism".
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I spelled out in the OP what I meant by the term. You're effectively falling back on the "there aren't tanks in the street" argument.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Which is what I'm actually doing right now.
The numerous people seated around me, all using that same free wifi, seem totally unaware that a black van could pull up at any second and take them all away.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Also, given the current terrorism laws, a black van might not be entirely impossible.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)If the debate will change nothing, there is no danger from it to those in power.
It's a lot easier to keep people complacent with gradual theft of their power, money, and opportunities, if you DON'T use overt force to get your way, and at least pretend that when you do use force, it has a reason. Which is why poor people spend years in jail for small thefts, while rich people generally don't ever go to jail when they steal millions or billions, and send millions of poor people even deeper into poverty.
The fascists of the past were rank amateurs at controlling people, relying on brute force and fear of the state.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)is ambition. The guy running a three-card mote game out of a suitcase is a criminal. But if he learns how to do the same trick with whole banks, he's a pillar of the business community and Republicans line up to blow him.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Money may have too much influence, but we don't have to let it. That's the only back up they have. That somehow we cannot control ourselves and vote as the slick ads tell us to.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)And a pithe quote and cherry picking two recent outrage du jour don't make it so.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)That's just asserting something and then insisting that it is so. I said "Why or why not?", not just yell "no" and claim you don't have to explain it. If you think the USA isn't remotely fascist, that's fine. But make the argument.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)You don't argue with someone who thinks Obama is a dictator beyond rolling your eyes; why do different for someone who argues the US is fascist?
Successfully make a real argument actually using how fascism as a government is defined and showing how the US has gone down that rabbit hole, and I will respond with something besides outright dismissal. As it is, this question isn't even worth a debate.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)You're just restating your previous assertion and insisting that no further argument is necessary.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Even all the great things FDR did (our greatest president) were done, in part, to prevent a revolution and to protect the wealthy folks position in society.
But there are plenty of other definitions from "authoritative state" to very specific technical definitions, from what the fascist state does to what the fascist state believes.
Bryant
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I used the definition I did both because it came from the guy who invented fascism and because I wanted to make a point about the frightening corporate takeover of the USA.
And I agree, FDR was your greatest president.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)"Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism." The problem with it is that it goes far more to what Fascists believe or speak, than it does to what fascists do.
Palingenetic refers to a national rebirth; i.e. the central fascist myth is that the homeland has been corrupted, generally by outsiders, and needs to be reborn through ultra-nationalist policies.
Not hard to find that myth in some of our tea-party friends.
Bryant
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)No, that's not sarcasm, I have an almost childish love of new words.
I agree that the Teabaggers are clearly fascist. My problem with Griffins' description is the same as yours, that it says nothing about what fascism actually does. It also relies on only two features of fascism (it's populism and ultra-nationalism) and says nothing about it's, for example, use of religion or abuse of scapegoats.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)before they seized power. It's a scholarly work of course, but I think his goal was to figure out what traits of fascist movements are present even if they don't have control of the government. It's been years since I read his book, but I remember him talking about the fascist movements around Europe, the majority of which didn't come to power.
Bryant
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)It's not businesses that get called corporations in the USA.
The fascist economic theory corporatism called for organizing each of the major sectors of industry, agriculture, the professions, and the arts into state- or management-controlled trade unions and employer associations, or corporations, each of which would negotiate labour contracts and working conditions and represent the general interests of their professions in a larger assembly of corporations, or corporatist parliament. Corporatist institutions would replace all independent organizations of workers and employers, and the corporatist parliament would replace, or at least exist alongside, traditional representative and legislative bodies. In theory, the corporatist model represented a third way between capitalism and communism, allowing for the harmonious cooperation of workers and employers for the good of the nation as a whole. In practice, fascist corporatism was used to destroy labour movements and suppress political dissent. In 1936, for example, the economic program of the French Social Party included shorter working hours and vacations with pay for loyal workers but not for disloyal ones, and benefits were to be assigned by employers, not the government. The Nazi Strength Through Joy program, which provided subsidies for vacations and other leisure activities for workers, operated on similar principles.
Extensive corporatist legislation was passed in Italy beginning in the late 1920s, creating several government-controlled unions and outlawing strikes. The Salazar regime in Portugal, using the Italian legislation as its model, outlawed the Trade Union Federation and all leftist unions, made corporatist unions compulsory for workers, and declared strikes illegalall of which contributed to a decline in real wages. Croatian, Russian, Argentine, Brazilian, and Chilean fascism also proposed corporatist solutions to labour-management strife.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/202210/fascism/219368/Conservative-economic-programs#toc219369
Also, the authenticity of the quote is disputed:
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
This misunderstanding of the meaning of 'corporatzione' spread rapidly in the United States after appearing in a column by Molly Ivins (24 November 2002). It is repeated often and sometimes attributed to the "Fascism" entry in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana, but does not appear there. See "Mussolini on the Corporate State" by Chip Berlet which discusses the corporatzione - councils of workers, managers and other groups set up by the Fascist Party to control the economy and everyone in it.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini
Translation of the Enciclopedia Italiana article: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/modules/hi153new/timetable/wk10/muss_fascism/
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Especially when they're embaressing to the right. That's their way. They scream black is white and then say you should teach the controversy.
However, the info on corporatism was new to me and thank you for it. I would note though, that the caveat that fascist corporatism was used to destroy labour unions, is very much in line with modern corporatism.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)It's true that corporatism (or corporativism), with that definition of state-recognised interest groups, was a significant part of Mussolini's fascism, so it's possible that he did say it (though he definitely did say there was a lot more to fascism than that - see the EI article - lots of "the state is everything, the individual just a cog in the glorious state" stuff).
I think 'plutocracy' is the best description - rule by wealth. It's not so much corporations (in the modern American sense) that have the power, but individuals with money. It's not the CEO of Exxon with the power, but the Koch brothers. Big businesses generally benefit from the politics of the wealthy - they're what keeps them wealthy, so it makes sense to keep the golden goose laying for them.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I think that it is corporations that have the power. That they benefit from teh same rules that the rich benefit by doesn't negate that all the corporate-favouring legislation is sold under the guise of "job creators".
I may have explained that badly.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)FSogol
(45,488 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)FSogol
(45,488 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)needs to look at it, sometime in the future. Yay!
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
djean111
(14,255 posts)traffic. But, as long as the folks in the Donut Shoppe are not doing anything wrong or associating with bad people, they will be fine!
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I'm sure she's capturing all of it as well.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)not as Mussolini used it anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I was under teh impression it meant government by corporation and that's certainly what I meant. But someone upthread just pointed out that the term was used differently by the classical fascists.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Pretty much everyone said if the US isn't already a fascist state, then it is well on its way. This was using the somewhat strict definition of fascism in our textbook. Also, I'm not in the US so I find that most people here don't view the US system favorably so that plays into it.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Pretty much everyone who says it isn't has either refused to make an argument or fallen back on "tanks not in streets". Of course, I'm not American either (I'm British) but I actually think that gives us a clearer view in many ways. The average American has such a strong sense of nationalism that there is an entirely emotional response to any suggestion that the US might not be wonderful.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)it would be nice if we got a poll too
We don't neatly fit certain specific textbook definitions, I'm sure, and there will be plenty of people who try to compare the US to prior states now acknowledged as being fascist, and saying 'we don't do/have x, y, z, so therefore we are not fascist.'
Nonetheless, the corporate influence and control of much of our crop of elected officials is enormous and continues to grow with every pro-corporate SCOTUS decision, every piece of ALEC-written legislation that spreads from state to state. Our tax code is extremely tilted to favour corporations and stockholders.
Even our governmental intelligence agencies have been shown to be spying in part for commercial purposes.
History does not repeat, it rhymes.
So yes, the US has many fascist elements embedded in our current political machinery.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Not a Star member so no ability to post polls. Thanks for answering all the same.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)there was some extra hoop to jump through on DU to be allowed to post polls beyond simple registration on the site.
Is 'star member' some sort of time or number of postings issue, or does it mean you pay the site?
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)You have to donate to the site or be gifted a star by someone else who's donated.
Bettie
(16,110 posts)If not fully, we are well along the way.
Honestly, I'm waiting for the day corporations officially take control of it all.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)The way it is now, they get all the power but they can direct the angry populace to take it up with politicians. It's the perfect racket, they get the benefits but not teh responsibility.
Bettie
(16,110 posts)It is possible that they won't get it all their way every time. A direct takeover could eliminate messy elections and the possibility of uncooperative congresscritters. There could simply be a board and an appointed CEO that could run it all.
I don't really think it will happen, but I'm really frustrated with the whole mess, so that's where my mind goes.
My husband believes that TPTB are manipulating the economy to keep wages on a downward trend so that eventually, the extremely productive US workforce can be had at 3rd world wages.
I think that is tinfoil hat territory, but I'm less sure it is than I used to be.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Essentially, it is the dream of the corporate class is A) no taxes and B) to have a labour pool so poor and so desperate that they will work for pennies. Everything they do is about one of those two priorities. So Republicans (who are now just the political arm of big business) and the SCOTUS (their legal arm) conspire to keep wages low, strip away worker protections and eliminate anything that keeps people from starving on the streets.
And a full-blown takeover might eliminate uncooperative congresscritters but there's very few of them (see the recent report that declare3d, with much evidence, that the US is now an oligarchy) and there will be fewer still now that the SCOTUS has all but legalised bribery.
Bettie
(16,110 posts)I hope people wake up to what is happening and demand better.
But I don't have a lot of hope.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)barriers are very high
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)Could of fooled me. By the way good luck with quitting.
https://www.google.com/search?q=boston+bombing+tanks&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=UhhZU52QFa62sAT6-IGwCQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=624
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I know, I know. I'm just being a pedantic dick.
Thanks for the well wishes though.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)SamKnause
(13,107 posts)I do know that the U.S. government is corrupt to the core. (local to national)
I do know that the law of the land only applies to some. (If you start a war based on false intelligence, torture, or crash the global economy because of shady practices you are home free)
I do know that Wall Street controls our government. (corporations and banks are writing our laws)
I do know police brutality is rarely addressed.
I do know our prison system is a system of vengeance and many people who are not guilty of anything are caught in its web.
Our Supreme Court is so out of touch it's as if they do not even live in this country. (we have choices for our internet and cable needs)
I do know that monopolies have been embraced by our governments inactions.
I do know that our military budget is bleeding our social services safety net dry.
I do know that tax cuts for the elites and for corporations has created income inequality on a mass scale.
I do know our public education is under attack.
I do know the rights of women are under attack.
I do know that the Christian religion is trying to force its way into our lawmaking.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The pushback at the popular level against homophobia, misogyny, anti-intellectualism, and xenophobia are promising though.
Though the obsession with reducing complex issues about capitalism and fascist tendencies to simple "plots" or conspiracies by cabals is still a very real problem.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Although it must be said that the nature of party politics is inherently conspiratorial in that it's all about back-room deals and dodgy favour-trading.
FSogol
(45,488 posts)RKP5637
(67,111 posts)do not need to be rolling in the streets to be a fascist state. The US is now clearly the marriage of governmental and corporate power, any not seeing that, well, probably don't see a lot of things.
What has been surprising to me is how many Americans seem to welcome the fascist state, especially as one acquires more wealth. IMO when it comes to $$$$$, often, R=D=I. The days of "we the people" are long gone, now, it is "we the corporations."
IMO it will not end well. Much of America now lives in corporate servitude, and many just don't get what is going on. And some still look to government as a savior, not getting that the US government including SCOTUS is now a subsidiary of corporate America.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Not a new thing. But "corporate servitude" certainly sounds more vaguely ominous. As does grumbling about our fascist overlords while fumbling for the alarm clock.
Throd
(7,208 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I think there are yet too many voices of dissent, too many fractured interest groups freely operating at the expense of the others, too much emphasis/concern with class politics, and too little belief in the primacy of the state to clearly indicate a de-facto state of Fascism exists.
(using the academic, rather than trendy use of the word from, The Anatomy of Fascism, by Robert Paxton)
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)You make a good argument but wouldn't you say that fascism is about teh behaviour of the state rather than whether or not teh people support it?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Yes, There is a trendy use of the word.
"wouldn't you say that fascism is about teh behaviour of the state rather than..."
Both are required.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Next question?
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Given that corporations have captured both the legislative and legal arms, and that laws are heavily tilted in their favour, is there now any way of restoring the country to a reasonable state?
Brigid
(17,621 posts)No. Unfortunately, I'm a pessimist on this subject.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)read into inverted totalitarianism.
That is far more descriptive.
Here
http://www.thenation.com/article/inverted-totalitarianism
And for a much longer read read Democracy Incorporated
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)The link is too much for me to read right now (I haven't slept in about 30 hours) but I promise you, I will read it.