Does capitalism inevitably lead to fascism?

[Bossy Monkey]

Fascism here, due to the compression imposed by the constraints of the subject line, is a shorthand for jingoism, chauvinism, nationalism or any number of simplistic isms that persuade the greater part of the people to overlook their own self-interest in favor of the best interests of the corporations. Think German industrialists (and Prescott Bush) financing Hitler and the Murdochs of today (tip of the iceberg I know) and the cheap labor Republicans. An exception of course would be Europe today, but with the fall of Soviet state socialism European corporations have huge markets and huge investment opportunities in Eastern Europe for a while.

What say you?

[leftofthedial]

1. unfettered capitalism is an evil unto itself

fascism is a natural ally

[indepat]

6. Unfettered capitalism will run amok without tight governmental reins:

unfortunately the last three Congresses have disregarded the public interest by discarding almost all reins.

[LittleClarkie]

66. It strikes me that unfettered ANYTHING will run amok

and become a destructive force.

That's why if we ever get in the majority again, we must be careful to not repeat the mistakes of the Republicans. Checks and balances are there for a reason.

[The Revolution]

2. Yes. Orwell was right.

"Fascism after all is only a development of capitalism, and the mildest democracy, so-called, is liable to turn into Fascism when the pinch comes. We like to think of England as a democratic country, but our rule in India, for instance, is just as bad as German Fascism, though outwardly it may be less irritating. I do not see how one can oppose Fascism except by working for the overthrow of capitalism, starting, of course, in one's own country. If one collaborates with a capitalist-imperialist government in a struggle 'against Fascism,' i.e. against a rival imperialism, one is simply letting Fascism in by the back door. The whole struggle in Spain, on the Government side, has turned upon this."
--George Orwell (Letter to Geoffrey Gorer, September 15, 1937)

[EVDebs]

3. When viewed in the context of Leviticus 25 and the Year of Jubilee

and 'Kondratieff Waves', you would have to admit that the downswings in the business cycle of capitalism lead to desperate conditions UNLESS socialist safety nets are allowed to finetune for 'soft landings'.

"You can have great wealth or a democracy, but you cannot have both"-
Louis Brandeis

The concentration of wealth over a certain point leads to the end of economic empires, as Kevin Phillip's book Wealth and Democracy shows us. We are dancing with levels of wealth concentration higher than the 1929 era.

How long this can last is the real question. We can hopefully avoid fascism (through Bush's FEMA martial law) within four more years. If not we can only speak out NOW in order to try to prevent such an enaction of martial law through emergency actions, subverting the Constitution.

Speak out now and maybe we can avoid fascism/corporatism.

[shance]

4. When you have the consumption of products stabilizing an economy

you're going to have a problem.

Not to mention that if a civilization is solely dependent on buying and selling, you are going to hit a moral/integrity crisis at some point depending on the severity of the economy and the need to buy and sell. In other words, honesty and sales are often contradictions of one another.

Not to mention the overriding definitions of success and materialism and how they affect how people behave towards one another and towards the planet overall.

It's a good and very valid question to ask.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. Absolutely

The trouble is that the RW portrays the political spectrum in a totally out of whack scale. They say that anything social or having to do with socialism is on the far left and capitalism is middle of the road. In actuality, unregulated capitalism is far right fascism and capitalism with socialist elements and government regulation is middle of the road.

[eallen]

7. Can you point to a free society that doesn't have a capitalist economy?

Don't extrapoloate from just the US, or from just the trend of the last few years, to a global rule. Keep in mind that every nation in west Europe today, from Sweden to Italy, has a capitalist economy.

Capitalism has its problems, from the exploitation of external costs to the lack of any consideration for those who aren't able to participate fully in it, including specifically children and the aged and decrepit. The liberal response to capitalism long has been to insist on legal and institutional remedies for these problems, including public schools and a public pension system.

But liberalism is not socialism. If liberals want to remedy some of the problems of capitalism, they also realize that it is capitalism that produces the wealth.

[BillZBubb]

9. It is not Capitalism alone that creates wealth.

To suggest that it is the only wealth producing system is disingenuous.

[eallen]

19. Not all of it. But most of it.

Yes, I understand there are other factors besides the nature of its economic system that can cause a nation to fail. And yes, Europe produced significant wealth under feudalism, and the Soviet Union produced significant wealth under state socialism. But "significant" is still pretty meagre by the standards of western capitalism.

[EVDebs]

11. FDR saved capitalism. We never were 'socialist' 100% We're "Mixed"

As most of the free world is. Europeans have had lively mixed economies and are thriving. They also don't have the concentrations of wealth at the top that the US does.

[eallen]

18. So "mixed" means "a capitalist economy with liberal government"?

I don't see how the economies of west Europe are "mixed." There are some nations that have a mixed economy. Putin's Russia comes to mind. Saudi Arabia, with its nationalized oil industry. These are mixtures of capitalism and modern state fuedalism. But not the west European nations. Their economies are thoroughly capitalist, with most commerce transacted by privately held businesses or equity companies, and with fully developed capital markets. I doubt the publicly-owned industry in west Europe accounts for even 4% of its produce.

Layering social programs such as universal medical care on top of a capitalist economy does not create a "mixed" economy, in any meaningful sense. Social programs primarily redirect consumption. The underlying economy is still capitalist, including the businesses that provision the medical system.

[rman]

23. partially regulated capitalism, some commons privatized,

some not. that would be mixed.

The economy is alway regulated to some extend - by the government. Any business that's not directly government controlled (but still government regulated) would be capitalist - it would be allowed to aggregate capital to use at it sees fit, within the law and regulations.

So the (capitalist) economy is not really that separate from government as your subject line seems to suggest. In the end it is the government that makes it so that the system is a mix of socialism and capitalism.

Having tax-funded Social Security is in fact socialist. Having public schooling is socialist. Wanting it all privatized is capitalist/corporatist.

[eallen]

28. I mostly agree. Clearly, the legal system defines the economic rules...

I agree with you, that there is a significant mistake in the thinking of the market fundamentalists who would pretend that an economic system can be divorced from the social institutions that define it.

But I disagree with what you call socialist. Following Marx, the distinction between socialism and capitalism is about who owns or controls the means of production. I think you're right to label public schools socialist, since they are a organization for producing a service -- education -- that is publicly owned and funded, and that compete directly with privately owned institutions that do the same. I disagree that social security is socialist, because it really is more about redirecting consumption. Tax money goes in one end, and comes out the other, but there's no -- or very little -- production involved. At most, one might argue that the trust fund is somewhat like a private bond fund, or that the insurance provisions compete with private disability insurance. But that seems a bit of a stretch to me. The purpose really is to keep people from falling between the cracks, and what social security really is paying for -- shelter, food, etc. -- is privately supplied. The government just redirects a certain amount of wealth to do that.

Despite the good example of public schools, there's not really that much produced by socialist mechanisms in the US. Most social programs redirect consumption, but rely on private provisioning. Thus, government pays for the roads, but they are built by private contractors. Government pays for Medicare, but the services are supplied by private physicians, hospitals, and other suppliers. The actual means of production in the US are almost wholy owned by private businesses or stock companies.

I think you'll find that's also true in most European nations. Even where there is a national health system, most of the provisioning is done by private companies. There is good reason for that. Capitalism is remarkably productive. Don't believe me on that point. Read Marx.

:bounce:

[rman]

57. social security isn't a service?

a service doesn't have to be literally "productive" - an educated student also isn't a "product" in the sense that it can be sold.

SS is collective insurence. wouldn't you agree that a privatized SS is more capitalist then a non-privatized SS, or reversely that non-privatized SS is more socialist then a privitized SS?

If in fact production would be nationalized, then it would be completely socialist, not mixed. Also if -everything- would be privatized, then it would be completely capitalist.
The mix is in the fact that some things are capitalist and others socialist. As long as there are things not privatized, it isn't completely capitalist.

[femme.democratique]

39. Historically, our moderation has allowed us to flourish

Extremes tend to burn out.

[EVDebs]

80. That US and W. Europe are mixed economies is what I was taught in college

So unless they've decided to have Paul Samuelson's textbooks editted out, as Walter Cronkite would say, '...that's the way it is.'

[bvar22]

15. I don't think you can equate....

European capitalism with USA Capitalism. Europe has a very regulated form of capitalism.

Unrestrained Capitalism has already been tried, and it was a MISERABLE FAILURE! See US History 1870-1925.

The socialist reforms of FDR produced the explosive economy and unprecedented growth of the Middle Class of the 50's and 60's.
Education was affordable.
Small Business flourished.
Families could make a good living on their farm.
Families could make a good living by owning small town businesses.
HealthCare was affordable to all working Americans, and local safety nets could cover HealthCare for the poor.
Utilities (necessities) were mostly owned by the Public and heavily regulated.
Social Security provided acceptable income for the elderly and widows and orphans.

This system worked for most Americans. The RICH still got RICH, but (after Civil Rights in early 60's)the class doors were open to All Americans.

As the RICH CAPITALISTS have worked to dismantle the reforms of FDR, the USA has steadily regressed toward the Gilded Age.

[eallen]

20. FDR's socialist reforms are gone. His liberal reforms survive.

Socialism changes the mode of production. FDR's socialist reforms were programs like the WPA and other programs where the government becomes a producer. Those programs are all gone. In contrast, the reforms that survive are liberal social programs, which redirect spending, not production.

I also think it is pretty ridiculous to say that the US was a miserable failure between 1870 and 1925. By almost any measure, from infant mortality to median income, the US did extremely well in those years. That success is especially apparent compared to other nations during the same period. During that time we absorbed of millions of immigrants. What was the attraction, if the nation was such a "miserable failure" during that time?

Now yes, I agree, there were lots of problems in those years, some of which we have since ameliorated.

[Just Me]

29. "the US did extremely well in those years." NO. A few corporacrats,...

,...did extremely well at the horrifying expense of the American people who were treated like slave laborers. Surely, you have a clear idea of the abject poverty in which, at least, half our citizens lived. I have a picture of my great grandmother hanging right in front of me: sitting on the porch of a hand-built shed, wearing torn clothing and open-toed army boots, tootin' on a corn cob pipe!!!

The capitalistic STRUCTURE of that period WAS A MISERABLE FAILURE because it advanced a few greedy vultures on the backs of the majority of the American people. That structure certainly did not advance either democracy or wealth anywhere NEAR the generation of both that occured as a result of New Deal policies.

But, the vultures are back!!!

[eallen]

30. Compare 1925 to 1870 on any objective measure....

And I think you'll find most Americans were much better off in 1925.

Yes, that means they were pretty poor by today's standards.

If you're arguing things could have been much better, that's all well and good. But I think it hurts that argument when you fail to recognize the remarkable improvement that was made, especially vis-a-vis other contemporary nations.

[bvar22]

32. Pictures of Americans doing well in the Guilded Age:

[Just Me]

37. Bullshit! Define "objective measure".

I am REALLY interested to know what you consider an "objective measure"!!!!

Lay it out (and be sure to RECOGNIZE that comparison tests with "other contemporary nations" DON'T COUNT IN OBJECTIVE MEASURES).

[eallen]

50. Infant mortality. Lifespan. Literacy. And improvement in these...

Rate of improvement in these vis-a-vis other nations certainly do count as objective measures.

I'd also suggest at looking at living standards, i.e., how many hours a laborer had to work to afford shelter, food, recreation, etc.

[bvar22]

31. FastForward to 1929.

1925 was a typo.

[bvar22]

34. Many of the Socialist Reforms are still around.

One of my favorites is this one:
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

for the first time set national minimum wage and maximum hour standards for workers in interstate commerce, also placed limitations on child labor. In effect, the employment of children under sixteen years of age was prohibited in manufacturing and mining.

and then, of course, there is Social Security,

But you are right in that they are being dismantled.
You may also notice that the Gap between the RICH & The Rest of Us is also widening proportionally.

Can you project out what life will be like for the Average American if the dismantling of LABOR and Middle Class protections continues for 20 years. (it IS accelerating)


I also consider the TRUST BUSTING of the greatest Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, as a part of the Social Reforms that sparked the GREATEST ECONOMIC EXPANSION the World has ever seen.Without Teddy's Trust Busting and collary legislation limiting the predatory power of the previously unrestrained Corporations, FDRs programs would not have worked.

(Where are you Teddy. We REALLY need you now!)

[Selatius]

40. That's still not socialism

You're just redirecting the flow of money and dictating how private interests treat their employees, not producing a product or service. Production is still owned by private interests regardless of what the minimum wage is. A true socialist program would produce a product that can be consumed. It would be operated by the workers for the benefit of workers. That is socialism. That's not the case with minimum wage laws or labor standards, which simply dictate what private interests can do or not do to workers.

Those are liberal programs, not socialist programs. There is a difference. They are important, and they should be kept, but do not mistake liberal policies with socialist policies. FDR was NOT a socialist at all.

I firmly believe the long-term solution is mutual cooperation for the survival of humanity and the planet's ability to sustain humanity. For that, I am a socialist except I don't believe it should be forced down people's throats at the point of the gun or imposed on people by a small group of people (elected or not, preferably elected if I was forced to choose) who think they know what is best for everyone. Because of that, I'm a libertarian socialist as opposed to a state socialist. The brand of socialism I subscribe to could be called "laissez-faire socialism" or "voluntary socialism."

[bvar22]

42. By ANYONE's definition,

they are Social Restraints IMPOSED on Capitalists by SOCIETY that the Capitalists would NEVER have imposed on themselves....
which is, after all, the TOPIC of this thread!

[Selatius]

45. Social restraints still do not equal socialism. They are liberal policies

A capitalist would not want to be a capitalist if he could not overcharge customers and underpay workers and keep the difference for himself. That is all built upon the notion of property rights, the control over capital. Liberal policies set limitations on how they exploit customers, workers, as well as the environment.

Socialist policies advocate that the exploitation end and that those resources and the means of the production be administered by the people. Whether that is done through direct democracy or some form of republican governance (representative democracy) is another issue altogether.

There is a world of difference between the two.

[bvar22]

48. If you look at it in the broader sense,

The PEOPLE, through their democratic government, share control over the means of production and distribution of profits. These types of regulation, especially when they dictate that Capital must divert profits into worker benefits, community enhancements, and workplace safety, could be considered socialism.Especially if you consider a tax system that diverts profits into a host of other programs. Where did FDR get the Capital for his Social Programs. Directly and indirectly, they came from Corporate (Business) Profits.

Try to tell a Free Trader or a Privitizer that governmental interference with business is not Socialism.

There are many definitions of Socialism. Ask a Republican privitizer if Sweden is a Socialist NannyState.

You said:
"Whether that is done through direct democracy or some form of republican governance (representative democracy) is another issue altogether."

I DISAGREE. It is THE issue.


We are splitting hairs here.
I this thread, I will argue that Unrestrained Capitalism is a failed Economic System that produce a Feudal System in the USA between 1870 and 1929.

Defining Socialism will wait for another thread, or you can search the archives because that is a regular topic at DU.

[Daphne08]

61. You need to return to your history books!

[EVDebs]

81. The Socialist platform of 1912 eventually was adopted by Reps and Dems

""On Christmas Day 1921, President Warren G. Harding, a Republican, freed Debs and 23 other prisoners of conscience. Debs' socialist movement was now dead, the victim of government repression and internal factional fighting between opponents and supporters of the new Bolshevik regime in Russia.

But the socialist ideal lived on, inspiring a new generation of social reformers in the 1930s who, under the banner of the New Deal, enacted most of the programs and policies called for in the Socialist Party platform of 1912. It was not the socialist commonwealth, but it was a genuine achievement—one for which Debs and his followers legitimately could claim some credit.""

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/history/history/debs.cfm

A genuine achievement indeed ! The 8 hour day, anti-child labor, food and drug consumer protection laws...changed the means of production for the better. And now look who wants to destroy that--Republican "ideologues" of the supply side variety.

[PowerToThePeople]

36. it is capitalism that produces the wealth?

I don't think so. Capitalism puts capital into non-producing segments of society. I know most "business" owners that I have worked for in my lifetime have inherited their wealth/business and do not play any active roll in the further development of them. They just live large off of the producing people that work for them.

[durutti]

43. Can you point to a free society?

I certainly can't. I'm being completely serious. All human societies for the last 5,000 years have been characterized by the rule of one class over others. All that's changed is the means by which that rule is maintained. We have freedom of the press only for those who own it and a right to a fair trial for those who can afford a good attorney. And that's only in the most progressive capitalist states. In say, Colombia, cruder methods are employed. And the further the system sinks into crisis, the more necessary it becomes to employ these latter kinds of methods.

Capitalist states are, after a fashion, the most "free" governments that have yet existed. But this improvement is largely one of style, rather than substance; and the more economic (and therefore social) troubles the system encounters, the more rapidly these gains fade away.

It is true that the various "socialist" states that have been established since 1917 have left much to be desired in terms of democratic rights (though in terms of social rights such as food, health care, education, and so on, some made considerable progress). But it does not follow that socialism has to look that way. Previous socialist revolutions took place in countries that were for the most part economically and politically backward, with little in the way of democratic traditions or accumulated wealth. In a country like the United States, a fully socialized economy could give way to a truly democratic form of governance -- a truly free society.

[eallen]

52. I certainly can point to more free and less free societies.

There is a vast range of difference in freedom between the former USSR and the western democracies.

You raise an interesting question, of whether socialism innately requires a sacrifice of freedom. To some degree, I think it does. The innate problem is that in any free society, people will try to take advantage of the economic structure for their own profit. Every society limits this for those activities that it views as economically harmful. Socialism views a much broader range of such activities as harmful than does capitalism. Hence, it will have a larger problem with people who try to thrive in the margins and niches. The blackmarket in western goods from blue jeans to rock CDs had more to do with the fall of the USSR than did Reagan.

Well, this is an old argument. I take the liberal view. Which is not the socialist view.

[GirlinContempt]

65. Socialism

requires no sacrifice of freedom. Well, actually, I suppose it depends on your definition of 'freedom'. But, in my opinion, the freedom to own a business, and by default the workers & the means of production, isn't a sacrifice I'm too concerned about. In fact it's a 'freedom' I don't believe in, personally. But, thats a matter of opinion.

To point out the ranges in 'freedom' between the USSR and the West is like pointing out the cultural differences between the English and the Zulu's. The development of Russia as a country, socially, economically and politically was so vastly different from that of West that to compare the two is near impossible. Even the location of the country and the climate, in the long run, changed the development of their nation so much that it's nearly incomparable. And this development and culture played a huge part in the way the revolution happened, and the events after the revolution. It isn't really a good comparison when considering socialism/communism and what its impact would/could be in the west.

[eallen]

67. "Freedom to own a business..isn't a sacrifice I'm too concerned about."

The problem is that "owning a business" isn't a simple activity easy to define and ban, but a set of related activities. If the state bans one activity, such as hiring an employee, the market economy tends to compensate by utilizing other mechanisms. (In this case, contracted services, intermediate piecework, bundled products, etc.) By the time the state has banned all the ways to run a business, it really has severely curtailed freedom. A socialist state that isn't thorough in banning all the ways to do this risks seeing a market economy blossom in the niches between the rules, which becomes a challenge to its orthodoxy even as it creates wealth for the segment of people able to shift over to it.

Being a liberal, I'm very leary of such sweeping state control. Yes, I understand that the forces of a developed market also present their own problems and limits on freedom, even as it creates great wealth. The liberal solution to those problems is piecemeal regulation that builds institutional structures as part of the market economy, not a wholesale attempt to suppress it.

[GirlinContempt]

69. I would be

wary of 'state control' in the kind of states we have now, too.

And, I'm going to assume you mean American Liberal (Democrat) with your italics, and I'll let you know, I'm not one.

And, I'll just leave this up to Marx:
"We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour."

"And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend. "

[eallen]

75. I would encourage you to vote for Gus Hall...

Except the poor fellow died a few years back.

:hippie:

[GirlinContempt]

76. I dont live in the US

And I wouldn't vote in a communist president.

[BillZBubb]

8. No, it's not inevitable.

But it's always a distinct possibility--just off to the side in the shadows. Probably looking at it from an American perspective it looks more likely than not, but maybe Canadians/New Zealanders/etc have a brighter outlook.

[salinen]

10. It has no choice

Industrialists will eventually overtake the government, and being without morality, starve the middle out of existence. Unlimited natural resources will keep capitalism afloat only so long. Now that peak oil and peak other resources are a reality, the peasants must bear the burden of sustaining the haughty lifestyles of the rich.

[CrispyQ]

16. Yes, and when the masses finally tire of being cold & hungry

they will storm the gated communities & the rich will have nowhere to hide. I believe it will happen, but I'm not sure if I will see it in my lifetime. I often wonder just how cold & hungry the sheeple will have to get before they wake up & realize they've been royally screwed.

[Daphne08]

62. Unfortunately our grandchildren and great-grandchildren

will see the worst of it.

[bemildred]

12. Concentration of wealth and power inevitably leads to autocracy.

But your choice of economic theologies has nothing to do with it.

[Darranar]

35. Indeed. Well said. n/t

[Democrats_win]

13. Capitalists should have NO right to pollute. Yet they do, and we pay.

Capitalists are every bit as immoral as any other criminal.

[clover]

14. Fascism thrives in the decay of a dying empire, like corpseworms (nt)

[slackmaster]

17. No more than it inevitably leads to Socialism or Communism

Switzerland has been capitalist for hundreds of years.

[carnie_sf]

21. Capitalism evolves into corporatism

corporatism coupled with extreme nationalism and xenophobia is fascism

[adwon]

22. No

No more than the October Revolution led to a 'workers' paradise.' Nothing is inevitable.

[rman]

24. would you agree capitalism -tends- to lead to fascism?

-

[adwon]

26. Only

if you can give an accurate and detailed definition of fascism that isn't overly vague like the '14 Points' that's currently in vogue. Fascism tends to be indefinable, much like the difference between bad and good art.

Oh, which brand of capitalism do you mean? Do you mean 1848-style, the kind that prompted the Communist Manifesto and blinkered communists for 150 years since? Capitalism in the New Deal-Fair Deal-Great Society sense? The Gilded Age?

[Selatius]

49. Fascism is just authoritarianism

Authoritarianism can spring up both in societies that are based either on socialist or capitalist economic systems. The problem is not capitalism specifically but the concentration of decision-making power in the hands of a few and those who wish to attain even greater power.

All republican forms of government are vulnerable to authoritarianism because a republican form of government is one where a person elects someone else to make decisions for him or her. This requires that the person put faith in the elected, and that faith can be abused, and that is where authoritarianism creeps in.

This is why I am more apt to use the term "authoritarian" as opposed to "fascist." In my mind, they are synonymous, but to many folks, fascism is equated to the right even though there were leaders on the left who were just as abusive and destructive and tyrannical. (Compare Hitler and Stalin)

[adwon]

55. Hmm

I think you did a good job of critiquing the base of the problem, though I prefer to say demogoguery when dealing with republics (tomato, potato, you know?).

I'd say a fascist government can be authoritarian, but is not necessarily so. Some, including the most ubiquitous example, were totalitarian. The distinction was always explained to me like this: authoritarians want to silence dissent, totalitarians want to convert dissent (both by force).

[Selatius]

56. Interesting distinction you brought up

It's the first time I've encountered it. The two terms, at least in my mind, both meant the same thing, so I used them interchangeably to describe the same phenomenon. Both require some measure of force (legislative, military, even physical) and coercion (terror, intimidation, control of debate, etc.). Either way is bad enough as it is, especially to the victims.

[adwon]

84. Too true

The difference between the two seems to be only the name, since the effects are more or less the same.

By the way, when you say control of debate, I'm guessing you mean control of the means of debate. Am I right?

[Selatius]

88. Yes, exactly. If your goal is power and control, then silencing...

the opposition is the most obvious answer. However, if that is unacceptable to the population at large, the next option down the list is to control the way debate evolves to ensure an acceptable outcome. It is more subtle, but it is proving to be fairly effective, much to the detriment of people everywhere.

If I were to name one of the world's greatest examples of social engineering in modern times and those behind it, I'd name the accomplishments of the corporate news media and the owners of these firms. By omitting certain relevant information and excluding certain people from debate, one can paint a picture different or radically different from the facts in evidence on the ground.

They used to build prisons out of iron and stone to deal with people who asked too many questions. They now build them out of ignorance and fear instead, a prison of the mind instead of the body.

[rman]

58. "More than a class system, fascism specifically targets, dehumanizes ...

"More than a class system, fascism specifically targets, dehumanizes and aims to destroy those it deems undesirable."

..."Nazism is a political party platform that embraces a combination of a military dictatorship, socialism and fascism. It is not a government structure.
Fascism is a government structure."...

..."The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems."...

http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm

The infamous 14 characteristics are also listed there, since they follow from what fascism is.

It could well be argued Stalin was fascist as well, since he did in fact target part of the population with oppression and extinction. There isn't a big principal difference between the Nazi concentration camps and Stalin's gulags.

Staunch capitalists want as less regulation as possible except for regulations that are in their favor. They don't really make a secret of that.

Their favor would be anything that enables them to gather more capital.
In it's purest form capitalism is unrestrained, self-reinforcing aggregation of wealth.

Capitalism tends to become more extreme in those respects - if we, the people by means of our governemnt, would let it.

In different times and places there have been variations on that theme. The particular flavor of any capitalism depends on the extent and the particulars of the regulations that are in effect.

The essence of fascism is despotism, which is simply the opposite of democracy. It's not a black-and-white matter; in any time and place there is some amount of both democracy and despotism; the more despotism , the less democracy and vice versa. Hitler was a despot, so was Stalin.

Making profits, gathering capital, is the prime directive of any capitalist entity.
Fact is that you can get all the riches you want if you're the one who runs the place - like a dictator, like a despot.
Money is power, power corrupts. It doesn't corrupt everyone - but there isn't room for everyone anyway in a winner-takes-all system.

[Cleita]

25. I think laissez-faire capitalism does.

Then capitalism exists for the corporations, which leads to fascism to maintain control of the peasants. A well regulated capitalism that exists for the citizenry of a country to use for their benefit shouldn't lead to fascism but a social democratic capitalism. Just my opinion.

[Just Me]

27. If a level playing ground allowing competition isn't maintained, yes,...

,...capitalism becomes corporatism which is fascism.

Greed and power requires the same boundaries as any other behavior. I believe that fact is becoming increasingly clear.

[applegrove]

33. No. It is called democracy & taxes. You make sure the rich are

taxed, monopolies are wiped away and that cabals do not take over the political system by instituting laws against cross-business combines.

If anyone has too much money they warp everything around them. Look at Big Oil? Look at the Saudi money (which has warped the American economy).

It is in the nature of the rich to want more. Up to us to fight them off! (Who else is going to fight them off? The turtles?).

[Just Me]

38. But, but, but,...that was what "capitalism" was SUPPOSED to be,...

,...it's NOT what capitalism IS.

Capitalism was SUPPOSED to be about ensuring competition and avoiding concentration.

Clearly, capitalism has become corporatism.

The "ideal" of capitalism,...does NOT EXIST!!!

[applegrove]

54. You regulate the market same as you always have. When a problem

arises - you fix it.

Capitalism did not exist properly in Europe until the monopolies & regulations got taken out of the hands of the elites (feudalism, religious monopoly on information, royalty). Then it started to boom. And again elites got too much power (robber barons). Then you regulated it again.

People who truly believe there should be no public goods delivered by the markets are Utopians. The market is regulated all the time. It always delivers things (armies, drivers licence id, 15 year monopolies on new pills for drug companies, fiat currency laws, etc.).

If the market is not regulated at all, we just grab what we want. Civilization is regulations and the delivery of public goods on top of a market.

[bvar22]

71. If the market is not regulated at all,

You said:
"If the market is not regulated at all, WE just grab what we want..."

You should ammend that statement to read:

If the market is not regulated at all, the greedy few just grab what THEY want without concern for the rest of Humanity.

There have always been a great many people who are motivated beyond the base drives of GREED and THEFT. Most religions are based on that particular elevation of the Human Spirit (the drive for compassion).

Unfortunately, in an unregulated system, the unbridled greed of a FEW can ruin the system for the MANY.

Unrestrained Capitalism REWARDS the most cold blooded socipopaths.

[applegrove]

74. No - if the market is regulated it can be regulated one way or another.

To benefit the corporations (as Bush pushes for now) or to benefit the people (new deal). It is a fallacy that the market will be unregulated if the neocons get their way. There will be tons of regulations.. they will just all be the ones that benefit the agenda of the narrow elite.

If there are not regulations there is no currency, no intellectual property, no property rights, no taxing for roads, no policing, no armies, etc. And then we are just a bunch of people walking around and taking what we want and murdering others to get more property.

Computers are based on intellectual property rights. Otherwise Bill Gates would never have bothered.

There are regulations everywhere.. including a planned bill of rights for Global Corporations ... so that no government can tell them they cannot move and hold onto their assets if they walk away from a country. This has not passed but it is planned. They love regulations.. but only if it benefits them the corporation (not all corporations are like that). Why the pharmaceuticals who now have stopped India from making cheap copies of the AIDS cocktail to give it to the India & African population at minimum costs... they have had laws imposed on them where they have to stop 'stealing' that recipe and pay for it from the drug company. You would think the drug company could say: "Africa is in crisis - budgets are stretched - for every cent we up the price people will die - lets make our money back in Europe and American and in wealthier places". But no - they make sure the intellectual property rights are being enforced in India.

With these neocons it is about one set of rules for them, one set of rules for everybody else. What do you think GATT or the WTO is? Ruling bodies. If they say that public goods cannot be delivered by interfering with the market of a corporation (say environmental laws)..they are making a rule. In reality, public goods have been delivered by religion and markets. And now the neocon utopians want the people, who have lived and worked in markets for 10,000 years to not have any ownership of them. Markets got very, very efficient when the elites finally stopped with all the monopolies. And now the corporations do not want public goods delivered using them. Well that is bullshit! The corporation is only 500 years old. The markets 10,000 years old. Homo Sapien Sapiens, even older than that.

It is like a corporation said here - you want something and I want something? Well I'll use UPS to send it and you can take the Pony Express. **** You!

It seems emotion is not supposed to be a part of government choice anymore. Emotion and empathy is not supposed to be a part of trials on negligence. There should be no emotion in political parties. Emotion is a fallacy. Emotion is for church and family units. Emotion is only supposed to be local. UNTIL THE CORPORATION NEEDS TO USE EMOTION IN THEIR TELEVISION ADS. Then emotion is fine.

As always with these fools who use the tool-bag of the sociopaths.. one set of rules for us and one set of rules for the people we compete against. Remember BTK spend all day long enforcing rules & lawn by-laws to a T, all the while he murdered families. Sociopaths do that. They make rules that are not fair.

Trust me - these neocons are into rules and regulations all day long. They just want you to believe that you should have none.. as a human being.

I am a fiscal conservative and I know that we cannot pay for things we cannot afford. And we need regulations to keep markets transparent. And the USA will never be as rich as it was in the 20th Century but if we are open to the emerging giants, we can participate in the creation of their huge middle classes and get some business and wealth that way. I know that corporations are important. I'm just not going to let the elites and the corporations decide on what the laws of mankind should be.

[bvar22]

77. Do not include ME in your collective WE.

Speak for yourself PLEASE.

Again you state:
"And then WE are just a bunch of people walking around and taking what WE want and murdering others to get more property."

I, those I choose to call my friends, ALL those who choose to work in the underpaid Helping professions, all TRUE Christians, those who are motivated by the IDEALS of ALL major religions, and the millions who live their lives GIVING are PROOF that you are mistaken.

Please amend your statements to represent you, yours, and others that are motivated by GREED, conspicuous consumption, and have no inner conscience that excludes TAKING from others.

Again I will restate:
Unrestrained Capitalism rewards the GREEDIEST and Most Cold Blooded Sociopaths. (SEE:ENRON, Wal-Mart, Silverado, Halliburton)

Will you argue with that statement?

[applegrove]

86. My point was that with no regulations it is not capitalism it is tribalism

And yes, even those of us who were good were part of a murderous world before civilization. Women were routinely murdered because they did not follow customary law. You had to defend yourself from attacks from the people over the hill. People from all parts of the world (every race...all 20,000 races) scapegoated people and sacrificed them. And killing people by sacrifice or because your wife doesn't do what you want and nobody will hold you accountable is murder. And in situations like that (with no laws of any kind) then yes the sociopaths do get to the top.

And they get to the top in corporations at times.

And they get to the top in social work at times.

And they get to the top in psychiatric hospitals.

(In fact sociopaths gravitate towards victims in the helping professions because people project their goodness).

The point of the post was that unfettered capitalism resulted in the law of the jungle. My point is that capitalism comes with a whole bunch of regulations itself to make it work. Just as liberalism comes with regulations. And for Bush to be saying 'we need to undo regulations' he just means he wants to undo any regulation that gets in the way of some corporations that he favors. I could say "george bush - I want to undo any regulations that help capitalism and only have regulations about law & order and sharing (AKA socialism)" but I am not a socialist so I do not want that. He is selling a bill of goods by saying that only the regulations they want gone should be gone. I am saying Bullshit. We can have international norms (regulations) like universal health care, like good and well funded public education, nuclear non-proliferation acts, etc.). We have more right to choose the regulation mix than the corporations do. Because we are humans, in democracies and we invented markets 10,000 years ago, a full 9400 years before the first corporation is invented.

I telling the poster not to accept the framework the right has set up for us. When have you ever know sociopathic (like the GOP leadership) to give people a fair deal in a debate - when they present it? NO! The fix is in by the language George Bush uses. They want tons of regulations. They just don't want any that could hurt the chance for a corporation to make money because they are a big bunch of Utopian babies who don't care what happens to people or how their lives are diminished.

I do not accept the rule that they own the markets. The markets are for humans. The corporations should be for human use and not the other way around. Markets work for all of us. If you are not a subsistence farmer or living as a hunter and gatherer you are in a market. It allows us to specialize and it allows us to accumulate wealth often in the form of a house. And allowing the 'elites' to make the regulations just results in monopolies and bad markets in the end. Why the last time the elites had total say in the regulations - it was the dark ages.

And yes there were examples of fair & benevolent societies who did not use violence. West Coast of BC perhaps (at times when they were very rich). Some parts of Africa. But most often the time before law (or monotheism) was a place where you could easily be a slave (on pain of death if you tried to escape). And really, the things I describe are still going on in the world and where they ended did not end that long ago. And some would say that today the USA is running one war in particular for its own sake and long term plans.

I am glad that you work in a helping profession. You do that because your own basic needs are taken care of and it is a calling. I know. I tried it and loved it and will miss it always. Nothing like waking up and trying hard to make things better in real ways.

[bvar22]

79. This is preposterous.

"if we are open to the emerging giants, we can participate in the creation of their huge middle classes and get some business and wealth that way."

Geeez. Just look around!
The Emerging Giants are DESTROYING the Middle Class and by using their global economic power are ELIMINATING competition.
I guess you missed the Front Page. The Corporate Sales Brochure for Free Markets has proven to be as deceptive as the Sales Brochure for the Invasion of Iraq.

You should go read it now.

Central American Sequel to NAFTA a Hit with Execs,
a Bomb to Working Americans

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/04/28_cafta.htm

[applegrove]

85. By emerging giants I met the middle class that will emerge in places

like China, India (3 Billion there withing 40 years) and the middle classes that will erupt in Central America.

Also Africa. Would you like Africa to participate in world markets? Would you like the farmers there to be able to participate in something other than subsistence agriculture? That is what opening up markets will do.

How would it be if America closed its markets and refused to trade with everyone. Would it be nice? Christian?

Everyone is screaming to allow the African Nations to be able to participate in World Agriculture markets & others. In case you do not know, that does not mean agri-business per se. I could mean that you order your groundnuts, Cashews and fruit on-line by a coop in Africa that gives a good price. And you will get a cheaper price for the fruit than you pay now. And the people who got together and started to coop will have cash.

And South America? I don't know if you have noticed the 'fair trade' coffee available for sale everywhere in North America. We could do more of this. And the elites in the South American countries have been sitting on their kitty (in ways alot worse that the elite in USA has) for 200 years. Free trade will allow for a middle class & healthier economies in South America. For too long it has all been about elites controlling everything. Forcing the cabals to compete with the world market may allow for small farmers to do organic beef or some such thing. Because they could then sell their product at a premium directly to some North American broker.

In 40 years, the combined economies of India, China, Russia & Brazil will together be 10 times greater that the total economies of the West today. America either participates in that growth or not.

This does not mean you hand regulating power over to George Bush. We need to work internationally to make sure corporations have to answer to humans and not the other way around.

But won't it be nice that whatever food or product you buy today.. you can have a choice as to if it is corporate of if it is coop.

[rman]

59. Capitalists do want low or no taxes, they want monopolies

(as long as it's their monopoly).

You talk about govt regulated capitalism. The problem is that capitalism stimulates concentration of wealth and power - power that can be (and more often then not is - just look at lobbying) used to affect govt policy in favor of capitalism.

[durutti]

41. No doubt -- always and absolutely.

Fascism is the de facto form of governance for elites in times of social crisis. As capitalism advanced, crises grow longer and deeper. Ergo, fascism is ultimately the de facto form of capitalist governance.

Socialism or barbarism. Now more than ever...

[goodboy]

44. No, Republicans inevitably lead to Fascism.

[rman]

60. right, and republicans are not capitalist?

-

[tom_paine]

46. Not inevitably, but in Imperial Amerika it is now nearly 100% certain

However, I wouldn't condemn the institution because of a Few Bad Apples, so to speak.

But yes, it does appear Amerika is rapidly converting to Totalitarianism.

[chlamor]

47. Yes-The Evidence is in - Nominate

[Ron Green]

70. What a cool illustration! I've just put it up as my screen background.

[LSdemocrat]

51. Actually we don't have pure capitalism now . . . we have an oligarchy

Capitalism implies having something resembling a free market.

What we have today is a system that doles out multi-billion dollar subsidies and tons of legal loopholes to massive multinational corporations at the expense of everyone else.

[Kipepeo]

53. I don't think it's inevitable

but I think we are on that path.

Ideally Democracy would keep Corporatism in check, but that's not what is happening here. I think it has to do with the absence of a free press. When the media gets in bed with corporations I think democracy suffers. :shrug:

[GirlinContempt]

63. Yes.

Any government that is not truly in the hands of the true 'ruling' class, any economic system that is not determined by the people who build the economy, is doomed to one of the aforementioned 'isms'

[shockra]

64. Rather than choose between economic systems...

It would help to revolutionize the rules on what has economic value. I was reminded of a book called If Women Counted by Marilyn Waring that pointed out what is given value is mainly what is destructive to life and the planet, rather than life sustaining. For one example:

http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/women.htm

GNP IS GROSS

The world’s accounting system is all wrong, Waring revealed to audiences attracted by her insights, because “national accounting only recognizes currency changing hands.” Raising children, growing food, supporting partners, protecting the environment on which all depend—these and many related unpaid activities are accorded no value at all. The economists she talked to seemed to be coming from other planets, considering their profound ignorance of the one they were actually on.

“Is any activity that make the Gross National Product (GNP) of countries go up, considered good?” Waring asked.

“Absolutely,” replied academics poring over abstractions that had little to do with real lives. “Money paid for goods and services always adds to the economy,” they chanted.

“ But what about the Exxon Valdez oil spill that devastated Alaska wildlife and shorelines?” Waring wanted to know. Very profitable, she was told, with millions of cleanup and salvage dollars pumped into corporate coffers and the local economy.

http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/women.htm

What is considered valuable is slanted way in favor of "men's work," including making war and war machines. Life-sustaining work is not considered important to the economy, even though without it the official economy could not function. It is invisible and taken for granted. In 1993:

"The UN had just found that women do two-thirds of the world’s work, while receiving less than 5% of its income, and owning less than 1% of all assets. The United Nations further calculated that if women’s work were counted worldwide, their unpaid labor would be worth $11 trillion a year."

[Sherwood]

68. Absolutely not

The United States survived - and thrived - as an ideal capitalist state for almost 100 years. Capitalism does not lead to fascism, but government aiding business can. Government aid to business is overtly anti-capitalist, but we see it going on constantly today and ever since the Civil War. Eisenhower was right: the military-industrial complex is dangerous. Very dangerous.

[Itsthetruth]

72. No

Not anymore than a socialist economic system must lead to Stalinism.

[bvar22]

73. Americans THRIVING during "Dreamdays of Capitalism".

[Sherwood]

82. Before the Civil War, I said

Those are all probably from the early 1900s. Government started sustaining business with US Grant and the railroads. It's been downhill since then.

[bvar22]

83. You may have a valid point,

but Capitalism was an ENTIRELY different animal pre Industrial Revolution.

Markets and Capital were local and you could get shot for gouging, and
natural resources were plentiful and free for the taking if you killed off the Native Americans.

[idlisambar]

87. US has never been an "idealized capitalist state"

Since the days of Alexander Hamilton, the Government has always had a substantial role in sustaining business through varous means, for example lending tariff protection to US manufacturing. From 1816 on tariff rates on manufactured goods were typically well in excess of 30%. Until the income tax came into effect in the 1910's, tariffs were the primary source of government revenue.

[Zynx]

78. No so long as it is regulated.

Capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the others. ;-) Quite frankly, it, and its variations, is the best system we as humans have come up with. Communism and Western European Socialism don't work as economic systems. Eventually they have to change because they can't support the level of spending necessary for those programs.