Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I can't believe it's not fascism

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bdf Donating Member (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-08 04:47 PM
Original message
I can't believe it's not fascism
The US economy is collapsing and it looks like at least a trillion dollars will be spent in bailouts of companies that essentially put all their money on a three-legged horse and are now crying their eyes out until the gov't reimburses them.

Is action necessary? Yes.

Should those responsible be held accountable and the rescued companies be obligated to return taxpayer money eventually? In an ideal world, yes. But if in the real world it's a choice of punish the guilty or head off a recession then there's only one choice. Whatever the situation, the priority has to be to fend off economic collapse.

Is the plan on the table the best way to go about it? I'm no economist and can't say. Krugman has been right about most things and he agrees with it; other economists say it's madness.

Is the bail-out socialism (a welfare state) for the ultra-rich? You could call it that, although socialism is not a synonym for communism. Or you could call it fascism (which would be correct). Or you could call it communism (which would also be correct).

Dr Lawrence Britt came up with 14 definining characteristics of fascism by comparing various fascist regimes. But if you study it you'll realize that most of the 14 characteristics are common to tyrannical dictatorships of any flavour throughout history. On the surface, only two of those 14 characteristics appear to distinguish fascism from communism. But upon closer inspection there is no difference.

Point 8, the use of religion, appears to distinguish fascism from communism. "Those godless commies" has been a common refrain for a century. And we know that Wehrmacht soldiers in WWII had belt buckles which said Gott mit uns (God is with us). Case closed, right? Wrong. Hitler (and Dubya) both represented themselves as speaking for God, but Lenin, Stalin and Mao were essentially regarded as Gods. The words of Lenin, Stalin and Mao were treated with the same sort of reverence as religious texts and their authority was unquestionable—they spoke ex cathedra.

Point 9, corporate power being protected, appears to distinguish fascism from communism. After all, as the quote has it, Benito Mussolini stated that "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Depending upon which source you look at, either Mussolini originated that, or he stole it, or he never said it. It doesn't really matter. In communism the state "controlled the means of production" (the government ran the big corporations) and in fascism the big corporations were effectively in charge of the government. In either case it is (as Mussolini may or may not have said) the merger of state and corporate power.

The only real difference between communism and fascism is the fairy tale used to justify a tyrranical dictatorship to the populace. Both appeal to the working classes (who are more numerous and therefore the determining factor in an election) in different ways. You may think, if you only know of the Mussolini quote/not-quote, that fascism made it's appeal to the rich—the full name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers Party; the Republicans continue to convince the gullible that "a rising tide floats all ships." In reality the people who control, and benefit from, fascism/communism are neither the heads of state or the heads of corporations but the international bankers.

Prescott Bush, Dubya's grandfather, supported Hitler in WWII and worked with Hitler's industrialists even after the US entered WWII. In his defence he might have argued that the Constitution defined treason as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" and he wasn't giving it, he was selling it. Congress cut off that line of defence by passing the "Trading with the Enemy" act. Prescott carried on regardless. Gov't investigators found out about Prescott's German operations and shut them down (but didn't say anything until after the war was over for fear of damaging morale). But the gov't didn't find all of Prescott's German operations, and he continued to run those that hadn't been discovered. Prescott had earlier tried to arrange a fascist coup to unseat FDR by using military force.

So if you're thinking of this current bail-out plan as socialist, it's not. It's the culmination of Dubya's grandfather's fascist dream. Which you can call a communist dream if you wish, because the two are basically identical in all that counts (which is who gets rich by it). If you don't see this, it probably still strikes you as odd that the arch-neocons such as Wolfowitz started out as devout communists and apparently changed their spots by becoming fascists. Same spots, different label.

Why have I written all this? Because the bail-out plan, as currently drafted, tells me we're all fucked if it's adopted. It gives the treasury secretary the power to give money to any damned company he wants at his discretion. That removes the power of the purse from Congress, which constitutionally is a no-no. The treasury secretary's decisions in this regard are not subject to judicial review. That actually is constitutional because Congress is permitted to put specific legislation beyond judicial review. I don't know if that has ever happened before but that clause of the Constitution should never have been put in. However, the same draft bail-out plan also puts the treasury secretary's actions beyond Congressional review. That's definitely unconstitutional because one of the key obligations of Congress is oversight of the executive branch.

If this draft bill goes ahead, Congress will have (unconstitutionally) signed over most of its powers to the executive branch. It's already signed away a lot of them by refusing to impeach and ignoring presidential "signing statements" stating simply that Bush refuses to comply with legislation. But this one will be the final straw. The "power of the purse" is the last piece of constitutional power that Congress retains over the Executive. Once this is passed then the Treasury Sec can spend any amount of money the President wants on any damned thing the President wants (really, it's that broad).

Wake up and smell the jackboots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-08 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Didn't Krugman come out against it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-08 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. It is rather humerous to hear all the pundits questioning whether this is socialism.
It may be socialism for the beneficiaries of the bail-out, but for the majority of us, it's fascism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Socialism takes many forms
There is no single definition. With the government taking over private firms, this is clearly one form of socialism. It doesn't necessarily follow (although in some cases it does)that it will result in the government distributing goods or services to the people. That's another form of socialism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-08 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. democracy is a rare thing
Most of the time societies oscillate between the monarchical form of government where power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual and the oligarchical form where the power is shared among a powerful elite.

Democracy exists mainly as a transitional form immediately following a revolution, or in immature societies where resources are still plentiful and competition has not reached the maximum (early Greece, early Rome, the US), or where conditions are harsh and population density limited by the environment (Iceland, Switzerland).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftrightwingnut Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-08 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yes, it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC