 |
On the one-hand, we have windbags screeching out warnings that America is destined to become Fascist!
On the other-hand, there are phrasemongers belching warnings about the inherent evils of a Socialist America.
But where do these profits of doom draw their arguments from… sewers and drainpipes no less.
My question is…what are the respective essentials that would have to change in order for these prophecies to become true?
Hello DC:
Too big a question for a simple guy like me... But, I'll give it a try.
First off - tyranny from the right or the left doesn't feel any different. Second - you ask what has to change to have these dire prophesies come true.
NOTHING!! They appear to be coming true, right smack in front of my eyes.
excon
DC,
In order for this country to become a fascist or socialist tyranny, only two things are required:
1) A complacent society that allows their rights to be abrogated for the "benefit of the nation" as defined by whoever is in power.
2) Elimination of our right to bear arms.
That's why the 2nd Amendment is an essential right to guarantee our continued freedom and to hold off tyranny from either side of the political/ideological spectrum. The people MUST be allowed to arm themselves in order to throw off tyranny when it rears its head. Only through the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms, can the rest of our constitutional rights be protected from a fascist or socialist government that tries to take them from us. And only by having a society that is willing to fight against tyranny it when it is happening and armed to do so can it be prevented from taking our rights.
As often as excon and I disagree, we always agree on one point: the right to bear arms, for this very reason. He and I disagree over where the danger of tyranny is coming from. I see it coming from the left and he sees it coming (mostly) from the right. But although we disagree on most points of political ideology, we agree that an apathetic citizenry is dangerous, and that an unarmed citizenry is helpless. And we agree that these are the two key ingredients necessary for tyranny to rise in the USA.
Elliot
I tried to make the question as clear as possible, but apparently failed. So I’ll rephrase:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
What element of Fascism would have to occur before the American government could be accurately described as Fascist?
What element of Socialism would have to occur before the American government could be accurately described as Socialist?
Hello again, DC:
Like I said, it was too big a question for me. But, I'll try again...
The main element would be the president violating the Constitution by breaking federal law. This president has done that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
It's hard to quantify where, along the continuum between democracy and fascism, we happen to be, simply because some elements of fascism have been implemented. So, I don't think we're fascist. I think we're on the road to becoming that way.
For starters, implementation of the New Deal. However, we're not headed down the road toward socialism, and I don't hear any phrasemongers. It's going the other way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
excon
The change in your question doesn't change my answer.
The elements of fascism necessary for the USA to become fascist would be the elimination of our right to bear arms and a complacent society that allows fascism to take over. At that point we become a fascist state.
The elements of socialism necessary for the USA to become socialist would be the elimination of our right to bear arms and a complacent society that allows socialism to take over. At that point we become a socialist state.
The only difference between the two is which party will be in power when it occurs.
Put another way, the political spectrum is a circle. The two furthest points on the circle are also the two closest points. Fascism and socialism are opposites in terms of political philosophy, but exactly the same in practice. There is no significant difference to the citizenry between a fascist tyranny and a socialist tyranny. From my point of view, there was no significant difference between the tyranny of Hitler, who killed millions of people in the most brutal manner possible, and the tyranny of Stalin, who killed millions of people in the most brutal manner possible. They were opposites in terms of politics, but exactly the same in practie.
So the question really is not what ingredient is necessary for a fascist tyranny to come about in the USA or what ingredient is necessary for a socialist tyranny to come about in the USA. The real question is what ingredient is necessary for TYRANNY to come about in he USA. And for that, my answer remains the same.
Elliot
Ok, here’s what I think, and correct me if I’m wrong:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
One essential of Socialism: Socialism is an authoritarian association: that is, each individual is assigned a position with-in the Association and the positions held by the individual best fitted to hold it—always provided that they are not required for more important work elsewhere. Socialism knows no freedom of choice in occupation; everyone does what they are told to do and to go where they are sent.
So here it is, so long as Americans are free to choose what occupation they pursue, America cannot be accurately called a Socialist country.
So there is one part, care to try the other?
Hello again:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
I don't think America is a socialist country, but we're not as free to choose as you think. Maybe white males eminating from the upper classes have a choice, but most people don't.
Actually, if we WE'RE socialist, higher education would be available to ALL, and one COULD choose ANY occupation.
Sure. Hit me with your best shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
excon
The right to bear arms is not what allows us the freedoms we have, that is pure nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Excon, all the schooling in the world cannot make somebody with significant learning difficulties in carrying out usual social functions, into a Surgeon.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Of course people are limited in what job they can reasonably seek. But that is far different than having the government determine whether you manage a plant, or become a musician.
Hello again, DC:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
I didn't say socialism works. It doesn't. You pointed out why. That doesn't stop dedicated socialists from trying to make it that way here. Besides, you asked about elements - not whether they worked.
Am I to assume that you think fascism works?
excon
Hello again, DC:
Pssst. Want to know why neither of them would work here? It's cause we've got guns.
excon
PS> I know you think it's because we're civilized or something... But, I think it's because we're well armed.
I was not aware that the following, was one of the basic tenets of Socialism, as expressed by Dark Crow: "Socialism knows no freedom of choice in occupation; everyone does what they are told to do and to go where they are sent." The definition of that term in Wikipedia does not seem to mention that. It does say that property, means of production, and the distribution of wealth will be controlled by society (government).
We have all seen ever increasing abuse of personal property rights by government bodies, through the power of eminent domain, and restrictive building laws in Northern CA and other locations to preserve open spaces for the rich and famous, to name a few.
This country is a representative Democracy. I reference a controversial book: The Bell Curve by Hernstein & Murray. If we accept the fact that higher IQ people are a distinct minority, and the fact that the Bill Gates' breed at a slower rate than those less endowed, their minority status will grow. The have-nots by the sheer weight of their votes will elect representatives who will insure that Bill Gates does not keep too much of his wealth "plundered" from the proletariat.
You might consider the fact that we regularly, peacefully, change the government…at election times. Only the constitution and its counterpart have overlapping power.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I know England has been called Fascist, but are they really. How about Australia…is that a Fascist Government?
Only when the phrasemongers completely distort the meaning, can these countries be accurately called Fascist.
Are their citizens guaranteed the right to bear arms?
Hello again, DC:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
I don't think there IS a fascist government today. We're certainly not. You can't bear arms in England. I doubt if you can in Australia (but I dunno).
Yes, I've considered the peaceful means in which we operate. But, I'm talking about those times when it ISN'T peaceful. You assume that we don't have those times. I've been around when we did.
Ok, I suppose I should spell out what I’m talking about. Let’s take the scenario through its paces and speculate. I don’t know how the Wolverine sees it.
Ok, we’ve got a government trying to implement very unpopular policies whether they’re fascist or socialist. The populace rebels. Riots break out. The president declares marshal law and calls out the National Guard.
The question I have for you is twofold: 1) will the Guard fire on armed Americans? 2) Will the armed Americans BE the Guard.
excon
Our ability to defend our rights is what allows us the freedoms we have. In EVERY SOCIETY throughout all of history where the right to bear arms was taken away, repression has ALWAYS followed. There has NEVER been an exception to this rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
The most recent example I can give is Germany. In Germany, which until the 1930s was one of the freest countries in history, the first of Hitler's Nuremberg laws was the elimination of the right to bear arms. From that point on, the fall into tyranny was a forgone conclusion.
In China, where anybody was able to carry a sword or knife, Japan's first rule upon conquering Japan was that only Samurai were allowed to be armed. The result was terrible repression of China by Japan. (Ditto for Japan's conquest of Okinawa.)
In our own history, here in the USA, the Founding Fathers understood this fact of history to be true. They had lived through the attempt by Britain to disarm US citizens in order to maintain control of the Colonies. That is why the Constitution included the right to bear arms. The exact wording in the Constitution is:
What that means is that "Since the government must have an army in order to secure the nation, and since it is possible that the army might be used to suppress the people, the people must have the ability to defend themselves against the army and the govenment."Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Where, exactly, do you believe that the freedoms we have come from? What keeps the government from taking them away from us? What keeps other people from taking them away from us? And if the government DID try to take them away from you by using the military to suppress the people, what would you do about it?
The one area where I agree with libertarianism is that the only rights we have as a society are the ones we are willing to defend --- by force of arms --- if necessary. The inability and unwillingness to do so is what causes totalitarianism. Hitler was voted into power, but he maintained that power through force of arms, and by making sure nobody had the ability to overthow him. He took away the guns, and the people were helpless to stop him.
Elliot
I was in Watts, and at Kent. So yes, I’ve witnessed some rebellion. But in neither case was anyone attempting to replace the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
“The question I have for you is twofold: 1) will the Guard fire on armed Americans? 2) Will the armed Americans BE the Guard.”
1) I just gave two examples, 2) no
Look …this is nonsense that an armed populace deters America from a violent over-through of government. Note the civil war.
Hello…England and Australia.. That is why I gave them as an exampleQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
On the other hand, look at the Revolutionary War. Armed citizens overthrew a tyranical British government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Look at the Pre-State of Israel Irgun, Haganah and Lehi. They were groups of armed citizens that overthrew a tyranical (from their perspetive) British government, which in turn led to the UN granting them statehood.
Look at the Macabees overthrow of Ancient Greece (the Channuhah story).
Look at any tyranical government in history that has been overthrown by rebellion of an armed population. There are hundreds of cases throughout history of well armed civilian populations overthrowing tyranical governments, both of invader regimes and of the "legaly established" governments.
A well armed population may not be able to PREVENT a government from being overthrown. But they CAN OVERTHROW ONE THEMSELVES if they have to. And that is the point of the 2nd Amendment... to give them that ability. Think of it as another check-and-balance over the government: this time, instead of one branch have a check and balance over another branch, the 2nd Amendment serves as the civilian populations check and balance over the government as a whole.
Elliot
Crow as you know I put little distinction between the socialist philosophies. Fascism is just national socialism .
I'd argue we've had creeping socialism since the beginning of the last century .See 16th amendment which started as a tax on 1% of incomes above $3000 .Now we fell half the rain forest just to publish the tax code.). After a while the gvt. Did not trust the worker to cut a check themselves so they initiated the automatic withholding so workers would be deceived about how much taxes they actually pay . That was a WWII initiative that was supposed to end once the war was over . Well that worked out just fine.
How would we continue this drift ? I think we willingly let the nation pick our pockets and as more people surrender to the nanny -state our liberties erode. The big difference from other examples in history is that at least Hitler and Stalin spelled out their intentions. Our example allows the government to incrementally impose socialism on us and make it sound like they are doing us a favor.
The best example of this may be social security . Back when it was passed the workers had to "contribute " no more than 3% to a max of $3000. Now it is over 12% of income maxed out at incomes up to $90,000 ;and the talk is that unless the cap is lifted;the percentage raised;and the pay back tied to means ,then it will not be solvent by the time I retire. That is the legacy of that "entitlement"
The next big assault on us will be nationalized health care. The gvt. Has gotten some of the states to act as surrogates in this effort. States like Maryland and others compel employers to provide medical insurance for employees of large companies. Eventually these companies complain to the national gvt. That their competitive position is weakened by these polices and petition for relief . That is when the Congress will and have begun to legislate a gvt. Controlled health system into law. As the saying goes we are all "entitled " to decent health care . Who better than the gvt . To provide it.
Lastly ,as was well evident in the Chicago debate of the Democrats there will be a serious attempt to plunder the profit from successful industries with their rationalization being pure Robin Hood/Karl Marx wealth redistribution. The problem of course is that you and I know that the needy will never see a dime of it.
The problem the way I see it is that we are drifting towards socialism because the majority of Americans wish it . They won't say it that way ;they say they are "entitled " to the care that government can provide. Then they belly ache when the government proves less than efficient at delivering .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:05 AM. |