 |
I don't think it is possible for a Fascist State to exist in the world today, not only because of the techno-informatic revolution in telecommunications but there's also globalization, especially in the economic arena, that has allowed us to put Fascism behind us. There can exist Fascist movements, but not States.
Of course fascism can exist. This partial exposition is from Wikipedia: "Fascists opposed what they believe to be laissez-faire or quasi-laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression.[27] People of many different political stripes blamed laissez-faire capitalism for the Great Depression, and fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism.[28] Their policies manifested as a radical extension of government control over the economy without wholesale expropriation of the means of production. Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic planning measures.[29] Fascist governments instituted state-regulated allocation of resources, especially in the financial and raw materials sectors.
"Other than nationalization of certain industries, private property was allowed, but property rights and private initiative were contingent upon service to the state."
Communists believe in state ownership of property, and fascists believe in private ownership, with government control. You may not recall Nixon's wage and price controls, around 1970, which were a monumental failure. The proposed universal health care in the US is nothing but fascism; Hugo Chavez is just a contemporary practitioner of fascism; one might argue that is what Putin is doing in Russia, as well.
One of the characteristics of a fascist society completely suppresses all civil society and creates a society with one voice; Culture is completely reduced to advertisements and propaganda, education is reduced to propaganda. For instance like Russia was under Stalin and Germany under Hitler. Today I hear many voices coming out of Russia as well as Venezuela. You can still have authoritarianism and despotic regimes with-out them being Fascist.
North Korea?
Dark, I believe you are making a semantical distinction; where has civil society ever been completely suppressed? Fascism is an principle of societal and governmental organization. Chavez is no less a fascist because the Catholic Church exists in Venezuela, just as the Polish Communist government was no less communist because of Catholics residing there. Realistically, we will never see a completely fascist government, completely communist government, or completely democratic government. Similarly, we will never see a completely free press in the US. My guess, concerning Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, as long as one was willing to kiss the ring, one could co-exist. It is when one denies authority that one invites serious trouble.
That is what philosophers do…make semantical distinctions in order to get closer to the truth. I'm simply attempting to make distinction between authoritarianism, despotic regimes and fascism.
That is the crisis in American Politics today... will America become a Fascist State?? Bush/Neo-Con/Christian Republio-Fascists versus the Democratic Liberal Movement... the Republicans continue working for a Corprorate/Government alliance spreading the "American Empire" all over the globe(under the guise of spreading democracy, how ironic!) so that our economic system can continue to expand and bring in corporate profits. Our economic system will succeed or fail depending on a few variables... a couple being the price and availability of oil, and continued rise in the stock market through Yuppie retirement, future resource wars, etc..
A fascist dictatorship is the best way for America to go according to quite a few...
It’s certainly one of the most authoritarian and secretive nations around on the verge of collapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Choux: "will America become a Fascist State??? Bush/Neo-Con/Christian Republio-Fascists versus the Democratic Liberal Movement....."
I would not want to be close by if you were handling dynamite.
Baathist Iraq was a fascist state .
It was only this week that the NY Slimes posted some telling comments by Evita about strong state regulation of the economy .Quote:
Bush/Neo-Con/Christian Republio-Fascists versus the Democratic Liberal Movement
Reflecting what her aides said were very different conditions today, Mrs. Clinton put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them. ... “If you go back and look at our history, we were most successful when we had that balance between an effective, vigorous government and a dynamic, appropriately regulated market,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And we have systematically diminished the role and the responsibility of our government, and we have watched our market become imbalanced.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us...HI2Cm3e95kkMMA
Of course her policies would be a failure and the ruin of the economy .That may be DC's real point... that even if a nation is fascists ,it cannot ultimately succeed . We know Venezuela will be an economic basket case before Chavez is finished. There are many Russians who are second guessing Putin's reforms as being inefficient . If they survive the polonium cocktail perhaps they will make a difference there .
Hello DC:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Oh, so THAT'S what you're doing. Dude! Now I understand why I don't understand you. You're a philosopher.
excon
Sad, but probably true.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Interesting that you offer the alleged "Bush/Neo-Con/Christian Republio-Fascists" vision but not the "Democratic Liberal Movement's" vision. I'm guessing that's because this "liberal" vision is more in line with fascism than your claim against the right. No, it isn't the right that's working for a "fascist" state, the "f-bomb" you release is nothing more than what Rich Lowry states:Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
The operational meaning of the word “fascism” for most liberals who invoke it is usually “shut up.” It’s meant to bludgeon conservatives into silence.
Take from this liberal's ideas to Make the USA Better for instance:
He's not done yet. Regulate the media, reverse privatization, re-regulate. On the Ecology, create taxes. On energy, create taxes. On taxes, create taxes. On travel, create taxes. So far, making the US "better" involves penalties for success, theft, oppression and censorship - all government sanctioned.Quote:
# Big Corporations that are out of control will lose personhood rights and be treated as the inhuman, soulless, potential dangerous things that they are. They will be taxed and regulated to protect and favor humans.
# privatized industries and resources will be evaluated and many will be de-privatized and reinstated as government owned-- owned by the people, not a handful of wealthy individuals, or worse, soul-less corporate holding companies.
# The Wealthy will pay taxes for the privilege of becoming or remaining wealthy in the US. They don't do it themselves. They do it because of the US's economy, resources, laws and government.
# Inheritance Taxes big-time increases on the wealthiest families only-- over X million dollars-- so most . The idea of "death taxes" is a lie. Birth is not a privilege. If your parents are rich, you'll benefit as a child. After they die, estates that are greater than 98% of other people's estates should be taxed at a very high rate. That will still leave descendants as millionaires, but not so powerful that they can corrupt democracy.
# Farming: Small farmers will be helped, with cooperation encouraged. Big farm combines and corporations will be at a tax disadvantage. Small businesses are the future. Big businesses are a danger to democracy, to humanity. They must be restrained and phased out, to be replaced by tamed versions-- small businesses that join together as cooperatives.
Who exactly would that be? What's funny (not really) is while so many on the left are publicly fretting over the "Bush dictatorship," they give true dictators a pass - like Saddam Hussein. In fact, it seems they're in love with some dictators, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Assad, Castro. Why is that? In fact, why do they love Che Guevara so much?Quote:
A fascist dictatorship is the best way for America to go according to quite a few...
That is true . To take it one step further ;HG Wells ,a progressive thinkers (socialists ) ,wanted 'liberal fascism'.Quote:
People of many different political stripes blamed laissez-faire capitalism for the Great Depression, and fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism.[
H.G. Wells's 'Liberal Fascism'
Philip Coupland
University of Warwick, UK
During the 1930s H.G. Wells's theory of revolutionary praxis centred around a concept of 'liberal fascism' whereby the Wellsian 'liberal' utopia would be achieved by an authoritarian élite. Taking inspiration from the militarized political movements of the 1930s, this marked a development in the Wellsian theory of revolution from the 'open conspiracy' of the 1920s. Although both communist and fascist movements evinced some of the desired qualities of a Wellsian vanguard, it was fascism rather than communism which came closest to Wells's ideal. However, in practice, despite the failure of approaches to parties of the left and centre as possible agents of revolution, Wells rejected the British Union of Fascists. The disparity between Wells's theory and his actions when faced by the reality of fascism echoes the unresolved tension between ends and means at the heart of the concept of 'liberal fascism'. http://jch.sagepub.com/icons/spacer.gifH.G. Wells's 'Liberal Fascism' -- Coupland 35 (4): 541 -- Journal of Contemporary History
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0094(200010)35%3A4%3C541%3AHGW'F%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O
We need an intellectual historian to weigh in: I wonder where FDR's mind was in all of this? And Eleanor's as well?
George ; a good read I suspect on this subject was recently penned by Jonah Goldberg
Amazon.com: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning: Books: Jonah Goldberg
Choux, given that a person knows what freedom is, most will choose it over Fascism every time. Globealism has reached the point where entire bodies of people cannot be held in ignorance of freedom by a government any longer. We can still have authoritarianism and despotic regimes; we can still have Fascist movements, but not a Fascist government.
You don't have enough bread crumbs to get home.
Hello DC Philosopher:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Maybe you should stick with beach combing, cause as a philosopher, you suck.
I suggest to you that most people can't handle freedom. They WANT some authority to tell them what to do. As an example, we live in a free country, yet most of our citizens need a strong church to tell them what to do. If there wasn't a church, they'd probably want a STRONG government.
Nope. I think it's a very rare individual who chooses freedom. I happen to be one of 'em.
excon
I have found that I am more comfortable within a group who attend church than those who don't. I also have elected to live within a community that has a fire department and police department, municipal water, sewerage, and trash pickup. We also have zoning. There are those who are willing to give up some liberty to have order. So I don't define freedom as living in the country, having a house fire, calling the volunteer fire department, and we all gather around and watch it burn to the ground. Where we agree, I hope, is in our desire for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:01 AM. |