Fascism, Defined

Next: Democrats lock Republicans out of committee room

Author

Message

xavierx

Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:12 pm Post subject: Fascism, Defined

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/10/fascism-defined.html

Very thought provoking post at the source above.

CowpokeBob

Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501

Location: South Carolina, USA

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:00 am Post subject:

I don't know ho well it works as a definition of Fascism but it sure has Obama pegged right.

Gezzer

Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666

Location: Buckinghamshire England

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:59 am Post subject:

Quote:

fas·cism (fshzm) n.

1. often Fascism

a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]
fas·cistic (f-shstk) adj.

Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, "bundle, (political) group," but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

the US have none of the above, not even close
also you have had, will have, elections which decides who governs …

xavierx

Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:02 pm Post subject:

Another definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

Quote:

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Obama's regime qualifies under everything in #1 except being a dictator.

A more interesting definition:
Fascism, from the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics

Quote:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. ...

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
...
...Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.”...

We have government control of banks, dictating wages and who gets a loan. We have the government control of car companies, dictating what gets built and wages. We have the government attempting to dictate what health insurance we are allowed to buy, and telling us that we must buy it. And when banks tried to pay out bonuses that were under contract prior to the bailouts, Democrats wanted to tax the bonuses at 100%.

We are so there already. And no election will bring us back, as no politician gives up power once he already has it, no matter what he promised. Just look at all the promises of transparency, fairness, and ethics that the Democrats rode in on 3 years ago - they've broken every single promise they made. Or look at the promises Republicans made back in the 1990's, which didn't last long either.

Gezzer

Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666

Location: Buckinghamshire England

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:23 pm Post subject:

Govt.control of banks is the fault of the banks Govt. never ever had any intentions of/for control of the banks or the banking system the failure of the banks is the infrastructure failing of the banking system not the Govt's whom are picking up the pieces via the taxpayer … here we go again …

xavierx

Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:25 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Gezzer wrote:

Govt.control of banks is the fault of the banks
Govt. never ever had any intentions of/for control of the banks or the banking system

the failure of the banks is the infrastructure failing of the banking system
not the Govt's whom are picking up the pieces via the taxpayer …

here we go again …

No, we've already proved that government control of the banks started with both parties in Congress.

You're right, though, here we go again ...
Wink

Gezzer

Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666

Location: Buckinghamshire England

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:32 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

xavierx wrote:

Gezzer wrote:

No, we've already proved that government control of the banks started with both parties in Congress.

You're right, though, here we go again ...
Wink

we have proved nothing other then the failure of the banking system …

here we go again …

CowpokeBob

Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501

Location: South Carolina, USA

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:20 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

CowpokeBob wrote:

I don't know ho well it works as a definition of Fascism but it sure has Obama pegged right.

Quote:

1. often Fascism
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

Gezzer wrote:

the US have none of the above, not even close
also you have had, will have, elections which decides who governs …

We do not have a Fascist system in this country...yet. My comment above however was about how the definition fit Obama's apparent philosophy based on his actions and stated intents. Not on our current system of government. And even your definition fits quite nicely with my comment. As for elections, they, in and of themselves prove nothing as both Iran and Afghanistan have proven. Xavierx's second definition is an interesting one and seems to fit the agenda better.The feeling I have is that we are on a march toward something more akin to Socialism than Fascism though neither is a really good fit as there are qualities of both found in Obama's agenda. What is clear to me is that Obama's agenda does not favor Capitalism. Practically an institution in this country.

Gezzer wrote:

I'll grant you certain banks made their own mess and as far as I'm concerned should have been allowed to go under as a result but you've lost me with your statement about the banks vs the government. First off the banking infrastructure as a whole did not fail. Yes several very large banks either did fail or would have failed without aid but that is not the entire banking sector by a long shot. There was also a failure of government to exercise it's regulatory authority that led to the situation that caused the failures. It is not the fault of the banks that the government took control of them any more than it was GM's fault that the government took control of them. That may be something that happens routinely in other countries but in this country such a thing is a last resort, not the first option. There were and still are numerous options that could have been taken to keep those banks from failing other than buying a controlling interest in them with taxpayer monies. One of them being buying up the so called "toxic assets" that are still out there because Obama and company decided to change the way the bailout was going to be implemented. Lastly a very compelling case can be made that there was a very conscious and intentional decision made on behalf of the government at the time to abandon the original plan and to take control of the banks rather than simply give them the financial assistance needed to prop them up to get through the immediate crises. I won't make that case again here as we have discussed it at length before in other threads and opinions are pretty intractable at this point anyway. Just thought I would point it out.

bern

Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 1432

Location: ann arbor

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:11 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Gezzer wrote:

Why did the banks fail? Because of all their "toxic assets". What are the toxic assets? Mostly bad loans to unqualified homeowners. Why were thest bad loans made? Because of long standing government policy to "encourage" such loans, starting in 1937 with establishment of Fannie Mae, and subsequently Freddie Mac. In the 90s Further government policies forced mortgage lenders to lend to ever poorer risk potential home owners. As the pool of bad debt mounted, some of it was sold as "investments" which also eventually collapsed.

The bottom line: the government started the whole mess by attempting to subvert the market to push political agendas. Banks too easily fell into line because it seemed profitable.

Now the same government that started the whole mess thinks it can clean it up by taking over affected industries.

I am laughing sardonically... Crying or Very sad

Display posts from previous: