Uh oh....The F-Bomb is starting to circulate
No, not that one. This one : Fascism.
I know, I know... It's a bad, bad word to throw out there in serious discussion and a word that will surly get taken to mean something other than intended when talking about it in an economic context.
But the soberly truthful bottom line of it all is that fascism does indeed mean more than just the derogatory imagery of Hitler and Mussolini involving nationalism, hand salutes, a police state and concentration camps. It means much, much more.
And while Henderson brought up in blog form in the link above, the word did go through my mind when I read what Obama and Co. where doing with the Auto Bailouts. Why? Because on the economic policy front this what real fascism is:
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...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.
Yes. IOW, businesses worked for themselves in manner speaking...but only at the behest of and with the grace of government dictate. It was your company but you do as you're told if ordered to. And the bigger your company, the more the line between public and private was blurred.
People often forget that real honest to goodness fascism is a form of socialism built on the idea that government could and should manage industry in cooperation with businesses for the national interest. The ideology is rooted in populism and nationalistic fervor to control the nation....and everything about it...for the people's interest...which was the same as the people.
The beloved VW Beetle was a fascist creation, for example. Yes, it was developed by Herr Ferdinand Porsche but it was also given the go-ahead by Hitler who awarded him the government contract to build his vision of a "People's Car" (Volkswagen). Porsche's connection with the upper reaches of the Nazi Party paid dividends when he got the exclusive right to build the VW over other captains of industry vying for the lucrative deal.
So yes, Porsche owned his company but he wasn't free to do what he wanted if Der Furher had other ideas. Free competition was forbidden.
Looking at Obama taking charge of the inner workings of Auto Industry...it's hard to escape the thoughts of economic fascism in its primordial stages.
No, I don't think Obama is a fascist. But I do think these actions have fascist undertones whether he realizes it or not. I truly hope he is aware of the precedent he is setting and proceeds with extreme care and caution. Well-intended or not, this is dangerous territory.
- John's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Dead on correct.
Obama is clearly headed in this direction and for things that cover a huge proportion of the economic sector: Financial Institutions, the US auto industry, the US Health-care industry. What's next?
Not long ago I likened some prominent Democrats to Marxists
. The response was that they were only talking about temporarily nationalizing the corporations. The result would, of course, be a far greater degree of control over the corporations once they were "privatized" again. Obama seems to be taking a different tack at getting to this same destination. Either way it amounts to fascism as this piece highlights.
Democrats = Marxists?
Democrats = Fascists?
Who cares? Either way it is bad for the country.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wow, I'm actually surprised?
I decided to dig into the fascism angle a bit more so I went to Google News and here is what I found
. The number of legitimate news articles discussing the possible link between Obama and fascism, Hitler was a fascist BTW, is truly astounding. Look at all those articles. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4There's also already articles...
...about Obama Derangement Syndrome
(although David Horowitz, the author of this hyper-partisan screed, unconsciously displays many of the symptoms thereof).
I like how you snuck that "Hitler was a fascist BTW" in there with such stealth and subtlety :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Yea, I was trying for subliminal!
:)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I like the Horowitz piece.
It puts the current situation into clear perspective. If I was trying to actually be "reasonable" I would be saying pretty much the same thing. The problem is that I am not trying to be "reasonable" but rather I am emulating the behavior of my liberal counterparts. This is what Horowitz has observed (well, not me personally, of course).
The problem with his piece is that he seems to actually believe that our political rhetoric is a true an accurate reflection of what we actually think. In my case it is not. I am merely copying the behavior of the leftist morons that kept mindlesly attacking Bush. My attitude? Fine, two can play at that game. So I am spewing mindless attacks at Obama just for the fun of it. The more moronic and outrageous the better IMHO, just to illustrate how stupid, or more likely disengenuous, my counterparts were being with Bush.
So while I am no doubt an example of the people he is talking about, I think he fails to understand our motivations.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Looking at Obama taking
Were you saying the same thing when the government began taking charge of the inner workings of AIG under Bush?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
yes
...
yes...
freedomdemocrats.org/node/3080
Another word that I'm glad to start hearing....bankrupcy.
As in governmental receivership of zombie corporations. Just like the FDIC is supposed to.
When Obama said that bankrupcy wasn't off the table for GM & Chrysler, I don't think he was speaking for the benefit of the auto companies. I think he was speaking for the benefit of the banks.
Fascism is the opposite of socialism
Fascism is marked by business co-opting government, not vice versa.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
totally backwards
...
Besides, and more importantly, how do you sit there and say they are opposites when they are clearly...practically by definition...related?
Fascism (including Nazism) are forms of socialism.
What does Nazi stand for again? I think the word "socialist" appears in there.
Not true
The National Socialists were no more socialists than the Deutschland Democratic Republic (communist East Germany) really was a democratic republic. Calling a party something does not actually make it that thing.
Various companies rushed to invest with the nazis. You'd have us believe that IBM was trying hard to get into germany so it could be put under a socialist yoke?
Pull the other one.
Again- fascism is the opposite of socialism. It is characterized by corporate control of the state, not vice versa. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were run for the benefit of corporations rather than for the people. A lot of companies made serious money off of the slave labor.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Reiterating your flawed defintion does not make it so.
Corporatism, which is what you are describing, is certainly one of many conditions that can occur.
No but...
incorporating socialism into the party's platform does. Nazism in this respect was a form of socialism...regardless of the name.
I don't know anything about IBM in Germany at the time but you seem to missing the point even if that is true. Being a captain of industry in the favor of the Nazi party was good for business...just ask Herr Porsche. It meant favors and stability. Sure, you had to answer to Hitler and his cronies but you knew were gonna make money...as long as you did what he said.
BS. Again. Just like before. Prove it. Your conceptuaization of it goes against every even somewhat credible history source and definition of fascism known to man.
Whoever they were run for the benefit of...by design...is debatable. But they were populist movements that sought to control EVERYTHING for the national interest. That much we can say for sure. And again, whether certain favored captiains of industry made out in the deal is irrelevant. It was all done by government in a command and control fashion. And they made money because the government granted them lucrative deals to do what the government asked for.
As for the slave labor part, I can't say. I know that wage and price controls and heavy redistribution in many, many projects was the norm. You make the call.
No, it really just wasn't.
Business thrived under nazism because the state was very biased towards the various major companies in Germany (and foreign companies that wanted to do business with them). That is just not the case with socialism, no matter how hard you try to ignore the matter. The idea of fascism being on the left is pure revisionist history by the right. Fascism is a function of the right, completely and absolutely, just as communism is a function of the left. Fascisim is about the state and companies colluding. That's as far from socialism as you can get.
I'm the only one so far to offer any supporting evidence. Where's your proof, John?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Mussolini said Fascism could be of the right or left...
I would consider him more of an authority on the subject than you...sorry
And people often forget that Benito
was a devout Marxist who had a falling out with the socialist party over matters of war and peace and national indentity and its importance. Benito grew frustrated with those aspects of what he called "international socialism". He believed in the collectivist mindset but thought it needed to be channeled into a NATIONAL puropose.
When looking at his economic policies, it's clear that his marxist roots didn't whither away on that front. Instead he morphed them into his new philosophy called fascism.
That's not evidence
That's not entirely accurate nor even relevant even if it were true.
In saying this, you show where the disconnect is on this matter. You seem to think this idea negates the point being put forth but it doesn't.
Fascism is a form of socialism in that the state controls capital and has the final say on its use. As the quote in my diary says, total state ownership is often implicit instead of explicit like in regular socialism. The property rights involved are paper thin and simply give a capitalistic veneer to something which is a form of socialism in practice.
Practically everything was state-owned or run indirectly through state organized and enforced cartels of management and labor boards. Central planning was at its heart. And to try and make it sound plausible that Hitler or Mussolini wer puppets of corporations rather than something closer to the opposite is absurd. Go read about it.
It's not revisionist. And quite frankly, it's far too obvious and easy to research for me to sit here and debate with you. Go look for yourself.
If you really understood what the economics of fascism were all about and acknowledged its similarities to regular socialism, you wouldn't be so strident about it.
Nationalist Socialist is a good description (left/right/other)
First, there is no reason to expect early 20th century European politics to fall anywhere on a "left-right" spectrum defined by our conteporary American experience.
With that being said, I think the Nazis earned their "socialist" badge; they addressed many of the concerns of the socialists. They reigned in (dismantled) the free market, putting it under "rational" control. They also leveled much of the heirarchy that existed in pre-Nazi German society. The book "They thought they were free", demonstrates that many Germans reveled in the relative egalitarianism of the new regime. One one hand, there was an expansion of mass consumption (raising the living standards of the poorest Germans), and on the other, the Nazi leadership was composed of "little-men" (i.e. non-aristocrats). While there was plenty of nepotism within the Nazi system, it still may have been more meritocratic and less class-conscious than the old Germany.
Examination of the Nazi's left-right credentials illustrates how superficial those concepts are. It's ridiculous that people spend so much effort trying to pin one of those labels on the Nazis. Even here, we see three groups:
1) Aristocrats: rigid inherited class structure and authority
2) Business: can be coopted into the aristocratic structure, but more naturally emphasizes markets, entrepreneuership, and meritocracy.
3) Little people: want to have a place in society and economic security.
I think that the first and third groups most clearly represent the "right" and "left"--but I also think that they make more natural allies with each other than with the second group (especially in early 20th century Europe, with romantic feudal attitudes). Likewise, the first and second groups can make an alliance, by which the businesspeople are basically invited into the nobility. In German politics, the Nazis were primarily based in the first two groups, but they did a good job of bringing the third group into the system.
The Nazis had their own internal right/left split, and "counter-revolution". In the early days, the SA
(stormtroopers) had substantial influence. This was basically a bunch of working-class street fighters, but it was decapitated in the Night of the Long Knives (July 1934).
FWIW, I think that Stalin marked a strong move to the "right" within the Soviet Union. He emphasized nationalism over internationalism, and a strong leader over democracy.
In the end, I think you can look at right/left in a few ways:
1) Interest groups (or class interests)
2) attitudes that are widely dispersed in a culture
3) attitudes that are distinct to subcultures
The idea of linking fascism with the right or left can only make sense from the third perspective (class structure varies between societies and decades; and widely dispersed attitudes can gain strength in any movement) -- but it would be foolish because there is no sharp cultural divide between the right and left. The Republican and Democratic elite have much more in common with each other than they do with their respective constituencies.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Bats and Birds, Heroin and Morphine
Socialism is more state partially controls industry for the greater good of the people.
Fascist "Socialism" people are work for the betterment of the state.
Influence of the state is the flight of both bats and birds....doesn't mean bats are birds, they both just fly.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Well, as an aside Brutus
Regardless of whose greater good socialism or fascism claim to working for, in the end the living proof we have of both is that it all ends up being for the betterment of the state....with the veneer of "for the people" smeared over it.
fascist economics was explicitly political
One of the fundamental aspects of fascist economic organization is that economics was explicitly political: economic power was granted to regime loyalists. I see no indication that Obama or Bush were attempting to establish that relationship when they got involved in the finance or auto industries. I suspect that such an arrangement could not be established in a state with regular rotation of officials (via elections and term limits)
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
No. Not at all.
It keeps appearing that you've done very little reading, if any, about varying forms of economics.
See above. -nt.
-
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I would tend to say something snarky, like...
..."come back and see me when Obama is trying to exert state control over the inner workings of HEALTHY industries." Until and unless that happens, I sense no real sea change over the (arguably) tried-and-true policy of bailing out sick companies and industries that goes back thru a couple rounds of airline bailouts, the Chrysler bailout, the S&L/RTC mess, LTCM, and more recently AIG, etc. All these bailouts involved some greater or lesser extent of government intervention. This crisis is more severe than past crises so the interventions are more numerous and more involved than many in the past. But that's really all it is, I think...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
"But that's really all it is, I think..."
I hope.
It's a bad precedent.
This is
what I find most horrifying.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/30/pension...
WASHINGTON - Just months before the start of last year's stock market collapse, the federal agency that insures the retirement funds of 44 million Americans departed from its conservative investment strategy and decided to put much of its $64 billion insurance fund into stocks.
Switching from a heavy reliance on bonds, the Pension BenefitGuaranty Corporation decided to pour billions of dollars into speculative investments such as stocks in emerging foreign markets, real estate, and private equity funds.
Our nation put too much of it's wealth into speculative investments. I don't think we have seen the end of it yet.
Remember every time a company goes bankrupt, which the free marketeers, say is the grandest plan of all, the pensions contracts that are broken, are then funded by the tax payer. When a worker loses his health care, we all end up picking up the cost indirectly with higher insurance premiums.
I still don't think folks are fully aware of the depth and breadth this economic crises.
I'm only half stupid
What a slippery slope we find ourselves to navigate...
...as we find ourselves justifying the Federal Government deposing a private citizen, removing him from his place of employment, and certifying the warranty of products produced by one private corporation over others...
Obama is out of his F'ing mind, this is now officially a government controlled, centrally planned economy...
...I'm so depressed I can't even come around here and bitch about it anymore.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Meh, snap out of it
Roosevelt put in wage controls, price controls, and production quotas across vast swaths of the economy during the Great Depression. That was a far, far greater attempt at "central planning" than anything we've seen Obama do. And while it may have failed, and it may have even delayed a recovery, it certainly did not destroy the nation.
So, snap out of it, and keep current events in proper historical perspective. We will get thru this-- no need to curl up into a ball, quivering uncontrollably.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Well, this is a full on attempt to...
...change the fundamentals of our country, so you can call it socialism, fascism, Marxism, or whatever you like, but what it is no longer - is liberal democratic capitalism.
Barney Frank now wants Tim Geitner to control the salaries of all employees that received government funds.
China and Russia are pushing for a global currency.
Harold Koh is now at the State Department, and if you don't know Harry, check him out, he's a anti American trans nationalist academic wannabe who would like nothing more than to see Sharia law be upheld in US courts, and the US itself be run by a board of international opinion.
Card check is a real possibility.
We've spent SO MUCH money, run up so much debt, and printed so much dough to grow an unsustainable bureaucracy that we are now just incredibly screwed.
Mix these few things with the litany of other similar such things the Obama administration is pursuing and this makes FDR and the new deal look like Little Red Riding Hood.
I'm going to bed.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yes, this is on topic
What's your feelings on Federal funding to states, that are dependent on states effectively handing State's Rights issues to the Fed?
Such as Nixon tying Federal funding to lower speed limit laws.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
It was BS...
The States should have the right to determine laws within their own borders.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Does that
make John Kennedy's call to put a man on the moon a fascist undertaking?
Also please do make a note that Nazism, and fascism are not one in the same.
Most generally fascism can be described as a country with far right authoritarian rule, that has a strong sense of nationalism.
Also note that there is no scholarly consensus on the basic concepts of fascism and it is much over used, and very loosely defined, often used as simpleton's purjorative, to define authoritarian actions.
Frankly this silly F*-word is quite a bit of over-sensationalism and in my view an adolescent oversimplification of current events, with little context.
As George Orwell famously stated:
" .... the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless."
I'm only half stupid
The word seems meaningless
precisely because it's so overused...but whether it's used accurately or not is the real matter in judging what comes out of its overuse.
When I use the word, I'm referring to the historically rooted sense of the word as it applies to policies and ideology of governments which espoused fascism...starting with Italy where the term came from as well as to Germany where a loose variation of fascism was adopted. The term also applies somewhat to the Franco regime in Spain during the inter-war period.
If the word has been bastardized by overusing it to refer any whiff of nationalist imagery, I can't help that. I'm referring and referring clearly to the economic policies associated with fascism.
I repeat:
I'm referring and referring clearly to the economic policies associated with fascism.
Yes...as well as, invariably, a populist-driven socialist-style command-and-control dirigisme. All of these facets are fascist and all are derived from a consistent world view that places the governement at the head of everything to dictate all affairs for the furtherment of society as they see it should be.
That is still an oversimplication
Your definition could easily fit into many ism's.
It is nothing more than rhetoric.
I'm only half stupid
So what are you saying?
That my more accurate continuation what you stated is still an oversimplification?
So where does that leave what you said?
And BTW, what other "isms" fit the description of what I said?
I am saying
using the label 'fascism' to describe what the Obama administration is doing is just an immature knee jerk reaction, that does nothing but create a rhetorical flair, or talking point that is irrelevant, specifically because fascism is essentially meaningless, as there is no broad consensus of the definition.
The consequence being that instead of discussing practical and viable solutions to the problems our economic system faces, folks start to react to a label and get side tracked by what is or is not the definition.
It is an easy word to use. It has a negative, if untrue association to nazism. It does not represent what is happening and using the word 'fascism' to describe what is going on now while it might satisfy the urge to express dissatisfaction or jealousy, is intellectually dishonest and takes focus away from solving the real problem. In other words, your assertion is an unconstructive sideshow.
I'm only half stupid
I'm sure it's tough for you, and you must be having...
...a difficult time connecting your ubiquitous need for Obama's absolute infallibility, with the unsavory nature of what he is actually doing, regardless of what nomenclature one attaches to it.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
It's not immature nor knee-jerk
And notice what I said in the diary:
Looking at your answer and approach to the matter, I'd say the "unconstructive sideshow" is coming from you.
And looking at Will Wilkinson's blog today where he asked the same question:
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/03/31/are-we-flirting-with-f...
I think Steve Horwitz's reply to this post in the comments:
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/03/31/are-we-flirting-with-f...
...pretty much mirrors the point that needs to be made to you.
IOW, when people are clearly talking about the historically accurate and relevant economic policies of fascism, there's little good that comes out of pretending the use of the term was meant to describe something other than what was intended.
I am shocked
shocked I tell you that we disagree.
It's a distraction.
What is the point of the dairy, other than to discuss inconsequential labels. Obama could be a fascist, or a socialist, but he isn't or is he?
Look at the problem and look for solutions.
How about outlawing Credit Default Swaps. That would be a good start. If it makes you feel better to call such actions fascism, then have at it.
I'm only half stupid
His use of the terms
His use of the term "fascist" is descriptive
, not pejorative 
.
Understood
It is still generally unnecessary and not constructive in my view.
But it seems to be a bit of the populist rage on certain blog sites.
Bush is a fascist? Descriptive, or pejorative.
We all understand that the brothers use the n-word as descriptive and not a pejorative. Does it further debate on race. Perhaps in certain circles, but generally is not constructive. Hence a distracting sideshow.
I'm only half stupid
See
Adam's comment below.
"The term "fascism" is distracting and somewhat disingenuous."
"Equating fascism with its economic structure may be reasonable for a Marxist who thinks that everything is about economics, but......"
I'm only half stupid
too late
Glenn Beck, the newest member of Roger Alies propaganda team has already taken the term fascism and run with it.
He openly admits that he was wrong with his announcment that the US is not marching towards socialism, but instead it's fascism that is right around the corner.
Do you think Glenn Beck and his viewers understand the nuanced historically accurate and relevant economic policies of fascism, as you insist upon? I don't.
Glenn Beck then claimed that it wasn't really 'teh bad' kind of fascism, but a softer gentler fascism sans Hitler, while he ran Nazi footage as a backdrop to his narrative.
I would like to know what intellectual 'purist' started spreading the intellectually dishonest claim that Obama is a fascist.
The insistence that the use of the word fascist is innocent because it describes a purist economic view, reminds me of those in the pro-life crowd who take the staunch, purist and fundamentalist position while refusing to respect others.
I'm only half stupid
Well, I do ...
Do you think Glenn Beck and his viewers understand the nuanced historically accurate and relevant economic policies of fascism, as you insist upon? I don't.
understand the "nuanced historically accurate and relevant economic policies of fascism", that is. So I am an existence proof that you believe is wrong ... or at least incomplete? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't believe
you exist. Therefore you are not existing proof.
I'm only half stupid
On the contrary, fascism is not difficult to define...
Fascism as a de jure system is a one party corporatist state; a corporatist state can have different meanings/implementations depending on context, but it essentially implies some type of symbiotic relationship between organs of the State and organs of the private sector, a State where the means of production are not actually or fully owned by the State.
Since communism or State socialism, that is a State where he means of production are fully owned by the State, is not really in practice anymore, all authoritarian governments essentially follow the corporatist model, Therefore, to say that Fascism is a right wing ideology is erroneous. Indeed academic consensus identifies corporatism as neither being right nor left.
The 60s "New Left" academics coined the term "Corporate Liberalism" to describe to the ideology of the New Deal, that is, symbiotic relationship between a goverment technocratic bureaucratic hierarchy and the hierarchy of the modern (Alfred) Chandlerian Managerial Firm. The 60s New Left certainly regarded it as a right-wing perversion of the 19th century "progressive" movement. Today, Progressive essentially means "Corporate Liberalism," that is, the use of corporatism(or the euphemism, "Joint Private-Public Partnership") to enforce some social model. For example, the move toward enacting a national policy to force everyone to obtain a corporate health insurance policy, and the governments move to computerize all health care records for access by corporate health conglomerates. Inevitably, this will be used to enfoce mandatory annual " drug piss tests" on the part of everyone as a precondition of being awarded say benefits(universal college education, for example) and could be used to force you into a "government treatment program." If you can't see the possibility or likelihood of that, then you are blind. Of course, mandatory health checkups would also be part of the deal to make sure you are eating right, not smoking or drinking too much, etc. All in the name of the "social good" of a National Preventative Health Care Policy.
As I posted on Freedom Democrats, the burgeoning of "Czars" is a predictable consequence of Corporate Liberalism.
freedomdemocrats.org/node/3221
The US, in many ways, is moving increasingly in the direction of a proto-fascist State. Obviously, things like the Drug War, which targets and shepards minorities into the Public-Private Prison Industrial Complex for the benefit of the economic development of certain communities and a growing and powerful prison guard labor unions is an egregious example of anyone's definition of fascism(including tthe racial component). Our annual military budget, which, in effect, is an annual corporatist bailout for defense contractors is an example of the military component of a "fascist, corporatist state." The evolution of the National Security State, the Dept. of HOMELAND Security, the paramilitarization of the domestic police forces, the casting of seemingly every issue in terms of "National Security." For example, Democratic politicans have used "National Security" to justify a bailout of the auto companies on the grounds we need to maintain that industrial base in case we go to war.
Because the US is not a one party State, the definition of "fascism" does not apply in the de jure sense. However, on the federal level, the US more and more represents a sort of a 2-Party Cournot duopoly system headed by a unitary executive from either one of the parties(firms). Another spectacular domestic terror attack and we will find out just how much a "2-Party system" can stretch the bounds of proto-fascism to the boundaries of outright fascism.
So how does the state
of Alaska fit into your definition, since each individual of the State of Alaska receives a financial stipend from the oil and gas companies for nothing more than just being a resident of the state.
I'm only half stupid
Alaska's oil revenues
If I may speak for Kaligula...
Alaska's trust fund mimics the geo-libertarian idea of a citizen's dividend based on natural resource wealth. Kaligula has expressed sympathy for these ideas in the past. Such programs are definitely compatible with classical liberalism, and is quite similar to what Thomas Paine proposed in Agrarian Justice.
Anyway, I don't see why you would draw a connection between what he wrote and Alaska's trust fund. The corporate liberal model that he described does not give money to regular citizens. If anything, it places obligations on regular citizens while guaranteeing profits for business owners.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Thx Adam
for the reply.
Though I am not sure I fully grasp the concept you describe re: Alaska's trust fund.
What obligations are placed on regular citizens and how does this guarantee profits for business owners, especially when the profits are not dependent on and are separate from the local region. As the price of oil falls, the guarantee of a kickback of about $3 thousand dollars per citizen, then takes away profit from other sectors, in essence penalty those sectors for doing well.
I'm only half stupid
Proto-Fascism...
However, Obama is merely inheriting this tradition, certainly not inventing it.
America has long since replaced the rhetoric and policy of "individualism of laissez faire" with the rhetoric and policy of social control of that which I call corporate liberalism--an ideology that is embraced and practiced by both parties. (Note: radical libertarians deny that the US was ever in any sense laissez faire, which I have come to more or less accept.).
Those who are are truly on the left identify corporate liberalism practiced by both parties with a type of a proto-fascism. Those who are mere partisan hacks only accuse the other party of being guilty of such authoritarianims(the dems use the word "fascist" while the Repubs use the word "socialist").
In reality, compare what Obama has done with that of the legacy of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, or Bush and it's certainly not out of line. In fact, jeez, Nixon, wage and price controls, explicitly taking the US off the last vestiages of the gold standard. Think of Truman and Kennedy's actions with respect to the Steel industry. And, of course, it was the Bush Admin that set in motion the nationalization of money and credit.
So Obama is not really setting any precedent here. The political problem he faces is that he is acting according to type in a amplified information economy that frankly disdains regime uncertainty.
Frankly, IIRC, weren't the likes of Cowen and Kling in favor of the Paulson plan. Yeah, they're regetting that now I suppose.
New Deal cartels, and the banking system, "the Quiet Coup"
I'd rather call this stuff "corporatism" than economic fascism.
But anyway, you've gotta admit that it is nothing new -- the New Deal implemented many of the same ideas about regulation and cartelization of the economy. Only recently has Congress eliminated the last vestigates of those agricultural/industrial cartels (but not the finance cartel).
Anyway, I wrote a related post at Freedom Democrats and figured it could fit in here...
A respectable economist has finally said it:
the bankers rule America
.
Writing in the Atlantic Monthly, Simon Johnson (former chief economist at the IMF) argues that the financial industry has taken over the American government
(i.e. "the Quiet Coup"). I'm sure it comes as no surprise to the readers of this blog, but it is getting a lot of attention from the liberals (witness NPR 
and Salon.com 
). I've long argued that the standard recipe for political success is that policies must benefit both the bankers and the middle class (house and education loans being the prime examples).
Bankers/financiers have always been one of the more influential portions of modern political systems -- both in the USA and elsewhere. Suspicion of politicized finance goes all the way back to the founding of the republic: witness the Whiskey Tax rebellion (a response to the oligarchic compromise that created the Union
) and opposition to the Central bank. Populist critics of the Federal Reserve System have often portrayed it as a banking cartel 
-- a federally regulated and supported industry that provides large profits (or perhaps "rents") to the private interests that participate in it.
Johnson and others
assert that this supremacy of the bankers is something new. I'm a bit skeptical of this thesis, but it may make sense in the post-WWII world. In this story, the industrialists ruled the roost shortly after the war ("What is good for GM is good for America"), but they have gradually lost ground to finance. Indeed, the banking cartel seems to be the last of the New Deal cartels. We've seen for years how (state-subsidized) finance has become an ever larger part of the American economy (Johnson includes charts to this effect). While contemplating this development a few years ago, I looked over the fate of previous financial powers and saw a disturbing trend: expansion of the financial sector seemed to mark the apex of a nation's influence.
As a final note, many progressives seem to read The Silent Coup as evidence that "deregulation" doesn't work. However, I gather a much broader message in it. This story is only superficially about deregulation (in fact, Johnson mentions several government programs that were initiated or expanded as part of this takeover)--this is a story about regulatory capture, ideological capture, and a group of people who bought into their own propaganda.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
The Supremacy of
of the bankers, has been usurped by the supremacy of investment bank.
Goldman Sach's is essentially a giant hedge fund. The silent coup has been the immense and enormous entanglement of so many industries and businesses with sophisticated financial instruments, that no one seems to understand. Sadly many business got tangled up in these fancy financial products which has led to their demise, in spite of having an essentially good foundation and product to work with.
I am thrilled to see that this type of dialogue has started to take place in more public places. May it continue loudly.
I'm only half stupid
Adam,
You should know more than most that the two terms are somewhat synonymous.
on using synonyms (re john)
That's exactly my point. The term "fascism" is distracting and somewhat disingenuous. Even if "corporatism" (or whatever you want to call it) was the economic model of the fascists, it was not distinctive of fascism. Equating fascism with its economic structure may be reasonable for a Marxist who thinks that everything is about economics, but to the regular person economics is a minor part of fascism.
Even worse, the fascist economic model seemed to work, at least in terms of how it improved the economic welfare of "aryan" citizens.
One distinctive aspect of the fascist economic system--which distinguishes it from anything that we're doing in the USA and which gets to the core of what people hate about fascism-- is that fascism/nazism relied on plunder for its prosperity, both internal (Jews) and external (occupied territories).
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Distracting for those who don't know what the term means
perhaps.
But the when the context of the discussion clearly explains what fascism is in an economic sense and not the cartoonish, imagery laden punchline it has become, the distraction should cease.
That is specific to Nazism isn't it?
And the reason they relied on plunder was because an aim of these dictators was to be autarkic...something that couldn't work without controlling resources beyond the nation's capacity..
It's just not even remotely passing the smell test
"[...or economic welfare of good Italians... ]"
I
f libertarians have slavery and "true" free markets as mutually exclusive is should be just as plane as state control doesn't equal a fascist economy.
It's about as non sequitur as trying to put Non-negligent homicide and Murder 1 in the same boat, because the both resulted in the death of someone.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
hehehe
keep trying, Brutus.
"aryan" is a little different than a nationality.
Nazis equated race with nationality
From the Nazi perspective, race and nationality were identical. The Italian Fascist equivalent would probably be "good Italians"...whichever group that the state included as its constituency. I used "aryans" just so we didn't get caught up in how bad the Nazi system was for Jews. Probably the best term would have been "citizens", with the understanding that the Nazis revoked the citizenship of the Jews.
And yes, the racism was limited to the Nazis, as far as I know. I focused on them, because I'm more familiar with them their economic system than with the Fascist of Falangist systems (for which the term "economic fascism" implies that they used the same economic model, though the Falangists apparently used a somewhat different version of National Syndicalism
).
Anyway, was the Nazi prosperity an abberation among the fascist regimes (I know that Spain bombed, though it's hard to say how much of that was due to the Civil War and post-WWII international isolation)? If Italy prospered under the fascists, then the derogatory use of the term "economic facism" has the problem that the fascist economic system wasn't clearly a bad thing.
This brings us back to why I think it is a bad idea to use this term: people hate fascism for its politics, not its economics. When an author like Hendershon associates a modern politician with fascism, he is playing off of the public's negative associations with fascism. It's a rhetorical bait and switch: First saying "pay attention, I'm talking about fascism", then switching to saying "well, I'm not going to talk about the aspect of fascism that you care about".
If there is confusion, it is primarily the author's fault.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Moving closer to something
Moving closer to something doesn't mean moving to something. Direction, distance, and destination are all different things. Yes, government getting more involved in the economy means we move along the spectrum closer to "communism/Marxism/socialism" (or have more socialism), and the same could be said, if you wish, for fascism, but to equate direction with destination is wrong conceptually and seems to reflect a lack of perspective (and engagement in hyperbole) in this case.
And if the argument is instead that, although Obama's actions and plans don't themselves bring us to to "communism", fascism, whatever, but supposedly put us on a slippery slope that will inevitable bring us to such a point, then that's a case that has to be argued, and I think it's a tough one.