Communisn/Fascism; which one?

[edhopper]

Communism is when the State controls Industry.
Fascism is when Industry controls the State.
Which one are we now.

Either way the answer is not a Democracy.

[Dissent Is Patriotic]

1. Fascism. n/t

[seemslikeadream]

2. Fascism

[DJ13]

3. Fascism

All of DC is one big corporate brothel.

[SIMPLYB1980]

4. Fascism.

[Kip Humphrey]

5. Fascism.

[fascisthunter]

6. Republican Fascism=Milton Friedman's wet Dream

[AllieB]

14. Exactamundo.

Privatize profits, socialize risk.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

7. Communism for the rich and fascism for everyone else.

[Democrats_win]

8. Republicanism. Not only did they screw our government, they screwed the people too.

[baldguy]

9. Industry controls the State

At the expense of the people

[Mika]

10. Can you repost this as a poll?

Would be interesting to see.


:hi:

[AntiFascist]

11. Look at China...

they call it communism but corporatism is taking over. In the US, corporatism has been the rule, but when financial corps fail, the State takes them over. Go figure!

[readmoreoften]

20. Yes, China is not Communist. In fact, many Chinese fighting for democracy do so as Communists.

:crazy:

China has been capitalist for a long time now. It's just a totalitarian capitalist society.

[Oregone]

12. Can someone point me to something about "Fascism is when Industry controls the State"

Ive never understood that definition or seen it. Isn't that corporatism?

Ive always thought Fascism was the anti-thesis of Liberalism (as defined by Mussolini):
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

Fascism is the focus upon the state, rather than the individual, according to that. Only an individual can be great by fighting in war for the state and serving the state. The needs of the state become the focus of society. From that essay:

"Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...Fascism the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage...."



Is it just me, or are people labeling this "Fascism" maybe a little to trigger happy to link Hitler to Bush/Corporatists?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

15. Mussolini said, corporatism IS fascism; that, there's no distinction.

The rest of the essay you shared is spot on. Unfortunately, it fairly well sums up what this country has become.

[Oregone]

16. That makes no sense...he says economics don't drive fascism. Holiness and Heroism do...

But fascists don't care about economic or social results of their actions, only about the actual heroics of them. I can't seem to reconcile it.

It seem like this entire essay defines fascism as completely separate from Corporatism. I mean, perhaps on the Venn diagram, they overlap, but come on now. There can be many Corporatists, who simply want their business to control and interact with the government, because they *believe* that action benefits the community. In fascism, they wouldn't care what benefits the community, but rather, about the action itself and how holy or heroic it is in their perception.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

21. No, no, no. Fascism involves COMPLETE denial of solutions to economic injustice,...

,...or the even the possibility of addressing such injustices in order to unequivocally PRAISE and FORCE service to economic superiority.

Keep in mind the context of what you are reading.

[Oregone]

17. Wait, is this another Caesar "drum of war" fake quote you mention?

From Wiki:

Corporatism and fascism
Some critics equate too much corporate power and influence with fascism. Often they cite a quote claimed to be from Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Several variations of the alleged quote exist. However no text written by Mussolini has yet been found with any variation of the alleged quote.<20>. Despite this, the alleged quote has entered into modern discourse, and it appears on thousands of web pages<21>, and in books<22>, and even an alternative media advertisement in the Washington Post.<23>. However, the alleged quote contradicts almost everything else written by Mussolini on the subject of the relationship between corporations and the Fascist State.<20>.

http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html

Look at that link. I think everyone here is waaaay off base with what they think fascism is. Look, fascism is all around us, and scary, but how do you combat it if no one knows what they hell it is?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

23. Again, watch the context. Wiki is not necessarily a true reflection of either history,...

,...or reality.

Let me see if I can dig up that book which was very helpful to me (and a RELIABLE source of information) in explaining the fundamentals of forms of governance and I'll get back to you.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

24. A couple of intelligent and reliable sources to recommend to you:

"Communism, Fascism and Democracy" by C Cohen

and

"A History of Fascism" by S G Payne

Hope these help! :hi:

[Oregone]

27. Ill take a look at those but, until then, I still remain incredibly skeptical

I mean, it may be possible for a fascist state to adopt elements of corporatism, but I cannot, whatsoever, view them all as one in the same with the information at hand (being that corporatism's core tenants don't involve hero worship/promotion and militarism as cornerstones (but they could be consequences)).

In fact, perhaps some fascist elements being introduced into a society are a result of corporatism (the economical effects of the actions, or military actions driven by economical concerns), and vice versa (being that concerns of individual and social justice are not important)...but one in the same? heh.

Regardless, I think its safe to say its probably a lot more accurate for everyone to use the world "corporatism" until anyone was 100% for sure.

"State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management." BM

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

13. Fascism. Absolutely no doubt about that one. nt

[behave]

18. Nazism.

[readmoreoften]

19. Fascism. Communism is not when the State controls industry.

Communism is an overthrowing of a State controlled by ruling oligarchs. The State exists to rob the working classes. Under Marxist-Leninism (not Stalinism) the working class and the poor (common folks) run the country with those bureaucrats who run the country getting "a workman's wage." The wealth of the nation is shared by all, although there are no prescriptions for 'everyone getting an identical salary'. Hard work is still rewarded. The theory is that eventually the State will 'wither away' after the ruling class stops trying to rise up and overthrow the people: only then will their be democracy.

In practice, Communism was hijacked by two things: (1) The ruling class were never able to be overthrown. They always remained "terrorists within" funded by international banks, and (2) this made the workers really, really paranoid because there was a permanent and sinister threat always under the surface. Enter Stalin, autocracy, and purges.

Democratic Socialism is the idea that a mass uprising of the proletariat is unenlightened and brutal and/or impossible. Socialism will come, but gently, from slowly educating the people and fighting small battles along side the help of the petit bourgeois people of good conscience.

In practice, it is quite obvious that Democratic Socialism is not possible. Things have not gotten better. They have gotten worse. They have become a check in the system: those who make sure the working class is not turned into a slave class. A non-threat.

Fascism is a modern form of oligarchy and empire, where there is rule by the powerful for the powerful. Marx and Lenin's opinion was that the American revolution, because it was a bourgeois revolution, would be impossible to maintain. Pluralism means that the powerful and the impotent get to speak: until the powerful decide it's time for the impotent to shut the heck up. Fascism is when capital controls the State entirely. It is also when the Capitalist State controls the Economy. It is a snazzy new form of feudalism, where powermonsters and gangs can become part of the ruling class based on their brutal desire to fight for it. Hypernationalism often turns into group hatreds, but this sort of discrimination is not central to the definition.

The only reason why the spectacle of Democracy was permitted to exist was because of the threat of Communism. Once the idea of communism was destroyed in 1989, there was little reason to be nice to unions, workers, or really anyone.

What we have now is a new sort of fascism that is as of yet unnamed.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

25. Very concise. We could call it the more user-friendly corporate-fascism.

:shrug:

The only difference between their fascism and ours is the investment put into brain-washing (pacifying) the masses into accepting their lot in life as indentured slaves to the system. The investment pays off because it nearly completely suppresses revolutionary activities. Of course, there is the hugely funded back-up of a shadow government that will take down menaces to corporacratic fascism.

[boomerbust]

22. A new phrase

Conservative Socialism

[lonestarnot]

26. facism.

[MellowDem]

28. Neither

The answer is we are currently a republic.

Fascism is NOT when the industry controls the state. Fascism is totalitarian nationalism. Corporatism is sometimes a symptom of fascism, but is not in and of itself fascism. It may be part of the economic system of a fascist country, for example.

It is the same way that a type of democracy may use capitalism as a part of its economic system.

We ourselves are a representative democracy with elements of capitalism and socialism in our economic and political system. I think that the balance of capitalism has gotten out of hand lately. It is all about maintaining a good balance. Too much state or too much capitalism equals the exact same bad result. Balance is needed.

[Indenturedebtor]

29. Call us a Republic if you want but include the following in your definition

and if you can still call it a Republic then please use quotation marks: "Republic".

1) Stolen elections/massive voter fraud
2) We now have a nearly "perfect" unitary executive. The Pretzledent can declare you to be a terrorist, hold you without trial, and torture you to death without telling your family. The Pretzle also does not have to answer to Congress or the Courts. Our Constitution is effectively in tatters, and I haven't even begun to list the aspects of our new Executive branch.
3) We are jailing journalists and protestors before they even protest on the premise of "intent to riot".
4) Our government taxes you and gives your money to rich people in the form of corporate handouts, bailouts, inflated contracts, etc.
5) Our media is controlled by the State.
6) The secret police can surveil you and your loved ones without so much as a warrant, and they don't even have to tell you.


If you are not familiar with any of these facts PLEASE say so. I would be happy to pull up the relevant changes to law/legal precedent and/or examples.

But suffice to say that even with JUST those 6 little factoids we are no longer a Republic or a Democracy. Your rights are at the pleasure of the oligarchy. If you get in the way of profits you will be crushed.

In my opinion we are now a Fascist State who's concept of nationalism is wrapped in a National Economic Identity. We worship the "Free Market" as the lynchpin of our national identity. Jesus is ok too... anything is ok so long as it keeps you mindlessly working away serving your betters.

[MellowDem]

30. There is no such thing as a perfect example of a type of political system

I agree that we do not have all the characteristics of a republic. However, when looking at our political system as a whole, we are mostly a republic. I somewhat agree with some of your points, though others are debatable. Everything you listed happens to some extent in every country, even in Europe. The question is what is the magnitude of the things you posted. I readily agree with you that in many ways we have regressed as a nation these past eight years, but in no serious sense can I say that the US is a fascist country. And some of the things you listed have nothing to do with fascism or democracy per se. For example, if in a democracy the people vote to allow secret police to survey them without a warrant, then that country still remains a democracy. In fact, that is democracy in action. So point 3-6 are for the most part all part and parcel of our representative democracy. Now point 1 and 2 could be argued to be counter to a republic. Those are the most dangerous points. 3-6 are potentially dangerous in that it gives the government more power so that they may indeed establish a different form of government of their liking without having to fear the people. But I will address each point in terms of why we still are a republic in spite of what has happened. This is purely my opinion.

1. There most definitely has been voter fraud, there has been in the past, and there will be in the future no doubt. Just part and parcel of such a big country with so many elections and voters. Still, the amount of fraud for the most part seems insignificant and most elections seem as fair as they can be. I do agree there are many exceptions, and there probably always will be.

2. The President still does have to answer to Congress for many things. But the president's power really hasn't expanded now any more than at other times. Lyndon B. Johnson waged a much larger, more costly and just as useless war without a declaration of war from Congress for example. So the power of the president has expanded in a time of crisis, but this has always been the case for decades now and is not necessarily something new. Lincoln imprisoned those who opposed him, for example. Still, all in all we remain a republic.

3. To what extent? The vast majority of journalists and protestors have nothing done to them. And once again, it has all been done before.

4. This is true, but this does not mean we are not a republic. Much of the reason for such a thing happening is a certain economic theory, one to which many Americans subscribe, and is partially why we have the representatives we do.

5. NPR is controlled by the state, the corporate media may have an interest in working with the state or against the state, but definitely is not controlled by it. It is controlled by the almighty dollar, and sometimes this puts the media in line with the state, at other times, not.

6. True, but republics can be whatever they make themselves to be. If the people vote in representatives that allow or even push for a police state, that is democracy in action.

My best example to pose to you is that of Hamas. IF you believe they were fairly elected, then all the policies they would implement would be democracy in action and their nation would in fact have to be called a democracy. The common consensus is that democracies have to be purveyors of human rights, which is not true at all. A country is a democracy if it reflects the will of the people, whatever that will may be.

I also take a more positive view of the world in general, including the US. Looking through history of the US, the times right now are not that bad. They are the worst in my lifetime, but when you look at the whole picture, we have been much much worse off before and gotten back on track. I believe we are already heading back on track now. I can see it in the national mood. : )

[Indenturedebtor]

32. Good post, and that would be the other way to view what has happened

But for one fact: our democracy is BASED on the idea that the majority cannot oppress the minority just because it wants to. Many of the things I listed above are completely contrary to our rights, and to the obligations of the state as laid out in our constitution. We as a nation did not specifically vote on or for the Patriot Act, and we did specifically vote for the Iraq war to end. Our government is no longer accountable to the people, AND in many cases it is acting in direct opposition to the will of the people. This is why the Bush Cabal has had to ignore subpoenas, etc. Our Executive branch has broken the law repeatedly with zero accountability. When you have a unitary executive that does whatever it wants - that's called a dictatorship.

Our Congress is also more accountable to the lobbyists and check writers than it is to us. Yes you will have corruption in any government, but I challenge you to find another Democracy in the industrialised world that is as corrupt and unnacountable to the people as is our supposed Democracy.

While it may be argued that all Democracies will face a certain degree of voter fraud, experiencing systemic voter fraud that ultimately swings the election in one direction or another is something else entirely. You can't really call that a Democracy anymore as the people are no longer deciding who will represent them.

[roamer65]

31. American fascism.

We have put our own unique spin on it.

[PeaceNikki]

33. It combines the *worst* aspects of Communism and Capitalism.

I wish people would stop equating this bail-out with Communism. In a Communist system, the public collectively owns entire industries; the debts are public, but so are the gains. In Paulson’s scenario, the Federal government takes out a risky loan from China, in turn makes risky loans to investment banks with China’s money, and investment banks try to sell off ownership of previous risky loans they have made to consumers in order to repay the government. When no one is able to repay any of these loans, we end up with an even worse economy than we started with and with even more debt to China.

This bail-out is like putting lipstick on a rancid, radioactive turd.

Quoted from a comment here: http://wonkette.com/402893/402893