Get it right people! This bailout as proposed is not socialism!

[hootinholler]

This is fascism in its purest form as defined by the person who coined the term.

For this to be socialism, as Krugman claims, the corporations would be seized and run by the government with their profits returned to the treasury. The CEO's assets would be seized and probably those of the boards of directors as well.

A blank check to socialize the downside of bad business is fascism. Because it is not being enforced by totalitarianism does not lessen the case to be made that this is indeed fascism.

We need to call people on this when they say how socialistic the bailout is. It is not.

-Hoot

[ck4829]

1. Socialism is for the benefit of the people

This bailout benefits us in no way.

[pipoman]

18. Unless you happen to be invested in these companies

through a 401k, IRA, mutual fund as millions of non-millionaires are. Now I don't like the idea of these bailouts at all, but there are people who, through no fault of there own, stand to loose big. An example, I work in a retirement community, while I am sure many there would be negatively effected by mass failures of these companies, I know the impact on Joyce. Joyce is 83 years old, a retired school teacher with macular degeneration, her life partner died 2 years ago, she lives in an assisted living apartment. Her life savings is in mutual funds which make it possible for her to live where she does. If these funds loose 30% of their value as her financial consultant warns, she will be forced to move, likely to a nursing home. There are many sad stories which will follow if these companies are allowed to fail. The people responsible for the failures should be jailed and stripped of their assets but to allow them to ruin innocent people's lives and walk away is truly unjust IMHO.

[fascisthunter]

2. but, but, socialism is a bad word... we must further drag that word through the mud

all bad things must be attributed to socialism...

[readmoreoften]

3. It's not being forced by totalitarianism? Hmmm. Where is this freedom to challenge?

Because we are not put in gulags for futile rants on a private bulletin board?

Okay, but (per the latest RNC) we'd be jailed and charged with felonies for marching in protest and we'd risk felony charges of terrorism, possibly without right of habeus corpus, for organizing said protests. Now Northcom is going to put an infantry on American soil starting Oct. 1st to help (among other things) control protests and help with 'interventions'. Infantry controlled by the Military/Executive Branch. Not National Guards under command of State Governors.

Because we get to vote?

Okay but that's for two sides of the Capitalist party who are appear less and less like liberal ideas and conservative ideas and more and more like good cop/bad cop. And also, we're not *totally* sure that the votes are being recorded anyway.

Because we're not completely miserable all the time and there aren't tanks in every street?

Well, heck, what do they care as long as we keep shopping and complain amongst ourselves. Besides, our complaining generates revenue through blog advertisements and magazine sales. There's big profits in complaint these days.

The word totalitarian has been meaningless throughout the 20th century. It was a weapon we used to pretend that we didn't have designs on capitalizing the world. It's true, capitalist regimes are much more flexible with their figureheads than leftist regimes like Cuba and the USSR or nationalist fascist regimes like the Third Reich. Our leaders just have to lie and assuage people so that they keep shopping and don't rebel and continue to participate in Two-Minute Hates of immigrants or gays or arabs or hurricane victims. Communist regimes had to urge the people to actually DO something, so one trusted figure head was an effective mode of motivation. Our figureheads are meaningless celebrity gods shaped through market-testing to guide our emotions in directions that benefit the ruling class.

The question isn't whether or not we might become totalitarian. The question is (1) "Is democracy possible in an advanced technological society with heavy ownership imbalance?" and (2) "How can democracy be created in such system without the use of force?" (3) "If so how?" (4) "If not, what sort of force would be available to combat full spectrum dominance of the media, the military, the economy, and the state apparatus in order to produce democratic change?"

[Beam Me Up]

4. Thanks for putting that so succinctly.

I've been trying to find a way to bullet point the ideas in your last paragraph. That really helps.

[readmoreoften]

9. Feel free to use those points and to add questions on top of mine.

We've got to start analyzing how we talk about this nonsense starting with a historical understanding of the words: democracy, freedom, totalitarian, fascism, socialism, communism, peace, mass murder, regimes, and the idiotic frame "conspiracy theory."

[hootinholler]

10. I agree with you there! n/t

[hootinholler]

8. I was going with the lack of a brown-shirt army, this is indeed friendly fascism

All you point out taken into account, we are definitely leaning that way. That the JTTF was allowed or perhaps even invited to run the show in StPaul/Minneapolis is certainly troubling especially as more detail emerges amongst the clamor over our current shockingly hot potato.

You pose some questions at the end to which I haven't the bona fides to answer other than with my opinion so that I shall give freely. (1) Democracy is indeed possible (2) national strike

Would the government's reply be to shut down the intertubes? Maybe, but the solidarity movement can be organized beforehand. IMHO we have one last chance to make a few steps back from the precipice, the first being the election of Barack Obama. If there is brown-shirt style oppression widespread, then they better start rounding up the Obama campaign machine because it is a national network that reaches to the grassroots. The real question is will he step up to lead in the face of what will be a withering attack?

Will this be easy? Hell no. I think that like minded people exist in both parties and their, actually our, representation is in the minority in the government. Maybe, and that's a big maybe, we can change that.

-Hoot

[readmoreoften]

12. My friend Hoot, you and I are coming from similar places here. Here's my take:

In my assessment, democracy is only possible if:

1) There are free elections among a population with reasonable access to education on issues who are not manipulated through massive disinformation campaigns and neurolinguistic programming techniques coming out of university science departments . Although persuasive techniques are always possible and have been throughout history (this is the danger of democracy) the use of neuroscientific propaganda cuts right through the belief that citizens have the right to think and choose. I believe that agents of both parties--but by and large almost the entire Republican party--cynically uses science against the people. This sort of technical dominance throws a huge wrench into the idea of free elections and is not easily solved.

2) Concern with news media dominance aside, an election is little more than a spectacle if the voters are disenfranchised and the votes are manipulated. We know that the votes are manipulated through racial exclusion, purged voter rolls, and so forth. We know that 'some' hacking and manipulation occurred in the 2004 election in Ohio. One person has even come forward and admitted as much (that he did it to save 'unborn babies'). We have long said "we need to win by a LARGE margin so that the votes cannot be stolen." However, if the votes are predetermined as 49%/51% in the central tabulator (which would have been possible in 2004 but not in 2006's local elections) then 98% of Americans could vote for Obama and McCain would still win. We could all say: everyone I know voted for Obama! But that is little more than anecdotal experience. And we all know that 'exit polls' cannot be trusted. Even worse with Obama, there is the pre-packaged excuse of the Bradley Effect: that white Americans will say one thing and do another in the voting booth.

It is rational to assume that if the wealthy can rig an election they will since they have done so in the past and they own the voting apparatus. It is rational to assume that if an election can be rigged it will be rigged. Ergo, it is rational to assume that the wealthy will rig the election.

3) It is possible that Barack Obama can still win in an rigged election because (a) the rigging malfunctions for some reason--unlikely (b) the wealthy abandon the Republican party and choose Obama to do their bidding. What does not seem possible is that those who've rigged elections in the past are incapable of rigging elections now or that democracy in 2008 is any more possible than in 2004. You are correct: what will Obama do in the face of a neo-conservative/global capital assault? My answer: probably not much. I'm also not sure what he can do without the consent of the corporations who own the media and the neoconservatives. Given his advisor choices so far, I'm not particularly heartened. Whether he is a good guy or a guy with good guy rhetoric is irrelevant. The real question is: is the man or can the man become a fireband?

Striking is our only weapon. My guess is that the best thing we could do is start preparing for strikes now (save food supplies to share and so forth.) The problem is this: anti-fascism is not enough. (If you look at the Spanish-Civil War etc., it has never been enough) Fascists are like the bad guy at the end of the movie who always sits back up after he's killed. The problem with a Keynesian economy or a socialist democracy is: how do you stop the bastards from thieving and hording and using elections to ascend to power? If they can create simulations of democracy because they own the media?

Maybe those are all questions for later. Maybe right now we just need to band together as anti-fascists. But I think it's going to be a very difficult and painful thing to do among a population who is more committed to pleasure than justice and egalitarian politics.

My One Cent.

[hootinholler]

13. That would be a powerful rumbling...

A grassroots effort/discussion of preparing for a national strike. Would *that* get the proper attention?

-Hoot

[readmoreoften]

14. No. It would be disrupted. There are well-known tactics used to disrupt strikes.

It's a science. Strikes are difficult to win because of it. Only if the masses became well-schooled in subversion tactics could a strike survive. They're easy to learn hard to survive.

[hootinholler]

15. I'm not talking about an actual strike...

I'm talking about the people are prepared for one. If you could get that one moving, it would be a loud and clear message.

-Hoot

[yowzayowzayowza]

5. Damn strate. This is payin off...

the gambling debt of our avarice drunk economy.

[magellan]

6. Guilty -- and I know better

Thank you for the reminder!

[dgibby]

7. Thank you! K&R nt

[flamingdem]

11. We need to literally call people. Tomorrow. Everyone. MSM and congress people

We should be in the streets on this

[Quantess]

16. Good point.

[gate of the sun]

17. your right

facism is what it is....

[Kokonoe]

19. Thanks for explaining

Sometimes its hard to see up is really down.
I hope we can convince Wall street to accept our conditions.
We can kill these parasites when they stick out their neck.