This administration finally did it: "National Socialism" is in America agree/disagree

The poll question speaks for itself brothers and sisters. Your comments are encouraged as always.

That's not Socialism; it's Capitalism.

Jobs, paychecks, and property are not Real Values. Jobs are not secured by quality work, paychecks and property represent nothing more than 0s and 1s manipulated by computers belonging to oligarchs.

In exchange for the real value of labor, time, and talent invested, American Labor is owed real value in return: An Appropriate and Complete Education, Universal Health Care, Rational Budgets, Justice, Equal Economic Opportunities.

.

as it is the merger of corporate and government power"- Benito Mussolini

:patriot:

Chavez, Putin, Brown and others are fascists also?

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is the merger of corporate and government power"- Benito Mussolini

That was the quote, was it not?

Chavez has nationalized almost every industry in Venezuela merging corporate power into his government. Putin has nationalized all oil and natural gas as well as media and banking industries into his government and recently has bailed out almost all of them during the financial crisis. I threw Brown in because he just bailed out Northern Rock same as the US admin has done here.

You cannot apply this to the US and dismiss the same and in many cases far greater merging of industry and government in other nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

That looks to be the case in Russia, but Chavez is just a plain ol' socialist.

In the US the Corporations are more powerful than the government itself. Not so in Venezuela.

In venezuela corporations are owned by the government. It has swallowed them all up in the past several years. Merging of corporate power into government. This is why the Venezuelan government has so much power. Oil is the most powerful industry in Venezuela and it is run by the government after it took over all private oil business. Same as in Russia.


It's nice that you tried to change the subject to corporatism instead of focusing on the quote you posted and that I was addressing.

There is a difference between an absolute gov. takeover of business (socialism) and the gov. propping up a business at the expense of the people (fascism)

Fascism IS corporatism.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080806.wvenezuela0806/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080806.wvenezuela0806

Good stuff! Would you like to rephrase your last statement?

because there is a difference between the gov. taking over business and business taking over gov.

We are suffering from the later.

So you are saying that the government bailing out business is business taking over government?

Failing businesses leeching off taxpayers is a takeover by business.

At least Chavez has the good sense to nationalize PROFITABLE businesses.

Re there is a difference between the gov. taking over business and business taking over gov.

When the government takes over an industry and uses the profits of that industry to benefit the average citizen that is socialism. When the corporation takes over a government (or vice versa) and takes public funds for the benefit of a few private individuals that's a part of facism.

Do you see the difference? Spreading the money out to the citizens vs funneling the money down to fat cats?

Socialism is - guaranteeing the right of every citizen to food, housing, and healthcare. It has nothing to do with taking money from citizens and paying multibillion dollar benefits to rich fuckwads.

In those situations, they actually lobbied the government to come and take over in order to bail them out of the problems they created. Intent is the key. In both situations, government nationalizations occurred, but one occurred simply to benefit business, while the other occurred ostensibly to benefit the people at large.

Chavez falls under the latter category. Bush falls under the former. It's the difference between socialism and fascism. With socialism, the idea is that the enterprise belongs to everybody including the profits. With fascism, the profits are privately held, as it were in Nazi Germany, but the cost of doing business is pushed onto the rest of society, usually using the state to enforce this arrangement.

it is done to benefit the people and the people don't see the benefit because the government is business that is profiting and not passing it on to the people can you still call it socialism?

When the agents of government are working in collusion with business to fleece the public - again that is a part of fascism.

Think of fascism as a modern feudal system.

:hi: :thumbsup:

thanks ingac70. Sad but oh so true.

horseshoecrab

:thumbsup:

I've been informing people that it was Mussolini who coined the term... now I have the quote!

:applause:

Railing for decades about Socialism and Big Government and look at what they do? Disgusting...

Would call this socialist. The US Treasury didn't takeover AIG it basically became an investor in the company like any shareholder would. The govt. does these types of investments all the time, that's how Social Security is accrued.

Attempting to say the bailout is a National Socialist policy. Pretty silly.

correct? This is what is being done in realtime, isn't it?

Have a good day, welcome to DU!

Fascism is concerned with govt. authority and no I wouldn't say our economy is anywhere near being a command economy. In fact some would argue it's too deregulated.

That caused this, not regulation in favor of the rich, whatever that is. I hope you know it's not just rich people with a stake in the financial markets. Many of our retirement funds and my SSDI Disability is dependent on finance markets. So I'm all for saving AIG.

unitary executive=fuhrerprinzip, etc...

Not when the SC is still able to declare any unconstitutional elements of laws null and void. Nontheless we're definitely not fascist on economics, too deregulated for that.

Bush is more authoritarian than fascist in my opinion, big difference.

Fascism is defined as having a centralized and authoritarian governing body or ruler. Under fascism property and business are centrally controlled by that body. The difference between fascism and socialism is that under socialism in theory property is collectively owned by everyone, not just a central authority.

The RWing abhors Welfare,Universal Health Care, Social Security, Public Education, Medicare but they love Wealth Care.

They are calling this a socialist takeover. They just hate govt. intervention.

Begins Oct. 1st according to the Army Times. This is fascism by oligarchy instead of by an ideologue. Put another way, it's modern medievalism.

it was intended to be a "third way" alternative to capitalism and Marxism, ultimately turning into fascism. All it takes is a unitary decider who decides that it's time to take control. Hitler did not become the fuhrer overnight. Regulations don't matter when you invent your own regulation and have the power to intimidate.

National socialism wasn't any "third way" between Marxism and capitalism. That was the German Social Democratic party, which Nazis opposed.

Nazi Germany had become an intimidating dictatorship which eventually suppressed all other parties.

This website analyzes the dichotomy between National Socialism and Democracy:

http://www.hitler.org/links/national-socialism.html


I agree that Hitler's Germany served the purpose of reviving capitalism after the Great Depression, but it was only possible by forcing workers to support the greater military goals of Nazi Germany. There were few capitalistic incentives except for those at the top.

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/swabeck/1941/03/neworder.htm

The Social Democrats and Nazis were rivals in democratic Germany you know. SDP was the third way party.

which claim that fascists referred to their system as a "third way" alternative to capitalism and marxism:

http://hnn.us/comments/14266.html

"For a start, Blair extols the virtues of the Third Way, which was the phrase coined by the Fascists, no less, to describe their alternative to capitalism and communism."

http://www.usmbooks.com/MussoliniFamily.html

"From 1925 until the mid 1930s Fascism was popular in Italy and experienced little opposition. It evolved into a new political and economic system that combined totalitarianism, nationalism and anti-communism, designed to bind all classes together under a capitalist system (the "Third Way"). This was a new capitalist system in which the state took control of the organization of vital industries."

To portray social democracy as fascist..be careful.

which is a big mistake because they were directly opposed to each other.

On the other hand, it makes sense from the point of view of Nazi propaganda. The sponsors of Hitler feared that Marxist socialism would takeover Germany after the Great Depression. Hitler came to power by offering hope to business owners and farmers that their property would not be taken over by the state, while at the same time offering an alternative to traditional capitalism, which many felt had failed.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fascism

It's here, isn't it? Not totalitarian, yet, but it's here in the BUSH/CHENEY criminal administration.

Saying that we're not totalitarian yet but we're fascist is like saying we're flooded if we get one rain drop.

You can't be fascist and not be totalitarian.

:patriot:

Tell that to the people who've been spirited away to a torture house without any representation.

Tell that to the constitutional scholars who have called Bush's signing statements totalitarian.

Tell that to all of the reporters and government officials who have been silenced by the threats and actions of this regime.

Consider for a moment that you could be whisked away to a prison in the middle of the night, and no one would have to tell your family or give you a trial. They could do this after reading all of your emails and listening to all of your phone calls for no reason... or they could just do it because they say so.

Not authoritarian my ass.

The point of fascism is to suck as much money and power up to the oligarchy and suppress any opposition to that. The point isn't so that people can march around in shiney boots. The point is and will always be MONEY. And uh I hate to tell you this but that 9 trillion dollars wasn't spent on Hurricane Katrina and school lunches.

What isn't controlled by the Executive at this point? What? Please do tell.

Of "defending" the Bush administration by explaining how bad and unconstitutional policies don't prove we're fascist. The SC can strike down any unconstitutional law or element of law. They can declare any executive action to be unconstitutional and stop it in its tracks. That's simply not fascist.

> The SC can strike down any unconstitutional law or element of law.

In theory, this is true.

Literally speaking, it is true (due to the word "can" allowing the
option of choice).

> They can declare any executive action to be unconstitutional and
> stop it in its tracks.

Again, theoretically and literally, this is true too.

However, given that the SC *CHOSE* the President that has been
running (or ruining) the USA for the last 7 years AND has not acted
on the "signing statement" farce, I would not hold my breath on
the theory being put into practice.

> I don't play that game ...

The game you are currently "playing" is defending the current
state of affairs using the theoretical possibility as defining
the practice and this simply is not true.

of political decisions.
What we are seeing is the development of Kleptocracy by the predator class!

One thing's for sure-we, the people have got to CHANGE THINGS.
:patriot:

on top of the fact we've (the American taxpayers) been subsidizing these b*&tards forever and a day...

As Chomsky has always pointed out, this is but one more example, albeit on an unprecedented in-your-face scale:

"The unprecedented intervention of the Fed may be justified or not in narrow terms, but it reveals, once again, the profoundly undemocratic character of state capitalist institutions, designed in large measure to socialize cost and risk and privatize profit, without a public voice."

BBC Viewpoints: Where Now for Capitalism?

from Project For An Old American Century
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

I see you've been here for 6 years, Suspicious, it's a pleasure to virtually meet you today.
:hi:

Yes, I've been here...I just don't post much! :hi:

:patriot:

It's more like a swear word .... if you don't like something or someone call it "fascist" without having the slightest degree of knowledge of how real fascism came to power in Europe and what it represented. People need to read some serious books on fascism before they spout off on the topic as if they knew something.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4059340

and you are certainly encouraged to participate in it.

"Escape to Wisconsin-like Nazis, neocons, organized crime, and black ops did" (started July 27, 2007)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=186x21683

"National Socialism" is the result of eliminating regulation and making a joke out of oversight. Throw in a falsely promoted invasion and some no-bid contracts, spread fear and straw men about, and you've got a recipe for government of the many poor by the few rich.

Let's face it, there's no way we should be allowing anyone to advocate this bill under the moniker of "Bailout". There should be no bailout of these crooks. It should be called a reregulation. Or maybe "Consequences."

Privatize the gains, socialize the losses. The perfect racket, starring business and government.

Mussolini would have been proud.

By the moose's own definition.

No, the Other Mooselini.

-Hoot

GET IT RIGHT

so you won't have to kick my ass about CONTEXT-since we're on the same page--and have been for quite some time.
:patriot:

why not leave well-meaning socialists out of it?

after doing some reading on how fascism came about in Hitler's Germany, it seems that it was first sold to the Germans as a form of socialism, but a form which was clearly separate from Marxism. National Socialism also had a presence in the United States around the turn of the century, in fact the man who invented the pledge of allegiance and came up with the idea of putting a flag in every classroom was a National Socialist. You may notice something familiar about the way they first saluted the flag:

The pledge of allegiance was written in 1892, before National Socialism even existed. The man who wrote it was a Christian socialist minister, not a Nazi.

he seems to confuse National Socialism and Marxism, but he does point this out about Edward Bellamy, the brother of Francis who created the Pledge, and who were self-proclaimed 'military socialists':

"Edward Bellamy also became editor of The Nationalist (1889-91) and the New Nation (1891-94).

The book “Looking Backward” inspired the creation of 167 “Nationalist Clubs” worldwide. Bellamy nationalists focused on nationalism (“my country over others”), rabid patriotism, and their interest in nationalization, or public ownership and management of everything."


Also, wasn't Francis supposed to be agnostic or atheist? "under God" wasn't introduced into the Pledge until later.

plus just go up thread a little, the topic is self-evident even for those that didn't know that FASCISM & NATIONAL SOCIALISM are synonymous.

n/t

National Socialist German Workers Party=NAZI.

Nazi: an adherent or advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism; a fascist.

Anyone with access to the Internet or a dictionary can look this up, but I'm "stupid" and this is a "misleading", "stupid" poll-as all polls here at DU are. Another personal flaw to consider-I have a BA in Sociology, the bastard child of all social sciences--with a cumulative gpa of 3.48 so I failed to make honors. I know my BFEE however.

National Socialism is here, it is not totalitarian, yet-and the CRIMINAL administration of GEORGE WALKER BUSH/RICHARD BRUCE CHENEY and a complicit CONGRESS inaugurated it.

This stupid poll reflects that most of those voting in it agree.

This is a give away to the filthy rich.