If another great depression happened within in this decade.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

but that's certainly only a small part of fascism.

Oi, I'd disagree with you there. There are many different shades of Fascism, but I'd argue that the one thing that they all have in common is nationalism, albeit of a more extreme variety.

Yes, but being a nationalist doesn't mean you're a fascist.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Obama regime's entire economic philosophy is rooted in fascism, i.e., private ownership, public control. We have ongoing wars and insane military spending, we have nationalized corporations, we have an expanding leviathan state. Obama rose to power on an astroturf-generated cult of personality funded by the Wall Street banks, which coincidentally are also corporations now attached closely to the fascist regime in Washington.

Some of the economy may be controlled by the government, but it's nowhere close to a level of overall fascism.

The American government is nowhere near an authoritarian government, even though the state may be expanding.

And would you consider Obama to be a nationalist?  Because if not, you've lost a key tennent of fascism right there.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Some of the economy may be controlled by the government, but it's nowhere close to a level of overall fascism.

Under the Bush and Obama administrations, we have been accelerating toward that point very quickly. The heavy hand of government is taking grasp of industry after industry, from finance to automotive to healthcare.


We are also fast approaching the point at which half of our GDP will be government spending.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, the rapid trend toward authoritarianism we have seen over the past few years should be plenty of cause for concern even if you don't believe we are currently living under authoritarianism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course he is. Fascism worships the state as the nation, not the people.

[President Mitt]

The American government is nowhere near an authoritarian government, even though the state may be expanding.

The Bush Administration was definitely a step towards authoritarian government. He even described himself as such.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Fascism worships the state as the nation, not the people.

Hardly. It's closer to the other way round, though more complicated than that. One People, One Will, One Leader and all that (haha!) jazz. Totalitarianism is a myth created by the sort of people that I'd normally assume you'd hate.

[Sewer]

Slashing spending (including the military budget), lowering taxes, paying down the debt, stopping corporate bailouts, bringing our troops home, restoring civil liberties, reducing the size and scope of government.

None of that has anything to do with the tea party.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Fascism worships the state as the nation, not the people.

Hardly. It's closer to the other way round, though more complicated than that. One People, One Will, One Leader and all that (haha!) jazz. Totalitarianism is a myth created by the sort of people that I'd normally assume you'd hate.

Al's right here.  While there are some that would define nationalism as the state being the highest in terms of importance, that definition of nationalism doesn't fit with the nationalism that describes fascism.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Fascism worships the state as the nation, not the people.

Hardly. It's closer to the other way round, though more complicated than that. One People, One Will, One Leader and all that (haha!) jazz. Totalitarianism is a myth created by the sort of people that I'd normally assume you'd hate.

A fascist would consider the people to belong to the state.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Fascism worships the state as the nation, not the people.

Hardly. It's closer to the other way round, though more complicated than that. One People, One Will, One Leader and all that (haha!) jazz. Totalitarianism is a myth created by the sort of people that I'd normally assume you'd hate.

A fascist would consider the people to belong to the state.

But that's not nationalism.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Fascism worships the state as the nation, not the people.

Hardly. It's closer to the other way round, though more complicated than that. One People, One Will, One Leader and all that (haha!) jazz. Totalitarianism is a myth created by the sort of people that I'd normally assume you'd hate.

A fascist would consider the people to belong to the state.

But that's not nationalism.

It's nationalism in the sense employed by Mussolini and Obama. Mussolini didn't really care about the Italian people any more than Obama cares about the American people. They care merely about exploiting nationalism to serve the state.

You're trying to use this abstract idea to distract from the fact that in terms of real policies, Obama's decidedly lean toward fascism.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Fascism worships the state as the nation, not the people.

Hardly. It's closer to the other way round, though more complicated than that. One People, One Will, One Leader and all that (haha!) jazz. Totalitarianism is a myth created by the sort of people that I'd normally assume you'd hate.

A fascist would consider the people to belong to the state.

But that's not nationalism.

It's nationalism in the sense employed by Mussolini and Obama. Mussolini didn't really care about the Italian people any more than Obama cares about the American people. They care merely about exploiting nationalism to serve the state.

You're trying to use this abstract idea to distract from the fact that in terms of real policies, Obama's decidedly lean toward fascism.

No - I'm not.  Because Obama isn't exploiting nationalism.  And that's part of what I'm using to prove that you're wrong here.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Fascism worships the state as the nation, not the people.

Hardly. It's closer to the other way round, though more complicated than that. One People, One Will, One Leader and all that (haha!) jazz. Totalitarianism is a myth created by the sort of people that I'd normally assume you'd hate.

A fascist would consider the people to belong to the state.

But that's not nationalism.

It's nationalism in the sense employed by Mussolini and Obama. Mussolini didn't really care about the Italian people any more than Obama cares about the American people. They care merely about exploiting nationalism to serve the state.

You're trying to use this abstract idea to distract from the fact that in terms of real policies, Obama's decidedly lean toward fascism.

No - I'm not.  Because Obama isn't exploiting nationalism.  And that's part of what I'm using to prove that you're wrong here.

Of course he is. He always has, just like his predecessors have done.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024898.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But again, you're trying to nitpick over this abstract idea rather than admit that the core of Obama's actual policies fit with fascism.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He wanted to unite America.  That's not nationalism - that's trying to get as many votes as you can in an election.

Whether or not I'm nitpicking, Obama is not overall a fascist.  He may adhere to some of the tenets of fascims, but he is nowhere close to being an all-out fascist.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

He wanted to unite America.  That's not nationalism - that's trying to get as many votes as you can in an election.

Whether or not I'm nitpicking, Obama is not overall a fascist.  He may adhere to some of the tenets of fascims, but he is nowhere close to being an all-out fascist.

Uh, no, he definitely is a fascist, even if your claims about him lacking 'nationalism' were true. The core of fascism is its economic and social policies, not the propaganda it uses.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He wanted to unite America.  That's not nationalism - that's trying to get as many votes as you can in an election.

Whether or not I'm nitpicking, Obama is not overall a fascist.  He may adhere to some of the tenets of fascims, but he is nowhere close to being an all-out fascist.

Uh, no, he definitely is a fascist, even if your claims about him lacking 'nationalism' were true. The core of fascism is its economic and social policies, not the propaganda it uses.

You've only mentioned economic policies.  What social policies of his are fascist?

And in terms of economics, government control of corporations is not widespread - it's limited to a select handful of sectors.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

He wanted to unite America.  That's not nationalism - that's trying to get as many votes as you can in an election.

Whether or not I'm nitpicking, Obama is not overall a fascist.  He may adhere to some of the tenets of fascims, but he is nowhere close to being an all-out fascist.

Uh, no, he definitely is a fascist, even if your claims about him lacking 'nationalism' were true. The core of fascism is its economic and social policies, not the propaganda it uses.

You've only mentioned economic policies.  What social policies of his are fascist?

Under Obama, the U.S. government is corporatizing healthcare even further, for example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really. Did you see my earlier post on the subject?

[You kip if you want to...]

And the Tea Partiers aren't fascist.

I don't use the word lightly....but they're certainly the closest to a fascist movement the U.S. has had in a long time.

Sorry, then you have no clue what fascism is.

Barack Obama and the current U.S. regime is the "closest to a fascist movement the U.S. has had in a long time."

Not ordinary people protesting out-of-control deficit spending.

So the deficit spending that occured before January 20, 2009 was completely fine?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

And the Tea Partiers aren't fascist.

I don't use the word lightly....but they're certainly the closest to a fascist movement the U.S. has had in a long time.

Sorry, then you have no clue what fascism is.

Barack Obama and the current U.S. regime is the "closest to a fascist movement the U.S. has had in a long time."

Not ordinary people protesting out-of-control deficit spending.

So the deficit spending that occured before January 20, 2009 was completely fine?

Hmm, you must have accidentally quoted the wrong person; I don't recall saying that.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He wanted to unite America.  That's not nationalism - that's trying to get as many votes as you can in an election.

Whether or not I'm nitpicking, Obama is not overall a fascist.  He may adhere to some of the tenets of fascims, but he is nowhere close to being an all-out fascist.

Uh, no, he definitely is a fascist, even if your claims about him lacking 'nationalism' were true. The core of fascism is its economic and social policies, not the propaganda it uses.

You've only mentioned economic policies.  What social policies of his are fascist?

Under Obama, the U.S. government is corporatizing healthcare even further, for example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really. Did you see my earlier post on the subject?

The one where you showed that the % of government spending as part of GDP?  Yeah - it was under 45%, so not even half of the economy - in a fascist economy that'd be much higher.

Furthermore, a true fascist would be an enemy of unions, and Obama is no enemy of American unions.

[Sewer]

Slashing spending (including the military budget), lowering taxes, paying down the debt, stopping corporate bailouts, bringing our troops home, restoring civil liberties, reducing the size and scope of government.

None of that has anything to do with the tea party.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The one where you showed that the % of government spending as part of GDP?  Yeah - it was under 45%, so not even half of the economy - in a fascist economy that'd be much higher.

Uh, Inks, do you believe in a free market system? If so, I have a hard time believing that you aren't alarmed that anything even close to half of the entire U.S. economy is now government spending.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A fascist would oppose independent unions that promoted some Marxian ideology, but not unions that are essentially corporate outgrowths of the state as they are in the U.S. Unions actually play a strong role in fascistic national syndicalist ideology. There's certainly no conflict between corporatist unions and fascism.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The one where you showed that the % of government spending as part of GDP?  Yeah - it was under 45%, so not even half of the economy - in a fascist economy that'd be much higher.

Uh, Inks, do you believe in a free market system? If so, I have a hard time believing that you aren't alarmed that anything even close to half of the entire U.S. economy is now government spending.

I am alarmed, but it hasn't crossed to a point of fascism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A fascist would oppose independent unions that promoted some Marxian ideology, but not unions that are essentially corporate outgrowths of the state as they are in the U.S. Unions actually play a strong role in fascistic national syndicalist ideology. There's certainly no conflict between corporatist unions and fascism.
[/quote]

I have a hard time agreeing that the majority of unions in America are corporatist unions - perhaps the largest, but not a majority of them.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Slashing spending (including the military budget), lowering taxes, paying down the debt, stopping corporate bailouts, bringing our troops home, restoring civil liberties, reducing the size and scope of government.

None of that has anything to do with the tea party.

Says you.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This discussion is exactly what I would expect from someone with such a pitiful understanding of history and simpleminded logic as Libertas has been displaying here. Much longer posts could be made about this than what this one will be, but I would wager the reason no one, such as Al, has been bothered to respond in a lengthy manner to Libertas is because, everytime it's tried in the past, Libertas will either ignore most of what you said or just not respond again.

I will remark on my favorite thing about reading this inane discussion: Libertas' skill at broadly declaring any action fascistic. I only wish things were so black and white. Intent and purpose matter far more than the action itself. Government control of something is not inherently fascist. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism and how that authoritarianism is used defines the ideology harnessing it.

Authoritarianism, government action, centralization, is not a matter of left and right. But Libertas has tried to boil down this simple facts of society down into left/right freedom/fascist ways that are simply mind blowing in how he actually believes in his own BS.

For example: If a government takes action to break up strikes, intimidate unions, and side with business leaders, for the purpose of displaying an anti-organized labor attitude, that would be far more an inherently right-wing phenomenon than a left wing one. Conversely, a government taking action to protect strikers and encourage union growth for the sake of bolstering organized labor, that would be an inherently more left-wing phenomenon than a right-wing one.

Libertas, however, does not see any deeper than the surface, because he simply declares the act of government, whether it be in defense of or against the subject, fascist in itself. This is why his entire presence in this thread is a joke.

Defining fascism, or anything political for that matter, is not easy. And I yield to Al for what fascism is and isn't, because I'm far less educated on the matter than he is, but I do know that intent matters. The purpose of the state's action, not the action itself, defines what something is.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I am alarmed, but it hasn't crossed to a point of fascism.

Once again, look at the trends, not the point at which we are right now.

And btw, fascism didn't take over 100% of the economy in the countries in which it was practiced either. There was 'capitalism', just a heavily burdened illusory 'capitalism'- like we have today.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Inks, you seem to be being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational. If you don't know whether what I said is true, why assume I must be wrong?