Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Stench of Fascism
As the economy declines, the capitalist class eliminates the facade of parliamentary democracy and, unless there is major resistance, establishes fascism at home as it promotes blood for oil wars abroad. We are witnessing the establishment of a neighborhood spy network in August 2002, just like Nazi Germany, and now concentration camps under FEMA, due to be ready by January, 2003.
As the economy declines, the capitalist class eliminates the facade of parliamentary democracy and, unless there is major resistance, establishes fascism at home as it promotes blood for oil wars abroad. We are witnessing the establishment of a neighborhood spy network in August 2002, just like Nazi Germany, and now concentration camps under FEMA, due to be ready by January, 2003.
The pretext, as always, for these concentratoin camps, euphemestically called temporary cities, is a terror attack. Since the bombings of Sept 11, 2001 were a Reichstag Fire, this story falls flat.
The police state can be stopped. We just saw the American Gestapo capitulate in the face of rising protest over the obvious frame-up of John Walker Lindh. (who by the way was born in Washington DC, where he lived the first 10 years of his life as his father was a lawyer for the Department of Justice there; he moved to California with his parents at age 10, and lived in California for 6 years, where his father was a lawyer for PG&E.) Regardless of what you may think about Lindh wanting to study religion (we have more than enough superstition here; he did not have to go thousands of miles away for that garbage), Lindh's case was clearly a frame-up and an effort to pave the way for more of same, and worse.
We need massive presence of everyone at every peace and civil liberties demonstration . We also need massive publicity in every venue of the fact that the 9/11 events were a Reichstag Fire. The rest of the world is sure of it; and many Americans understand that as well. Unlike Nazi Germany, the US is a nuclear power. No one in the world can afford to ignore the fascist nature of the current administration.
On thing about FEMA that you should know is that they were in New York on Sept. 10, ready for a crisis. Bush has admitted he knew about this Reichstag Fire before 9/11.
On the FEMA story, see http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/14/214727.shtml
The text is as follows:
FEMA Preparing for Mass Destruction Attacks on Cities
John O. Edwards
Monday, July 15, 2002
FEMA, the federal agency charged with disaster preparedness, is engaged in a crash effort to prepare for multiple mass destruction attacks on U.S. cities - including the creation of sprawling temporary cities to handle millions of displaced persons, NewsMax has learned.
FEMA is readying for nuclear, biological and chemical attacks against U.S. cities, including the possibility of multiple attacks with mass destruction weapons.
The agency has already notified vendors, contractors and consultants that it needs to be prepared to handle the logistics of aiding millions of displaced Americans who will flee from urban areas that may be attacked.
The agency plans to create emergency, makeshift cities that could house hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who may have to flee their urban homes if their cities are attacked.
Ominously, FEMA has been given a deadline of having the cities ready to go by January 2003 – in about six months.
A source familiar with the deadline believes the effort is related to making the U.S. prepared for counterattacks if the U.S. invades Iraq sometime next year.
FEMA is currently seeking bids from major real estate management firms, and plans to name three firms in the near future to handle the logistics and planning for these temporary cities.
FEMA officials have told these firms they already have tents and trailers ordered. The tents and trailers would provide shelter for displaced populations.
The real estate firms are expected to provide engineers and architects to lay the plans for emergency infrastructure needs, such as sewage and electricity.
Editor's Note: This story first appeared in NewsMax's Insider Report - emailed to subscribers to NewsMax's news alert service.
The pretext, as always, for these concentratoin camps, euphemestically called temporary cities, is a terror attack. Since the bombings of Sept 11, 2001 were a Reichstag Fire, this story falls flat.
The police state can be stopped. We just saw the American Gestapo capitulate in the face of rising protest over the obvious frame-up of John Walker Lindh. (who by the way was born in Washington DC, where he lived the first 10 years of his life as his father was a lawyer for the Department of Justice there; he moved to California with his parents at age 10, and lived in California for 6 years, where his father was a lawyer for PG&E.) Regardless of what you may think about Lindh wanting to study religion (we have more than enough superstition here; he did not have to go thousands of miles away for that garbage), Lindh's case was clearly a frame-up and an effort to pave the way for more of same, and worse.
We need massive presence of everyone at every peace and civil liberties demonstration . We also need massive publicity in every venue of the fact that the 9/11 events were a Reichstag Fire. The rest of the world is sure of it; and many Americans understand that as well. Unlike Nazi Germany, the US is a nuclear power. No one in the world can afford to ignore the fascist nature of the current administration.
On thing about FEMA that you should know is that they were in New York on Sept. 10, ready for a crisis. Bush has admitted he knew about this Reichstag Fire before 9/11.
On the FEMA story, see http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/14/214727.shtml
The text is as follows:
FEMA Preparing for Mass Destruction Attacks on Cities
John O. Edwards
Monday, July 15, 2002
FEMA, the federal agency charged with disaster preparedness, is engaged in a crash effort to prepare for multiple mass destruction attacks on U.S. cities - including the creation of sprawling temporary cities to handle millions of displaced persons, NewsMax has learned.
FEMA is readying for nuclear, biological and chemical attacks against U.S. cities, including the possibility of multiple attacks with mass destruction weapons.
The agency has already notified vendors, contractors and consultants that it needs to be prepared to handle the logistics of aiding millions of displaced Americans who will flee from urban areas that may be attacked.
The agency plans to create emergency, makeshift cities that could house hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who may have to flee their urban homes if their cities are attacked.
Ominously, FEMA has been given a deadline of having the cities ready to go by January 2003 – in about six months.
A source familiar with the deadline believes the effort is related to making the U.S. prepared for counterattacks if the U.S. invades Iraq sometime next year.
FEMA is currently seeking bids from major real estate management firms, and plans to name three firms in the near future to handle the logistics and planning for these temporary cities.
FEMA officials have told these firms they already have tents and trailers ordered. The tents and trailers would provide shelter for displaced populations.
The real estate firms are expected to provide engineers and architects to lay the plans for emergency infrastructure needs, such as sewage and electricity.
Editor's Note: This story first appeared in NewsMax's Insider Report - emailed to subscribers to NewsMax's news alert service.
For more information:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Dude, if you get back on your medicine, the hallucinations and paranoid fantasies will subside.
The person who attempted to assassinate Chirac was a well known fascist and neo-nazi.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/chir-j17.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/chir-j17.shtml
people call it nuts and paranoia, even fantasy to think such diabolical atrocities are capable of even being pulled off by a government gone wrong on the inside, yet still looking all the hero on the outside to it's patriots
all it takes is some faith and a diversion and any world power can create another holocaust under its own peoples noses
Fronti nulla fides
Jim
all it takes is some faith and a diversion and any world power can create another holocaust under its own peoples noses
Fronti nulla fides
Jim
I just watched this video that shows Bush's inaugural address and behind him is the fasci, a bundle of sticks with a sickle on the top. Then they showed a speech by Hitler and the same thing was in the background. I only saw a moment of the video but when I find the title I'll post it.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES: If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
From the CNN transcript on 12/18/2000
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/ip.00.html
I think that should dismiss some claims about that whole paranoia thing...
From the CNN transcript on 12/18/2000
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/ip.00.html
I think that should dismiss some claims about that whole paranoia thing...
Interesting Quote...but there is no context around it...nor on the linked site given...and I dont like Bush...but I didnt like Gore either, just another side of the same coin in my eyes
Yet I would even say something like this in jest or just hanging around with some political buddies while discussing the time element in making things happen legislation wise for instance
Does that make me a fascist?
Jim
Yet I would even say something like this in jest or just hanging around with some political buddies while discussing the time element in making things happen legislation wise for instance
Does that make me a fascist?
Jim
Jim although you would say it in context you would not be likely to use it in an interview if you were the president elect. Although I dont really know you Jim, i do find it unlikely that you would be that dumb. Now, does it neccesarily make GWB Mussolini, no of course not. But it is a little scary nonetheless.
... fascist gets thrown around alot. here's some definitions:
"the dictionary's definition":
1. the doctrines, methods, or movement of the Fascisti
2. a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerant nationalism, racism, and militarism, ect. first instituted in Italy in 1922 3. a.) a political movement based on such policies b.) fascist behavior See also Nazi.
so, when massive, private economic interests are wed with america's war machine, what else is there to call it but fascism? when america fights wars not because it's people and its freedoms are in peril (WW2...), but because powerful economic interests are in "peril"/need to expand, what else is their call it but fascism?
or when the legal interests of massive, private economic concerns are given the highest priority before the governing representative body (cable industry deregulation, the bush administration's singularly oil and coal based energy policy as if there were no other choices worth taxpayer money, attempts to shut down internet radio through user fees that regular radio stations do not have to pay, government loans for failing industries like the airline industry after 9-11, oracle corp. looking to share secrets with the n.s.a./c.i.a./f.b.i. about what people buy online...), what else is there to call it but fascism?
supposedly in america, big, wealthy corporations are "free" to handle their own affairs, are responsible for their failures, and really want nothing to do with the government. but in fact, the corporations love to get in bed with the government. they love to make the rules. they love to change the rules in their interest. they love to lobby and fund elections. and many government positions are held by former corporate chiefs, and many famous government positions and politicians find lucrative success in the "private" sector.
the idea that big business hates the u.s. government is Complete Bullshit. it's one of the biggest lies in american politics, one the "right" loves to keep saying. big business is powerful enough to BE a government. the u.s. gov and big business are merging... fascism with a "friendly" face...
"the dictionary's definition":
1. the doctrines, methods, or movement of the Fascisti
2. a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerant nationalism, racism, and militarism, ect. first instituted in Italy in 1922 3. a.) a political movement based on such policies b.) fascist behavior See also Nazi.
so, when massive, private economic interests are wed with america's war machine, what else is there to call it but fascism? when america fights wars not because it's people and its freedoms are in peril (WW2...), but because powerful economic interests are in "peril"/need to expand, what else is their call it but fascism?
or when the legal interests of massive, private economic concerns are given the highest priority before the governing representative body (cable industry deregulation, the bush administration's singularly oil and coal based energy policy as if there were no other choices worth taxpayer money, attempts to shut down internet radio through user fees that regular radio stations do not have to pay, government loans for failing industries like the airline industry after 9-11, oracle corp. looking to share secrets with the n.s.a./c.i.a./f.b.i. about what people buy online...), what else is there to call it but fascism?
supposedly in america, big, wealthy corporations are "free" to handle their own affairs, are responsible for their failures, and really want nothing to do with the government. but in fact, the corporations love to get in bed with the government. they love to make the rules. they love to change the rules in their interest. they love to lobby and fund elections. and many government positions are held by former corporate chiefs, and many famous government positions and politicians find lucrative success in the "private" sector.
the idea that big business hates the u.s. government is Complete Bullshit. it's one of the biggest lies in american politics, one the "right" loves to keep saying. big business is powerful enough to BE a government. the u.s. gov and big business are merging... fascism with a "friendly" face...
Found this post on usenet.
_
> Kurt Weber: "The only difference between Communism and Fascism is that
> the Fascists are honest about what they're doing, and thus morally
> superior to Communists."
>
> As opposed to you, an anti-communist who hangs out in a communist
> discussion forum?
Please, guys, this is a serious topic, although probably quaint and
misplaced. For one thing, the association of communism and fascism is a
relic of the Cold War anti-communism and has less relevance today because
there (unfortunately) no longer seems to be a generalized abhorance of
fascism. Also, the question necessarily forces us to arrive at a useful
and agreed upon definition of fascism and communism, which is not here the
case.
The term "fascism" in origin refered to the concentration of political
offices within the hands of the Roman Emperor (bundled "swagger sticks"
are the symbol of fascism). However, the Roman Emperors were no "fascists"
in the modern sense, and we today must go beyond a purely political
definition (such as simply the non-separation of governing powers).
One of the problems of definition is that we use the term fascism to refer
to different movements and to behaviors that are quite distinct. For
example, Alan Bullock tries to define fascism in empiricist terms by
listing its typical behaviors, which are very roughly the following (I've
taken considerable liberty with them):
1. Ultra-Nationalism. This associated behavior suggests the context of
modern fascism is the bourgeois state. While communist movements can also
be nationalist at certain points and national movements socialist, they
don't seem intrinsically so. In particular, communists are principled
internationalists, while fascists are the opposite and aim at exclusion,
not inclusion. So, as we look into the matter more deeply, communists and
fascists seem the opposite.
2. Authoritarian. While communist movements can be authoritarian as well
as bourgeois regimes, there seems to me to be a basic difference. The
authoritarianism associated with fascism seems a consequence of systemic
crisis, and does not offer any escape from that authoritarian order. The
authoritarianism that may be associated with a communist movement seeks to
build the revolutionary unity and discipline needed to arrive at a
non-authoritarian future. While this has proven tricky in practice and the
short term effect on people might be the same, the authoritarianism is
quite different when viewed as part of along term processes.
3. Anti-democratic. Fascism attacked any organization of private interest,
such as unions, as a threat to the political order under which the
person's whole being was to be subsumed (culture raised to the political
level). Communist movements have at times been un-democratic as well, but,
again, when viewed as a long term process, they are quite different.
Fascism sacrifices democracy to perpetuate the political order needed by
capitalism; communism creates a political order to usher in democracy and
ultimately the dissolution of the "state."
4. Racism and xenophobia. The social anxiety arising from the bourgeois
state in crisis lent itself to a definition of "the other" as a threat to
the good poltical order. One marshalled political order by attacking
aliens, which helped purify one's own society. Communism can also be
"sectarian," but in ways that seem in principle to be less destructive:
Communists represent the bourgeoisie as an alien class, but this does not
mean the aim is to destroy people, but only their class. That is,
communists aim to convert members of the bourgoisie into workers. While in
the short term of a revolutionary situation, the attack on the bourgeosie
can be deadly, it is not an attack on people for what they intrinsically
are (their culture or "race"), but on their social role, which people can
willingly change.
Communist movements can also be sectarian in terms of ideology, but I'd
pursue a similar argument that while fascism attacks what people
intrinsically are, communism attacks only their behavior. The difference
is fundamental, for socialism seeks to develop everyone, while fascism
excludes or eliminates all but a group that therefore becomes statically
pure.
5. Class. Fascism seems historically linked to a crisis of the "middle
class," the petit bourgeoisie, to non-capitalist property owners. Athough
it could find some support among the capitalist bourgoisie and the working
class for various reasons, it seems a movement based fundamentally on the
crisis of the "middle class." Communism is based on the working class,
although it might find some support from peasants and intellectuals
(middle class). So basically, the movements engage contradictory classes
and so are socially opposite.
In short, while a narrow focus can find areas in which fascism and
communism might share some similarities, a broader and deeper view
suggests that they are quite the opposite.
The issue of fascism vs.communism might seem quaint at this point, but
since 1989 it may be reappearing on the table. As a result, there are
several questions that I won't pursue here:
If fascism is defined in empiricist terms, there will always be
uncertainty as to whether it remains a concept relevant to contemporary
circumstances. To what extent is Bush's Homeland Security proto-fascist?
Questions like this can only lead to pointless spitting matches if we
define fascism as a bundle of behaviors as I have above.
The only way forward from this is to ask whether fascism can be defined in
systemic terms. That is, is it a set of likely behaviors associated with
capitalist crisis? If so, we can then assess whether the US is sliding
toward fascism, where people have no viable options to express their
private interests as individuals. Otherwise we should perhaps limit the
term fascism to the WWII and post-war historical context.
This choice is not one that communists and capitalists are likely to agree
upon, for Marxists prefer systemic explanations, while capitalist ideology
tends to be empiricist. That is, there's no point in capitalists and
workers trying to debate the issue with each other, although I think it is
increasingly important that each class itself take the issue more
seriously (for trite reasons, I don't expect much of the middle class).
The point is not for capitalists and workers to get hung up trying to
debate the issue between themselves, but whether we are now witnessing the
demise of democracy. Socialists have for so long made an invidious
distinction between political democracy (Marx's "parliamentary cretanism")
and socio-economic democracy that sometimes they underestimate the value
of political democracy. The bourgeois state created a poltical
commonwealth that at best protected the rights and personal security of
its citizens, and increasingly we appreciate the value of these benefits,
even if we (as socialists) recognize the bourgeois political commonwealth
as narrow, insufficient, and doomed.
Globalization, U.S. world hegemony, IMF conditionalities, privatization,
trade liberalization, the U.S. attack on the U.N., etc. (in short,
capitalism), is tending to dissolve bourgeois political commonwealths.
Marxists in principle don't simply reject the bourgeois political
commonwealth out of hand, but aim to "aufheben" it; aim at its
transcendence with something that does the job better - not only protect
the individual, but encourage at the same time the social development of
the individual (capitalism does not claim to do it. For example,
capitalism provides free universal education to the extent needed to
reproduce the working class, but beyond that point the individudual must
pursue edication on his own).
We may blame the dissolution of the bougeoise commonwealth on Bush, but it
was also evident under Clinton, etc., the outcome will be ever more world
tragedy unless something develops that offers an alternative to the nation
state. In principle only communists offer such an alternative. The only
bourgeoise groups that still talk about a happier future are the Breton
Woods institutions, but no one takes their optimism seriously any more
(not even Soros or Stiglitz).
Rather than get hung up over fascism, we need to decide whether the
conditions necessary for a decent life the world over are today under
serious threat and if so, devise strategies to preserve and develop these
conditions in the future. Whether we use the term "fascism" to refer to
the present trend should not be the center of debate, just as the
definition of communism as a method should not obscure the necessity of a
socialist future.
Haines Brown KB1GRM
_
> Kurt Weber: "The only difference between Communism and Fascism is that
> the Fascists are honest about what they're doing, and thus morally
> superior to Communists."
>
> As opposed to you, an anti-communist who hangs out in a communist
> discussion forum?
Please, guys, this is a serious topic, although probably quaint and
misplaced. For one thing, the association of communism and fascism is a
relic of the Cold War anti-communism and has less relevance today because
there (unfortunately) no longer seems to be a generalized abhorance of
fascism. Also, the question necessarily forces us to arrive at a useful
and agreed upon definition of fascism and communism, which is not here the
case.
The term "fascism" in origin refered to the concentration of political
offices within the hands of the Roman Emperor (bundled "swagger sticks"
are the symbol of fascism). However, the Roman Emperors were no "fascists"
in the modern sense, and we today must go beyond a purely political
definition (such as simply the non-separation of governing powers).
One of the problems of definition is that we use the term fascism to refer
to different movements and to behaviors that are quite distinct. For
example, Alan Bullock tries to define fascism in empiricist terms by
listing its typical behaviors, which are very roughly the following (I've
taken considerable liberty with them):
1. Ultra-Nationalism. This associated behavior suggests the context of
modern fascism is the bourgeois state. While communist movements can also
be nationalist at certain points and national movements socialist, they
don't seem intrinsically so. In particular, communists are principled
internationalists, while fascists are the opposite and aim at exclusion,
not inclusion. So, as we look into the matter more deeply, communists and
fascists seem the opposite.
2. Authoritarian. While communist movements can be authoritarian as well
as bourgeois regimes, there seems to me to be a basic difference. The
authoritarianism associated with fascism seems a consequence of systemic
crisis, and does not offer any escape from that authoritarian order. The
authoritarianism that may be associated with a communist movement seeks to
build the revolutionary unity and discipline needed to arrive at a
non-authoritarian future. While this has proven tricky in practice and the
short term effect on people might be the same, the authoritarianism is
quite different when viewed as part of along term processes.
3. Anti-democratic. Fascism attacked any organization of private interest,
such as unions, as a threat to the political order under which the
person's whole being was to be subsumed (culture raised to the political
level). Communist movements have at times been un-democratic as well, but,
again, when viewed as a long term process, they are quite different.
Fascism sacrifices democracy to perpetuate the political order needed by
capitalism; communism creates a political order to usher in democracy and
ultimately the dissolution of the "state."
4. Racism and xenophobia. The social anxiety arising from the bourgeois
state in crisis lent itself to a definition of "the other" as a threat to
the good poltical order. One marshalled political order by attacking
aliens, which helped purify one's own society. Communism can also be
"sectarian," but in ways that seem in principle to be less destructive:
Communists represent the bourgeoisie as an alien class, but this does not
mean the aim is to destroy people, but only their class. That is,
communists aim to convert members of the bourgoisie into workers. While in
the short term of a revolutionary situation, the attack on the bourgeosie
can be deadly, it is not an attack on people for what they intrinsically
are (their culture or "race"), but on their social role, which people can
willingly change.
Communist movements can also be sectarian in terms of ideology, but I'd
pursue a similar argument that while fascism attacks what people
intrinsically are, communism attacks only their behavior. The difference
is fundamental, for socialism seeks to develop everyone, while fascism
excludes or eliminates all but a group that therefore becomes statically
pure.
5. Class. Fascism seems historically linked to a crisis of the "middle
class," the petit bourgeoisie, to non-capitalist property owners. Athough
it could find some support among the capitalist bourgoisie and the working
class for various reasons, it seems a movement based fundamentally on the
crisis of the "middle class." Communism is based on the working class,
although it might find some support from peasants and intellectuals
(middle class). So basically, the movements engage contradictory classes
and so are socially opposite.
In short, while a narrow focus can find areas in which fascism and
communism might share some similarities, a broader and deeper view
suggests that they are quite the opposite.
The issue of fascism vs.communism might seem quaint at this point, but
since 1989 it may be reappearing on the table. As a result, there are
several questions that I won't pursue here:
If fascism is defined in empiricist terms, there will always be
uncertainty as to whether it remains a concept relevant to contemporary
circumstances. To what extent is Bush's Homeland Security proto-fascist?
Questions like this can only lead to pointless spitting matches if we
define fascism as a bundle of behaviors as I have above.
The only way forward from this is to ask whether fascism can be defined in
systemic terms. That is, is it a set of likely behaviors associated with
capitalist crisis? If so, we can then assess whether the US is sliding
toward fascism, where people have no viable options to express their
private interests as individuals. Otherwise we should perhaps limit the
term fascism to the WWII and post-war historical context.
This choice is not one that communists and capitalists are likely to agree
upon, for Marxists prefer systemic explanations, while capitalist ideology
tends to be empiricist. That is, there's no point in capitalists and
workers trying to debate the issue with each other, although I think it is
increasingly important that each class itself take the issue more
seriously (for trite reasons, I don't expect much of the middle class).
The point is not for capitalists and workers to get hung up trying to
debate the issue between themselves, but whether we are now witnessing the
demise of democracy. Socialists have for so long made an invidious
distinction between political democracy (Marx's "parliamentary cretanism")
and socio-economic democracy that sometimes they underestimate the value
of political democracy. The bourgeois state created a poltical
commonwealth that at best protected the rights and personal security of
its citizens, and increasingly we appreciate the value of these benefits,
even if we (as socialists) recognize the bourgeois political commonwealth
as narrow, insufficient, and doomed.
Globalization, U.S. world hegemony, IMF conditionalities, privatization,
trade liberalization, the U.S. attack on the U.N., etc. (in short,
capitalism), is tending to dissolve bourgeois political commonwealths.
Marxists in principle don't simply reject the bourgeois political
commonwealth out of hand, but aim to "aufheben" it; aim at its
transcendence with something that does the job better - not only protect
the individual, but encourage at the same time the social development of
the individual (capitalism does not claim to do it. For example,
capitalism provides free universal education to the extent needed to
reproduce the working class, but beyond that point the individudual must
pursue edication on his own).
We may blame the dissolution of the bougeoise commonwealth on Bush, but it
was also evident under Clinton, etc., the outcome will be ever more world
tragedy unless something develops that offers an alternative to the nation
state. In principle only communists offer such an alternative. The only
bourgeoise groups that still talk about a happier future are the Breton
Woods institutions, but no one takes their optimism seriously any more
(not even Soros or Stiglitz).
Rather than get hung up over fascism, we need to decide whether the
conditions necessary for a decent life the world over are today under
serious threat and if so, devise strategies to preserve and develop these
conditions in the future. Whether we use the term "fascism" to refer to
the present trend should not be the center of debate, just as the
definition of communism as a method should not obscure the necessity of a
socialist future.
Haines Brown KB1GRM
... i would agree that "fascism" is an old relic from WW2, but...
what is it called when federal and state law enforcement officials plant bombs in the cars of environmental activists, and then blame/frame the activists for the ensuing explosions? why are these state and federal powers so afraid of dissent...
there's got to be a new word or term or phrase for something like this (as well as the thinking behind this and the entrenched system behind this...) if "fascism" is not a correct enough term.
what is it called when federal and state law enforcement officials plant bombs in the cars of environmental activists, and then blame/frame the activists for the ensuing explosions? why are these state and federal powers so afraid of dissent...
there's got to be a new word or term or phrase for something like this (as well as the thinking behind this and the entrenched system behind this...) if "fascism" is not a correct enough term.
totalitarian fascist police state
that's what the regime wants
go ahead and call it for what it is
read your USAPATRIOT Act, good citizen
that's what the regime wants
go ahead and call it for what it is
read your USAPATRIOT Act, good citizen
>"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -Mussolini
It was also said of Mussolini's Italy that the trains always ran on time. It might be wise to question the motives behind anything said by Mussolini or by his government.
As a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, I want to encourage the majority of you here to use the word "fascist" in public every other word anytime you refer to the US government.
Also, I find it intriguing that there are those here who would decry corporations and government being too cosy, yet would jump on the bandwagon of government controlled health care, essentially having Wash. D.C. control 1/7th of our economy.
It was also said of Mussolini's Italy that the trains always ran on time. It might be wise to question the motives behind anything said by Mussolini or by his government.
As a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, I want to encourage the majority of you here to use the word "fascist" in public every other word anytime you refer to the US government.
Also, I find it intriguing that there are those here who would decry corporations and government being too cosy, yet would jump on the bandwagon of government controlled health care, essentially having Wash. D.C. control 1/7th of our economy.
'We stand for the maintenance of private property...We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.' - Adolph Hitler
Boys and girls,
Let's get this conversation straight. It seems that there is some confusion over who and what (historically and in the present) can we call fascist. The Italian word, fascio, means group of bundle, making the fascist movement particular to nationalism. But what is nationalism without a purpose, I say? Just as bad as those lefty punks who wear their hair inches above their head and squaller freedom. Any form of ideology must have a meaningful purpose, and in this case, fascisms original and ultimate purpose was to industrialize and develop the Italian peninsula.
Doesn't seem so bad after all, eh? But many of you so diligent individuals say, what about the mass murder and the evil guys with funny hats? Mussolini's Fascism did not have the characteristic of mass murder (check your sources), nor did it have the degrading ideology that you see in national socialism.
To refer to national socialism as fascism is like refering to apples as oranges. Unlike the original Fascists, the german national socialists used nationalism not only to attempt to rebuild their nation, but also to exclude those that comprised the main artery of their entrepreneurial class (the Jews). Seems completely backwards, no? The Russians had already tried to industrialize with the decimation of the Kulaks, and failed miserably. The National Socialists tried the same and also failed. Hitler had some nostalgic vision of transforming the German countryside, having his fellow Germans (who should have been working in industry) sowing barley and drinking warm beer (yuck!). Evidently, his nationalist goals were used for a completely different goal.
Now, some of you say that Mussolini also jumped on the bandwagon with Hitler during the war. Well, I would almost want to explain this as more of a safety net on Italy's side, for the main reason that Mussolini thought that Hitler would win the war (fatal mistake!). And when it boils down to it, you'd much rather be on the winner's side than the loser's. Otherwise, if Mussolini had embraced the ideology, he would have had the industrialization of Italy completely stopped with the German pact and also began construction of his own set of death camps in Italy, none of which you see historically.
In fact, at the beginning of his regime, Mussolini saw the efficiency in the Jewish worker, and even embraced the efficiency that they could offer. Many of the top officials in Fascist Italy were Jewish. Mussolini's statements of anti-semitism later on were merely a clear tactical confirmation to Hitler that Italy was on his side, and not an ideological one.
Let's get this conversation straight. It seems that there is some confusion over who and what (historically and in the present) can we call fascist. The Italian word, fascio, means group of bundle, making the fascist movement particular to nationalism. But what is nationalism without a purpose, I say? Just as bad as those lefty punks who wear their hair inches above their head and squaller freedom. Any form of ideology must have a meaningful purpose, and in this case, fascisms original and ultimate purpose was to industrialize and develop the Italian peninsula.
Doesn't seem so bad after all, eh? But many of you so diligent individuals say, what about the mass murder and the evil guys with funny hats? Mussolini's Fascism did not have the characteristic of mass murder (check your sources), nor did it have the degrading ideology that you see in national socialism.
To refer to national socialism as fascism is like refering to apples as oranges. Unlike the original Fascists, the german national socialists used nationalism not only to attempt to rebuild their nation, but also to exclude those that comprised the main artery of their entrepreneurial class (the Jews). Seems completely backwards, no? The Russians had already tried to industrialize with the decimation of the Kulaks, and failed miserably. The National Socialists tried the same and also failed. Hitler had some nostalgic vision of transforming the German countryside, having his fellow Germans (who should have been working in industry) sowing barley and drinking warm beer (yuck!). Evidently, his nationalist goals were used for a completely different goal.
Now, some of you say that Mussolini also jumped on the bandwagon with Hitler during the war. Well, I would almost want to explain this as more of a safety net on Italy's side, for the main reason that Mussolini thought that Hitler would win the war (fatal mistake!). And when it boils down to it, you'd much rather be on the winner's side than the loser's. Otherwise, if Mussolini had embraced the ideology, he would have had the industrialization of Italy completely stopped with the German pact and also began construction of his own set of death camps in Italy, none of which you see historically.
In fact, at the beginning of his regime, Mussolini saw the efficiency in the Jewish worker, and even embraced the efficiency that they could offer. Many of the top officials in Fascist Italy were Jewish. Mussolini's statements of anti-semitism later on were merely a clear tactical confirmation to Hitler that Italy was on his side, and not an ideological one.
Do you really believe half the shit you're saying? Or is it that being on the state department payroll has you speaking the way you do? Yea, so Italian fascism and German fascism were different. You take it too far in emphasizing the differences and saying one is national socialism while the other is genuine fascism, though. Sure, German fascism is responsible for systematic murder and genocide. But lets be clear on what fascism is. It's the smashing of the working class and of any kind of upheaval that may lead to gains by the people, whether that's them getting better job, unions, education, living standards and govt. control. Mussolini was as clear in doing this as Hitler. He smashed unions and workers, went after radicals, militants, communists, etc. He integrated the state and corporations, industries and workers into the state. He did all this while appropriating some of the language of the Left, just like Hitler did. His fascism may have been more "palatable" than Hitler's version. But it was still fascism.
those who fight people for the benefit of power
vs.
those who fight power for the benefit of people...
hmmm, i wonder which lies closest to the heart of the fascist "right" in america?
if... if this country had a completely state run health care system, there would be no managed care corporations benefitting. and one could say, "well, but the government is benefitting with all that tax money". it already is, every hour of every day. and if everyone could afford a doctor, who would really benefit? the u.s. gov. doesn't have c.e.o.'s paid $30 million a year simply for their position and job performance. so the benefit's not going to them. could it be going to the people who have no money for a doctor, or for $4000 a month in prescriptions? those kind of people are the entire reason why universal health care is even tendered as an idea (not a reality) after all...
even though its a hypothetical, it's better than what the fascists do with tax money, which is give a give away to the top 1%, along with love pats and hugs and favours and secret lever pullings, cut health care, put social security on the stock market and just PRAY for fucks sake, spend 100's of billion$ on a bigger military, and yes, that's right fellow citizens, NEW WAR$! aren't you proud of your new wars...
lets talk about the nature of governmental power vs. corporate power...
do corporate boards face elections by popular decision?
if a pres. or c.e.o. of a corporation is given a extra-marital b.j. in the executive suite, is it the entire work force of said corporation's business to get into a shit fit about it? and further more, can the work force publicly and by popular decision, censure or remove the c.e.o. from office if it so chooses?
are corporations responsible for anything other than the bottom line and share holder return on investment? do they give a fuck about you or anyone else, despite what their cheesy ads proclaim?
if the risks of management are put on the backs of workers, can workers vote management out of office without having to strike, getting fired, or laid off?
who do presidents in the u.s. gov. work for? (supposedly...)
who do presidents in the "private sector" work for? you? us? hell no.
and that's the whole point. the more the government becomes an omnipotent corporation, and the more the corporations begin to take on governmental powers, the more the hybrid combo will operate FOR ITSELF, FOR THE UNHINDERED CONTINUATION OF ITS POWER, FOR ITS INTERESTS, AND FOR ITS PRESIDENTS AND FAMILIES AND KIN AND FRIENDS AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATES AND PARTNERS, AND NOT FOR THE PEOPLE, WHO ARE NOTHING MORE THAN AN OBSTACLE. the government's interests will no longer be your interests. there will come a weird separation between what the gov. says and what the gov. does.
collective interests are supposed to be the realm of any government, but sitting there watching the news, seeing how closely the business kings sit next to the political kings (of both parties), there's an obvious pecking order about who gets what first in america. and that ain't right. call it what you may...
vs.
those who fight power for the benefit of people...
hmmm, i wonder which lies closest to the heart of the fascist "right" in america?
if... if this country had a completely state run health care system, there would be no managed care corporations benefitting. and one could say, "well, but the government is benefitting with all that tax money". it already is, every hour of every day. and if everyone could afford a doctor, who would really benefit? the u.s. gov. doesn't have c.e.o.'s paid $30 million a year simply for their position and job performance. so the benefit's not going to them. could it be going to the people who have no money for a doctor, or for $4000 a month in prescriptions? those kind of people are the entire reason why universal health care is even tendered as an idea (not a reality) after all...
even though its a hypothetical, it's better than what the fascists do with tax money, which is give a give away to the top 1%, along with love pats and hugs and favours and secret lever pullings, cut health care, put social security on the stock market and just PRAY for fucks sake, spend 100's of billion$ on a bigger military, and yes, that's right fellow citizens, NEW WAR$! aren't you proud of your new wars...
lets talk about the nature of governmental power vs. corporate power...
do corporate boards face elections by popular decision?
if a pres. or c.e.o. of a corporation is given a extra-marital b.j. in the executive suite, is it the entire work force of said corporation's business to get into a shit fit about it? and further more, can the work force publicly and by popular decision, censure or remove the c.e.o. from office if it so chooses?
are corporations responsible for anything other than the bottom line and share holder return on investment? do they give a fuck about you or anyone else, despite what their cheesy ads proclaim?
if the risks of management are put on the backs of workers, can workers vote management out of office without having to strike, getting fired, or laid off?
who do presidents in the u.s. gov. work for? (supposedly...)
who do presidents in the "private sector" work for? you? us? hell no.
and that's the whole point. the more the government becomes an omnipotent corporation, and the more the corporations begin to take on governmental powers, the more the hybrid combo will operate FOR ITSELF, FOR THE UNHINDERED CONTINUATION OF ITS POWER, FOR ITS INTERESTS, AND FOR ITS PRESIDENTS AND FAMILIES AND KIN AND FRIENDS AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATES AND PARTNERS, AND NOT FOR THE PEOPLE, WHO ARE NOTHING MORE THAN AN OBSTACLE. the government's interests will no longer be your interests. there will come a weird separation between what the gov. says and what the gov. does.
collective interests are supposed to be the realm of any government, but sitting there watching the news, seeing how closely the business kings sit next to the political kings (of both parties), there's an obvious pecking order about who gets what first in america. and that ain't right. call it what you may...
Well here is something to think about. the last presidential campaign...
Corporations that have donated at least $500,000 to both Gore and Bush
[Source: Jim Hightower]
AT&T
Philip Morris
Amer Financial Group
Microsoft
Atlantic Richfield Co.
SBC Communications
Enron
Mirage Resorts
Federal Express
Citigroup
Amer Airlines
Bell Atlantic
Anheuser-Busch
Limited Inc.
Pfizer
Rite Aid
Schering-Plough
BellSouth
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Union Pacific
Blue Cross & Blue
Shield
MBNA Corp
America Online
Amer Intl Group
MCI Worldcom
Ernst & Young
Circus Circus
Enterprises
Sprint
AFLAC
Time Warner
Boeing
Prudential Insurance
Ocean Spray Cranberries
Paine Webber
MGM Grand
Archer Daniels Midland
Walt Disney
Coca-Cola
Flo-Sun Sugar Co.
Lockheed Martin
Intl. Game Technology
United Airlines
Oracle
Exxon Mobil
United Technologies
US West
Pacific Gas & Electric
Upjohn
Owens Corning
Chevron
Park Place
Entertainment
Bacardi Martini USA
Boston Capital Partners
Eli Lilly & Co.
Georgia-Pacific
Amer Home Products
Amer Express
Bechtel Group
Loews Corp
Sunoco
General Electric
Northern Telecom
General Dynamics
New York Life Insurance
United HealthCare
Corporations that have donated at least $500,000 to both Gore and Bush
[Source: Jim Hightower]
AT&T
Philip Morris
Amer Financial Group
Microsoft
Atlantic Richfield Co.
SBC Communications
Enron
Mirage Resorts
Federal Express
Citigroup
Amer Airlines
Bell Atlantic
Anheuser-Busch
Limited Inc.
Pfizer
Rite Aid
Schering-Plough
BellSouth
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Union Pacific
Blue Cross & Blue
Shield
MBNA Corp
America Online
Amer Intl Group
MCI Worldcom
Ernst & Young
Circus Circus
Enterprises
Sprint
AFLAC
Time Warner
Boeing
Prudential Insurance
Ocean Spray Cranberries
Paine Webber
MGM Grand
Archer Daniels Midland
Walt Disney
Coca-Cola
Flo-Sun Sugar Co.
Lockheed Martin
Intl. Game Technology
United Airlines
Oracle
Exxon Mobil
United Technologies
US West
Pacific Gas & Electric
Upjohn
Owens Corning
Chevron
Park Place
Entertainment
Bacardi Martini USA
Boston Capital Partners
Eli Lilly & Co.
Georgia-Pacific
Amer Home Products
Amer Express
Bechtel Group
Loews Corp
Sunoco
General Electric
Northern Telecom
General Dynamics
New York Life Insurance
United HealthCare
>if this country had a completely state run health care system, there would be no managed care corporations benefitting.
I've never seen that as the point here. The point has always been made that there are a handful of individuals who control everything. Do you really believe that those whom you believe are benefitting from the healthcare system as it currently stands won't continue to benefit in government controlled healthcare?
>and one could say, "well, but the government is benefitting with all that tax money". it already is, every hour of every day.
I've never paid tax for a doctors visit, a hospital stay, or for a prescription. Unless you are talking about corporate taxes, just what tax revenue are you speaking about?
I've never seen that as the point here. The point has always been made that there are a handful of individuals who control everything. Do you really believe that those whom you believe are benefitting from the healthcare system as it currently stands won't continue to benefit in government controlled healthcare?
>and one could say, "well, but the government is benefitting with all that tax money". it already is, every hour of every day.
I've never paid tax for a doctors visit, a hospital stay, or for a prescription. Unless you are talking about corporate taxes, just what tax revenue are you speaking about?
Hey comrade,
The only reason Mussolini smashed the unions is that they prevented the nation from developing at the rate he wanted to develop. If you can imagine, negotiation of wages, strikes, and other things of the sort would slow the overall productivity of the workers. He needed the Italian workforce in order to develop Italy, and therefore he gave almost of them jobs.
Hmm, that doesn't exactly sound like "the smashing of the working class". As far as education and living standards, Mussolini improved both, drastically, in Italy. Pre-Fascist times in Italy were without schools in the Italian countryside. Of course, he needed his workforce to be educated (an evident requirement of a developed society). And living standards were improved with railroads, paved roads, and an overall development of cities during the Mussolini rule.
Your comments about Ethiopia are way out of line. I've heard Ethiopian estimates of close to 25,000 people dead as a result of the wars with Italy. Most academics push the number down to 3,000 people. Which can you trust? I don't know, I guess that's your burden of proof. I would tend to go more with something in the middle, closer to the thousands than the tens-of-thousands.
Comparing this to the genocide of the Nazi regime is absolutely ludicrous. More people were killed in Auschewitz than those numbers combined. And that was just the beginning.
What really worries me is your lack of understanding that Hitler's ideology was based solely on the benefit of the German people through the destruction of the Jewish people, while Mussolini's ideology was more of a rally of the Italian people towards the cause of industrialization. Never once did Mussolini point to a race or "ethnicity" (I hate that word) and say **those** must be demolished. He simply lacks the divide and destroy attitude that Hitler so terribly exalted.
This difference in ideology makes me believe that Italy's Fascism was more than just "palatable", but rather self-righteous and ultimately well-intended.
Well, I guess if you are an anti-modern wacko, in your case it would stink to high heaven, but then again you don't live on a sand dune in the middle of Syria, so you can't be far off from understanding the benefits of modernization.
Salud!
The only reason Mussolini smashed the unions is that they prevented the nation from developing at the rate he wanted to develop. If you can imagine, negotiation of wages, strikes, and other things of the sort would slow the overall productivity of the workers. He needed the Italian workforce in order to develop Italy, and therefore he gave almost of them jobs.
Hmm, that doesn't exactly sound like "the smashing of the working class". As far as education and living standards, Mussolini improved both, drastically, in Italy. Pre-Fascist times in Italy were without schools in the Italian countryside. Of course, he needed his workforce to be educated (an evident requirement of a developed society). And living standards were improved with railroads, paved roads, and an overall development of cities during the Mussolini rule.
Your comments about Ethiopia are way out of line. I've heard Ethiopian estimates of close to 25,000 people dead as a result of the wars with Italy. Most academics push the number down to 3,000 people. Which can you trust? I don't know, I guess that's your burden of proof. I would tend to go more with something in the middle, closer to the thousands than the tens-of-thousands.
Comparing this to the genocide of the Nazi regime is absolutely ludicrous. More people were killed in Auschewitz than those numbers combined. And that was just the beginning.
What really worries me is your lack of understanding that Hitler's ideology was based solely on the benefit of the German people through the destruction of the Jewish people, while Mussolini's ideology was more of a rally of the Italian people towards the cause of industrialization. Never once did Mussolini point to a race or "ethnicity" (I hate that word) and say **those** must be demolished. He simply lacks the divide and destroy attitude that Hitler so terribly exalted.
This difference in ideology makes me believe that Italy's Fascism was more than just "palatable", but rather self-righteous and ultimately well-intended.
Well, I guess if you are an anti-modern wacko, in your case it would stink to high heaven, but then again you don't live on a sand dune in the middle of Syria, so you can't be far off from understanding the benefits of modernization.
Salud!
"This difference in ideology makes me believe that Italy's Fascism was more than just "palatable", but rather self-righteous and ultimately well-intended."
Wow, I wish my grandfather who fled Italy due to fascism was still alive to hear this crap.
' Comparing this to the genocide of the Nazi regime is absolutely ludicrous. More people were killed in Auschewitz than those numbers combined. And that was just the beginning."
Have we forgotten that Mussolini let the Nazis round up the Italian Jews as well. You fucking idiot
"The only reason Mussolini smashed the unions is that they prevented the nation from developing at the rate he wanted to develop. If you can imagine, negotiation of wages, strikes, and other things of the sort would slow the overall productivity of the workers. He needed the Italian workforce in order to develop Italy, and therefore he gave almost of them jobs"
fascism is a totalitarian dictarship. Unions challenge that authority. Unions have no place in a fascist regime and must be broken up.
Wow, I wish my grandfather who fled Italy due to fascism was still alive to hear this crap.
' Comparing this to the genocide of the Nazi regime is absolutely ludicrous. More people were killed in Auschewitz than those numbers combined. And that was just the beginning."
Have we forgotten that Mussolini let the Nazis round up the Italian Jews as well. You fucking idiot
"The only reason Mussolini smashed the unions is that they prevented the nation from developing at the rate he wanted to develop. If you can imagine, negotiation of wages, strikes, and other things of the sort would slow the overall productivity of the workers. He needed the Italian workforce in order to develop Italy, and therefore he gave almost of them jobs"
fascism is a totalitarian dictarship. Unions challenge that authority. Unions have no place in a fascist regime and must be broken up.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$270.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network