We can do better than the "Fascism" meme
So all of a sudden the Rip van Winkles of American politics, having been asleep during the Obama years, are now awake and yelling "Fascism." Trump is a Fascist, we hear from all corners.
All kinds of people hate Donald Trump, and rightly so. Trump is a WWE spectacle who managed to make it to the top of the political pyramid thanks to the political blundering of his election opponent. Those who hate Donald Trump because they are being screwed by government and/or big business are indeed justified. Also, however, the owning class doesn't like it that their actual impolite government (here the topic of a polite complaint by Bernie Sanders in April of 2016) has such an impolite front man. So now we have people such as Madeleine ("it was worth it") Albright telling us that we should be worried about Fascism. And we are the mass audience of potential dupes for this message, being primed for acquiescence, now as during Obama. So we're being invited to join the movement! Sure, we're going to keep the ruling class, with its ongoing crimes against humanity and its ongoing financial insecurity, which will survive Trump as it survived Obama. But look at the glorious compensation! We can harass the baddies at restaurants -- and we'll get court cases in our favor! (Never mind the spooky resemblance of all this to a possible revival of Plessy v. Ferguson. Here's an illustration: imagine that I'm a restaurant owner and that I don't like Black people in my restaurant. Can I claim something about their opinions that will justify my kicking them out?)
And maybe if we're strong enough we'll overthrow Trump! Don't worry, Mike Pence will save us -- or at least that's the hidden curriculum.
Of course, "Fascism" is political hyperbole -- but using terms such as "Fascism" obscures the historical nature of Fascist government. Has Donald Trump yet advocated the abolition of Congress so that he could rule by decree? Should we anticipate an immediate shutdown of Caucus99Percent by gangs of armed thugs? Here is my further question: can't we just call Trump a reactionary asshole while at the same time recognizing that Fascism was something other than what one sees in Trump, something significantly more antidemocratic than what Trump has said and done so far?
I'm okay with the notion of "post-Fascism" argued in this piece, published in the WaPo back in 2017. The piece gets one thing wrong -- Fascism was not "anticapitalist populism." Rather, Fascism was an attempt to save capitalism from its own self-imposed doom, as the piece concedes elsewhere. Nice capitalists like the folks in the Bush family could appreciate that. But it does get right its quotation of Enzo Traverso:
“Trump’s rise is not a sudden return to barbarism, nor is it a meteor crashing down onto a peaceful country,” wrote Traverso. “It is not a resurgence of fascism, but something new and not yet realized.” Traverso, a leftist academic, suggests we call Trump’s politics “post-fascism,” “a capitalism without a human face.”
And I'm fine with Jeffrey C. Isaac, who argues:
Trump is a distinctly American version of a broader global trend: the rise of authoritarian populist leaders who use new media platforms to attack already eroded forms of party politics and mass communication, attack independent judicial, civil service, and media institutions, and incite populist resentment as a way of building a base of political power.
In concluding, Trump sucks, but I don't have a lot of solidarity for the folks who want their human face back but are totally kewl with capitalism as it stands. At this point in the game capitalism will bring further ruin to the planet and the people on it, regardless of the short-term benefits it delivers to its designated winners, and regardless of whether a Trump or a Clinton is at the helm of its political foundations.
Sure, in the short term we will all hope to be capitalism's designated winners, even as the system heads toward the abyss -- we're only human. Perhaps, though, we should do so with a modicum of skepticism toward those telling us that Trump is a Fascist but that the system is otherwise okey-dokey. Meanwhile, let's appreciate the fact that the Rip van Winkles of the political world have finally woken up.
Comments
Good piece, Cassi.
Makes me think of all those who say, "If only Hillary had been elected everything would be just fine."
The USA has been getting progressively (no pun intended) more screwed up for decades. If only we could go back to normal, right?
WAPO: Trump scores 26 out of 44 Facist Points
A WAPO scoring article was done in 2016, before he took office and confirmed my worst fears.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/21/how-fascist-...
It was before he called the Charlotte White Supremacists "good people"; before he endorsed a pedophile for congress; before he separated kids from parents then lost track of them; oh fuck it, this list is so huge. You all know what this sick prick has been doing.
Give the Douchebag time, he'll get his numbers up.
PS. I hated Obama too. And W Bush. And BillyBob ....
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Please define capitalism
This is a fine piece but in the last paragraph you seem to be advocating state monopoly on goods and services. If you mean "unrestrained capitalism" I'm with you 100%. "unrestrained freedom" that yahoos on the right call for means freedom to form mobs to attack, rob, rape, and murder anyone that want to. Like the Ku Klux Klan night riders. Human beings will do this if they are not restrained. Is the solution to eliminate all human beings?
We have laws. We need more laws, that are enforced. But we don't have to throw out the concept of polycentric producers, consumers, and market places.
Some people here wax glowingly on Karl Marx and Communism. Marx made the fundamental mistake of dividing people into good people and bad people. ALL people will be bad people if they don't have limits put on their behavior.
Have you ever talked with people from Russia, Poland, Lithuania, or China? They can tell you what an unrestrained government can do. With the best motives such as the woman we suffered re-education as a young girl during the Cultural Revolution. I say woman, but she was emotionally still a girl, fearing hidden listeners and things like that.
The restrained capitalism that FDR imposed and we had until the VietNam war tore the whole structure apart was not ideal, but close and getting better. I, for one, liked having a choice of cars instead of one state run supplier. A choice of clothes, home builders (I know, some environmentalists want us all to live in apartments), clothes suppliers ( and not all made in Bangladesh), et cetera. I say FDR, but today's capitalists and their political poodles want to tear down pure food and drug laws, and all environmental constraints too. I agree that they must be stopped, but state monopoly is not the answer. And the state is never going to "wither away", although they periodically do collapse in fire and blood.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Things weren't much better under Happy Face Capitalism.
Communist societies had their problems like any other, but were it not for Communism, women would have been property of their husbands.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYFA2wCDw7A]
Even under Happy Face Capitalism, women had very little rights, if any. Hell, the pigs outright refused to allow the Equal Rights Amendment to see the light of day. The pigs also saw it fight to encourage white flight after the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.
And even with eternal vigilance, the pigs will be right back in charge after a decade or two at best, especially without the Soviet Union or Red China (Which restored capitalism with Deng Xiaoping) keeping the pigs in check. Sure, there's Cuba (whose top export is doctors and medicine) and North Korea (Whom the South actually wants peace with, despite US actions), but neither are a threat to anyone. The pigs know this fully well, but they project the propaganda boogeymen anyway.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Really?
I lived under Happy face capitalism in the '50s and '60s. I never heard of parents being arrested in the middle of the night never to be seen again. I never heard of food shortages and fights over buying a loaf of bread. I never heard of university professors being sent with their families to forced labor as sharecroppers in Mississippi. I never heard of women being ordered by the government to divorce their husbands or join them in prison. Like happened in the various "Worker's Paradises" that I cited. And I learned of these things from refugees, people that I personally knew, and knew well.
If our only choice is laissez-faire capitalism or Communism. I'll take laissez-faire, much as I hate it.
Happy Face capitalism was pretty damned good. It had societal problems but they were things unrelated to economics, like sexism and racism.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Next you're going to whine about gulags.
Did I say those societies were without problems? No, I didn't. But without those societies you and your friends whine about, Happy Capitalism would have never happened. And with the Soviet Union dead and buried, the Capitalists now have free reign to do what they want, when they want, where they want to whoever they want with NO recourse for the victims.
This bit is classic:
Which western demographer's toilet paper did you pull that out of? That's exactly what this reads like. In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were pulling this right out of The Black Book of Communism.
You're seriously pretending as though Jim Crow, Slavery and the 13th Amendment (which simply changed the rules of slavery rather than ending it) never happened.
And like any other centrist right-wing enabler, you shit out this little gem:
That's textbook siding with the pigs, right there.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
I heard all those things from people who lived them!
You are the one sounding like a Russian shill.
If that's what this blog is about - trying to get the USA to embrace Communism- then I've been wasting my time here.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Ever heard this song?
[video:https://youtu.be/Jg8h526sB7w]
"It's the same the 'ole world over,
It's the poor what gets the blame
While the rich gets all the clover,
Ain't it all a bloomin' shame!"
("She was poor, but she was honest" - English music hall song)
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Humans are humans, and we're not as smart as some
think we are. Other wise we wouldn't be doing the same shit over and over for centuries. Recorded history isn't all that long and it all tells the same story.
Pointless comment deleted
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
From each according to his ability
, to each according to his needs.
Sounds horrible. Who in their right mind would want that?
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
Sexism and racism were/are unrelated to economics?
That is news to me.
Out of curiosity, when you were never hearing of food shortages or people disappearing, had you spoken to members of First Nations on reservations (before bribers, er, I mean lobbyists, got them casinos), Mexicans in places like Texas, or black people in Jim Crow states (and elsewhere)? Or was your comment limited only to nationwide food shortages and disappearances that establishment media reported widely? And are only parental disappearances to be condemned? As far as university professors, wasn't it bad enough that sharecroppers were forced to be sharecroppers, some of them after they had been forced to be slaves, prior to ratification (and enforcement) of Thirteenth Amendment?
"If our only choice is laissez-faire capitalism or Communism. I'll take laissez-faire, much as I hate it."
1. As I am sure you know, the comment quoted above sets up a false dilemma, albeit only conditionally.
2. In which nation do citizens have (and/or in which nation have citizens had) a choice between laissez-faire capitalism--true laissez-faire capitalism--and Communism? AFAIK, actual laissez-faire capitalism has never existed in the US (nor in its colonial predecessors). If I knew where it exists, I just might mind lassez-faire capitalism less than I mind our subsidized, protected capitalism and our capitalist plutocracy.
I respectfully disagree that the division...
between good and bad people is incorrect. However, I grant that Marx's understanding was limited by his failure to actually live the lifestyle he promoted.
Specifically that actions undertaken by people are good or bad, and it is their net result which causes us to judge the morality of those actions. Of course, the issue becomes extremely complicated when talking about shades of grey and delegated authority.
Perhaps that's why Antisthenes wrote that A society was doomed when it could no longer tell good men from bad. It was not that men could tell at a glance whether a man was good or bad and act accordingly, rather a man's actions which told the rest of the polis whether or not the man acted for the good of the people or only for the good of them self.
When the person engaging in the "Bad" actions cannot be identified, it is indeed a doomed society for there can be no fair or honest societal reaction. People will react only to the words of those they trust, the "Good" people, or so they think. As a result this lack of understanding of the other results in a breakdown of the polis into those who are thought of as only "American" and those as a nebulous and evil "Other" unto which all vice and evil can be projected. Of course, neither the "Good" or the "Bad" in this scenario are rendered clean, merely using the other as the scapegoat for their own evil. Indeed the roles of "Good" and "Bad" are only slightly distorted mirrors of each other.
So, yes, I agree that the division into good and bad people as arbitrary as described by Marx and defined line is idiotic for it eliminates the conversation and the ability to know your neighbors and your fellow man. However, a reasoned and long term observation can reveal whether actions are good are bad in the long run for the people as a whole, IMHO. And such, a man can be judged to be good or bad, but only if their actions and words are honest and done in their own names. It is the lies and the obfuscation which destroy a society.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Marx's promotion of a lifestyle
I can think of two examples where Marx promotes a lifestyle. One is from Marx and Engels' (1845) The German Ideology:
And, much later (1875) in the Critique of the Gotha Program:
Now, presumably the lifestyles described by Marx above were to become possible after a revolution, and thus I'm a bit confused by the idea of Marx's failure to "live the lifestyle he promoted." Where were we?
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
No stress.
And I freely admit that I'm working with common/layman understanding of Marx. Of course that's where the vast majority of folks are working on this one, so forgive me if I delve into pop culture understanding.
However, what I specifically mean is that Marx, despite his admiration and exultation of the working class never did much actual time among them from what I can see. While he may have had good concepts, he, like many other of the later philosophers, delve into academic differences and axioms rather than focus on how it might affect the day to day.
I admit that I can't really get into his writing. It struck me as dull and elitist when I tried. Perhaps I'll try again, but it strikes me as a slog, and I'd much rather turn my ideas to simpler and more fundamental concepts.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
I can live with that.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Capitalism
is a system dedicated to progressively universal commodification (i.e. with an endlessly expanding frontier) for the sake of endless capital accumulation.
Capitalism today is in an era where new frontiers (and thus new opportunities for "growth") are created by dismantling old restraints upon the system. The patrons of the system in Congress didn't pass Gramm-Leach-Bliley just for fun (although I don't deny that they may have had some fun passing it). Thus the idea of a "well regulated capitalism" has become a joke, since the capitalist system is eternally hungry and will eventually eat your regulations for dinner, if not now then later.
A system of state monopoly on goods and services, at this time, would have the advantage of allowing the state to decree the phasing out of fossil fuel extraction, thus saving human civilization from eventual global warming death. But I suppose that depends upon your values -- some people value capitalism more than mass survival.
Legal fossil fuel extraction is making that particular solution possible right now. Watch for what Mora et al. (2013) call "climate departure," when agriculture becomes impossible.
I would like to suggest, here, that this paragraph might be improved by rewriting for clarity. One option, for the sake of clarity, would be to explain where Marx "divides people into good people and bad people" with a quotation and a source. I own nearly all of the fifty-volume Marx-Engels Collected Works and do not know of such a quotation. Another option for the sake of clarity would be to explain who is be the sovereign, to put "limits on the behavior" of others if "all people will be bad people" without said limits. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I'm sure that an explanation would help with some readers here who are not used to seeing the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes presented as the unvarnished truth, especially when applied to the "Golden Age" of the capitalist system's expansion as you are doing here.
The systems of "actually existing socialism" existed in a particular era (namely, the second and third quarters of the 20th century) in which some of the governments of the semi-periphery felt they needed authoritarian means to catch up in "growth" and "development" with the core nations. The political mold for such authoritarian catch-up was set by Joseph Stalin, who along with his Bolshevik buddies inherited a peasant nation that had been ruled by czars. Essentially all monarchies and dictatorships are examples of "unrestrained government."
Here I'm suggesting that there should be bigger questions to ask than those of whether a particular bygone stage of capitalist growth be handled through democracy or monarchy. The core offered limited democracy mostly to privileged white males, the semi-periphery had monarchy foisted upon it, and that was history. I'm suggesting that the more important question is one of what we do now.
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
AFAIK, we began losing the "restrained capitalism
imposed by FDR" under--you guessed it--FDR, pursuant to bills passed by Congress--and signed by FDR. After New Democrat* Bubba proudly "ended welfare as we know it," little more than Social Security remained of the "restrained capitalism" fashioned by FDR. Of course, the allegedly Lesser President Bush attempted to end Social Security, then New Democrat* Obama promised to end "entitlements"--but not until Obama was almost due for his first inauguration. Mercifully, both Bush and Obama failed and/or chickened out (but New Democrat Hillary did meet with the notorious, and now late, Pete Peterson to try to figure out just what to do about pesky Social Security (aka Old Age and Disability Insurance).
*"New Democrat," as, of course, distinguished from "old Democrats" like FDR, who fashioned the New Deal, and LBJ, who declared "War on Poverty." I strongly suspect that fear by plutocrats of popular uprisings motivated both those programs, but "reforms" like (a) routinely and constantly violating the Fourth Amendment; (b) a volunteer army (which we're propagandized to quasi-deify) and (c) Homeland Security have to have abated such fears considerably.
" that fear by plutocrats of popular uprisings"
That fear is gone. The PTB have gotten their power structure in place in case any of one decides that they have had enough of their transferring our money into their pockets. They militarized the police, built devices like the huge trucks that spout huge jets of water that will clear people from their positions and the LRAD accustic device and the "microwave" one that can boil people's blood and have written laws and legislation that will see people arrested and then disappeared to wherever they have planned for them to go. The deportation camps could be a nice place to stick them don't you think? Oh yeah, their fear is definitely gone now.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
As so often happens, my dear Snoop, we agree.
As so often happens, my dear Snoop, we agree.
For me it's not trump but the people persuading him
that scares me, trumps only ideology is money,
those that have access/control with/over him are
what I would call fascists, neocons, neolibs.
I.E. all in for capitalism.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Jimmy Dore had a good video
on the Maxine Waters call to shame officials in public spaces. The question is "Where is the line in the sand that separates a valid point of view or a political position versus something you need to stand up and fight against?".
It's in this 30 minute video, but you can get the gist of the argument by listening from 2:30 to about the 4:00 min mark.
I agree with Dore that this is a valid means of protest (public shaming). And Trump officials have earned the protest. I also agree with Cassiodorus that we should have been doing this during the Obama and Bush eras.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
For many reasons, the site of
Alan Dershowitz' face repulses me.
--Plagiarist
--Amoral Opportunist
--Liar
--Relentless Zionist apologist/activist
--Establishment "Liberal"
--Visiting island buddy of sex fiend and sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein
--Overrated academic
And yet, he doesn't get shunned at Martha's Vineyard until he defends Trump? (His defense of Trump, no doubt, has a lot to do with the fact that Trump takes his foreign policy orders from Tel Aviv.)
Oh, and by the way, I don't have too much respect for Maxine Waters, either.
One of billions of examples how the MSM flouts its public trust
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
- Kurt Vonnegut
Some public officials did shame Bush and Obama publicly.
Other public officials publicly shamed and/or ridiculed other plutocrats, too. Many of the Democratic shamers of Democrats, however, ended up shamed themselves, often by their fellow Democrats. They include Rangel, Weiner, Conyers, Edwards and others. IIRC, the Ethics Committee kept Rangel Clayton Powell, Jr., under investigation for three Congressional elections. After Rangel was re-elected each time anyway, Rangel was all but threatened by then President Obama (yes, by he of the below rate bank loans and suspicious affiliation with Rezko). I believe the Committee finally chastised Rangel for some relatively minor stuff.
Did the above-named Democratic shamers of Democrats deserve shaming? My replies as to each of them ranges from "Probably" to "Most Definitely," but I don't believe that they were the only Democrats who could have been shamed.
Oh, and although he is not technically a Democrat, isn't Bernie Sanders still under the investigation begun by the FBI while Obama was President? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-fbi-investiga...
Chris Hedges uses the term "inverted
totalitarianism" and has argued that that system has been in place for some years now.
Of course, I don't expect any of the people now crying out about Trump's "fascism" to begin to want to understand or face the reality what it is Hedges has been talking about for all these years now.
Oh well. Let's just elect a Democrat as president (only this time, make him a gay, Latino, woman), and we can all go back to sleep.
Apparently, "inverted totalitarianism" is much more tolerable than Trump's "fascism."
Inverted totalitarianism --
I'm okay with "inverted totalitarianism" as a descriptor of life under Trump/ Obama/ whomever is coming next. It's a respected term with a clear definition, referencing the work of Sheldon Wolin.
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
No defense for Trump or his fanatics
No excuses, no "dims. Take some damn responsibility Trumpsters for your hate, your willfull ignorance and your moral lapses. You are in charge, not Obama. The people who enable Trump are in charge and they hold the fate of America in their deluded hands.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Back to singing this tune, are we?
Tell you what: I'll endorse your point of view on this when you issue the same types of challenges to the people that gave 8 years of unquestioning loyalty to Obama in spite of his sins and travesties, which in my book, are overall just as bad as Trump's.
Until that happens, then I will have to conclude that you have a real blind spot for Obama's evils, while having an acute eye for Trump's evils. In my book, such a reality would be very closely connected to "D v. R" partisanship, which I have absolutely no use for. (See Big Al's comment below, if you need further elucidation.)
The nature of capitalism is profit...
The fundamental goal (more for me) is contrary to the public good. Health care, education, environmental reclamation, and other public services can't be based on profit and serve the public too. Perhaps highly regulated capitalism could provide goods, but services need to be publicly and universally provided.
Capitalism is in collapse. Richard Wolff and Chris Hedges discuss the situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60FrsWm9OAc (27 min)
As to T-rump as a fascist, I much prefer viewing him as the ultimate capitalist, serving as president for personal profit. I think most of his actions are seen clearly when viewed through the lens of personal financial gain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbCU0JLeEPU (4.5 min)
T-rump isn't alone. Consider Obama's recent speeches on Wall Street at $400,000 a pop. He must have something really important to say
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-18/obama-goes-from-white...
Not to mention Bill and the $hill speeches
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-bill-clinton-russia-sanctions-...
It is crony capitalism, and T-rump is the head con man. Calling T-rump a fascist creates the impression that he is the problem...not the system. My take anyway.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
All of the labels we have been using
...every one of them — belong to a world that has passed into history. We couldn't reconstitute fascism if we wanted to. Our instincts have evolved along with our aspirations. Many things get lost during the transition from the past to the future. Take socialism. Mention it and the tired cliches start flying, with old-timers telling socialist ghost stories that belie the best parts of the top 40 developed nations of the world. Hello? Nobody wants to own your means of production — unless it already belongs to us and your management style is screwing it up — like a public utility. Or a prison. Or maybe a bank. But that all has nothing to do with socialism in the 21st century; nothing to do with what the next generations are talking about.
Which bring us back to fascism, an ideology that was apparently dropped from a UFO. It has no past, no author, no papers or books, no links to anything else man-made. As far as I know, the only people who ever practiced fascism described it as individuals willingly surrendering their own sovereignty to the greater sovereignty of the corporations, which work in partnership with the state in governing the nation.
The only nation I know that has fully embraced classical fascism is the United States. The rest who tried all managed to fail.
But I really enjoyed this essay, Cassiodorus. Very inspiring and amusing.
But still
what do you call a nation that has had its government captured by corporate interests?
According to Mussolini
That's the definition of Fascism...
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
Bingo. That is the definition of fascism.
Thus, it would also fit the Obama administration as well. Oh, and let me point out that Obama had an American citizen and, two weeks later, his teenaged American son, executed by drone strikes without first giving them their constitutional rights to trial. That was a totalitarian act if ever there was one.
So far, whatever things you can say about Trump's evils, even Trump has not gone that far.
Let me also point out that Obama and the Democrats pretty much normalized mass NSA spying on American citizens in violation of the Constitution that had been instituted during Dubya's years.
I don't know
but we've had elections, counted votes. No matter how we think about it being fair or rigged that mechanism still operates. Up until now we've had pretty much the same gov. structure, with major parts soon to be dismantled. So, what do we have? Pretty much half the country seems ok with it. If they don't kill us or outlaw us, just pretty much ignore us and keep having elections, and winning, is it still fascism?
So then, we have "elected" fascism.
We have a system in which corporate powers, largely though their corporate media, have highly rigged, highly gamed, and highly controlled our elections to make sure that whoever wins, will be beholden to the corporate state.
Okay, the people supposedly get to participate by deciding which specific politicians will rule. Nonetheless, it's still a fascist system when the outcome is always in favor of corporate control of government and one's electoral choice, for all practical intents and purposes, is always between corporatist A and corporatist B.
BTW, Paul Craig Roberts has referred to our system as "soft fascism."
Yeah it kind of boggles
elected fascism, democratic fascism, soft fascism (soft democracy?)Maybe "Cutting Democracy" because of the self harm aspect. Whatever it is, it defies easy definition.
Yes, according to
its definition of Corporate own Government this country has been fascist for a good long while now. At least since Reagan if not before, and I think it really was before, much as my own personal revulsion would love to blame it all on the Repigs and St Ronnie the Dim - a HARD old habit to break, I fully admit it.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Who wins a rigged election?
Who is we?
You appear to be railing on the democrats, Clinton/Obama supporters, etc., who criticize (or call names) Trump and the republican party but fail to "notice the beam in their own eyes".
I suppose anything that takes the focus off of the big picture, i.e., that we don't live in a democracy whether it's fascism or not, isn't the best approach, but that depends on the pov.
What if I'm not an Obama supporter or a democrat, liberal or progressive? Is it OK then? I prefer to call Trump, among a number of other things, a fucking fascist. I'm not sure what harm that does. I also call him an asshole. Nobody knows history anyway. I think it serves as kind of a warning of where we're heading if we don't end the bullshit.
The problem is, like when debating with Trump supporters, it's always necessary to make it clear that you make mostly the same criticisms of Obama and the democratic party. Those that criticize Trump but support Obama or Clinton or the democratic party, sure they've got some hypocrisy going on.
As for capitalism vs socialism, I vote for letting the people decide, a democratic decision made by citizens. First, we have to find a way to let the people decide.
The pigs would never allow a vote.
And I think you know they'll skew it in their favor even if they do.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
That's the point A.C.
Unless we can somehow convert this country to a reasonable democracy, talk of real socialism is just talk. It's like Medicare for all improved or a nationalized health care system (socialism), it simply won't happen unless we change this political system first. Those calling for "single payer" or Medicare for all and not combining that with a call for a radical change in this political system are like democratic party supporters criticizing Trump and the republicans. Of course, most of them are one and the same.
It's just hyperbole --
when you call Trump a "fucking fascist." And we know it's hyperbole.
That's fine.
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
I believe we the people decided twice
but where fucked both times, first by zero
ignoring that is was the people who elected him
prez, then by tptb/dnc who gave us her heinous instead
of Bernie
dubya by mode of scotus and hanging chads maybe a 3rd
Bobby K assassinated a 4th.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
I think DJT's
Actions are in perfect alignment with white nationalism. It's kind of a fascist light.
Trump is doing his part to consolidate power into the executive branch. This has been going on in a number of administrations: Obama, Bush (unitary executive), Clinton etc etc.). He has expressed an interest in eliminating his political opponents and is deconstructing the legislative and judicial branches of government. He may not be a fascist in principle but he is at heart.
One thing Trump is NOT is a populist. I see this term used for him all the time and it couldn't be more out of place. Trump is all about elitism and has absolutely no interest in the people. His base is a band of useful idiots, a tool for his power and ego.
Debunking the Economic Freedom Map
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTZezOhgLNg]
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.