Newsweek magazine, which has given us many of the most damaging deceptions about America in recent years (remember the “Koran-Down-the-Toilet” hoax?), now weighs in with a pretentious and embarrassingly ignorant cover story, “We Are All Socialists Now.” To be sure, the basic theme–that the huge “stimulus” and the big big big TARP is leading once-capitalist America down the dangerous road to socialism–is not limited to the skinny weekly.
[...]
There’s a element of truth to the basic theme (although not to the headline): the state is getting more and more deeply involved in business, even taking controlling interests in some private companies. And the state is even trying to “make policy” for private companies they do not control, but merely “help” with “infusions of capital,” as in the recent call for salary caps for certain CEOs. So state power is growing at the expense of corporations.But that’s not socialism. Socialism rests on a firm theoretical bedrock: the abolition of private property. I haven’t heard anyone this side of Barney Frank calling for any such thing. What is happening now–and Newsweek is honest enough to say so down in the body of the article–is an expansion of the state’s role, an increase in public/private joint ventures and partnerships, and much more state regulation of business. Yes, it’s very “European,” and some of the Europeans even call it “social democracy,” but it isn’t.
It’s fascism. Nobody calls it by its proper name.
[...]
In both countries, however, its most durable consequence was the expansion of the ability of the state to give orders to more and more citizens, in more and more corners of their lives.
#26
Dallas… You are truly hopeless! There was a ‘zero’ level of transparency; Snow, Collins, and Specter are anything but conservative; and giving us over-priced penicillin when a B12 shot was called for, means they misdiagnosed the solution to the problem to begin with. Lastly, your ending statement is typical and shows that Shumer was right… “the American people really don’t care”, in your case you don’t know enough to care about what in happening now and would rather stay stuck on some old rant.
Nothing new to me at least. When you point out it’s nonsense that the US is a “Capitalist” society people get all rattled. Never mind that it’s been Fascist for over 100 years now, and people get cross eyed and angry because they don’t understand the concept that the mere existence of “The Fed” makes the US an Fascist Oligarchy. They can’t be a Capitalist system with the existence of the Fed. We were are lied to and spoon fed propaganda and lies all of our lies. Doesn’t make the other sides lies any better though.
One thing about the painting which is cool. The Armband should be an Elephant and the Flag should be an Ass. Both Parties in the US are hardcore fascists.
#40 – Dallas
#40 – Dallas
No – it is not my fault. I do not defend either party. They are both greedy lying bastards.
Mark my words – the Dems will abuse their power. History always repeats itself. And is rewritten by the victors.
For example, in 2010/12 the Dems will be saying that while we have not created 3 million jobs, they saved us from impending doom. Just like the Repugs could not hand us a victory in the War On Terror, but they saved us from impending doom.
Just give them your liberties, property and money. They will protect you and do everything in your best interest. No more bad times they promise.
(sorry about the repeat – hit tab/enter while typing for some reason)
The premise of this post is absolutely WRONG!
There are two axis when it comes to the spectrum of governments. The x-axis is based on economic control while the y-axis is based on social control. The x-axis has socialism on the left and capitalism on the right while the y-axis has totalitarianism on top and individualism on the bottom.
When it comes to socialism, it can be based on private or public ownership of property. It just requires a re-distribution of goods and services based on need. There is a large spectrum from capitalism (no re-distribution whatsoever – essentially economic anarchy) to socialism (complete re-distribution. The US obviously falls in the middle – where is up for debate.
The social control axis is what separates socialism from communism. Socialists do not care about social control so long as everyone is given the same opportunity to start with (equality of opportunity). People are free to do whatever they want, so long as they don’t infringe on the rights of anyone else. They just have to agree to a re-distribution of wealth.
Communists, on the other hand, desire a state of total social control, so that a classless society will emerge (equality of outcome). In order to enforce a state of total social control, the government has to be totalitarian. Under communism, your rights are severely limited by the government.
Fascism is a state dedicated to the greatness of one particular ethnicity. Hitler was a fascist, because he created a state dedicated to the greatness of the German “race” (really an ethnicity). He blamed the fall of the German “race” on its dilution by outside groups (Jews, Gypsies, gays, Catholics, etc.).
In order to create a fascist state, one must also have an totalitarian state to make it happen. Hitler had to become a dictator in order to “purge” the German “race” of its “impurities.” The truth is, he used socialist rhetoric in order to gain power, not because he believed in it. NAZI Germany wasn’t very socialist at all. In fact, fascists may be either socialist or capitalist, just so long as they are totalitarian.
Click pic to enlarge
#40 Thus spew the sheeple.
The No,Nothing’s gave a $1.35 Trillion dollar tax cut in 2001 when the Economy was merely Luke warm.
This was heralded with much fanfare and Bush was praised on AM radio talk shows and tabloids from coast to coast as a savior.
You remember it well?
In 2009,the Economy is frozen solid,employment is near 10% and Americans on welfare will soon top 30 million,so a 800 billion dollar stimulus package that has the Know,Nothing’s screaming socialism is only half of the amount of the 2001 alone giveaway.
Both of these approach’s do the same thing,
they both take resources away from future earnings of this country and hope that it makes the Economy grow today.
The effect from 2001 was to build a bubble that popped,a bubble based on speculation with nothing but ideology to stand on.
The stimulus is based on investment in the future of conservation and more industry and technological growth.
The smear of Socialism is the cry of the spoiled little Oy-boys who want their corporate dole
hot and on time the same as the last eight years to rebuild the economy,
it has’nt happened yet.
Lets dial 9/11 and call them a Wahmbulance
and have an order of Big Wah and a side of french Cries sent to the Wahspitol.
Dallas in their infinite wisdom (funny).
“WIkipedia: Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation, a race or even a social class”
So Obomba gets into office and promptly starts taking things over like healthcare. Funny his posters before the election looked like the ones from communists of yesteryear. Sure sounds like a movement towards a dictatorship.
Where are all the pinhead fucktards on this blog that posted that George Bush would find a way to stay in office and not allow elections? It seems that they are quiet now because like so much of the other shit they post they were wrong.
Also, transparency is what he (The Messiah Obomba) promised and he promised the Porkulus bill would be on the Internet for review 48 hours BEFORE Congress voted. Lied again didn’t he?
Both sides have sold us and our children down the river and all we are doing about it is arguing on JCD’s blog.
Sad indeed……..
#4 Dallas:
“We actually prevented a going down a fascist road.
No more Dick Cheney
[...]
“WIkipedia: Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation, a race or even a social class””
This sounds *exactly* like the Progressive agenda.
#46 geezba.
Great comment and link. This is exactly the reason I come to this blog, go get new insight.
Thanks!
One more dead angry liberal doesn’t mean shit to me.
It’s really bizarre how people get incensed about something without even trying to understand the issues.
Conservatives tend to listen to the word “socialism” but somehow hear “communism”, two different things. (Apparently they also tend to think of “communism” and the bogeyman interchangeably, possibly also peeing their pants in the process and triggering an irrational fight or flight reflex, regardless of facts, but I digress).
Socialism is mainly an economic system and communism a political system; capitalism can coexist with socialism but not with communism:
“One difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is mainly an economic system, while communism is both an economic and a political system. As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control. Communism, however, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. Both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent the ill effects that are sometimes produced by capitalism.
Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. However, socialism asserts that the distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals’ production efforts, while communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals’ needs.
Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists assert that both capitalism and private ownership of means of production must be done away with as soon as possible in order to make sure a classless society, the communist ideal, is formed. Socialists, however, see capitalism as a possible part of the ideal state and believe that socialism can exist in a capitalist society. In fact, one of the ideas of socialism is that everyone within the society will benefit from capitalism as much as possible as long as the capitalism is controlled somehow by a centralized planning system.
Finally, another difference between socialism and communism is centered on who controls the structure of economy. Where socialism generally aims to have as many people as possible influence how the economy works, communism seeks to concentrate that number into a smaller amount.” ( http://wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-socialism-and-communism.htm )
#53–arpie==with all that reading==which system do you think provides the most and the least for “most people” if its principles are followed as closely as possible. Include capitalism?
What other systems could also be compared? Barter?
# 54 bobbo said, “What other systems could also be compared? Barter?”
Free market sans banking capitalism.
We can’t go fascist right now. The private sector is shell shocked and has wet its pants. The government is running awkwardly over to help. The necessary preconditions are there, though. Big business has entirely captured the regulatory functions of government. Fascism can’t start until biz, on a big scale, get’s its groove back.
46: Good graph and explanation, but both are incomplete.
At the top of the X axis should be authoritarian rather than totalitarian. Plenty of governments tend toward authoritarianism, but totalitarianism (Nazism and Stalinism) are pretty few and far between. Authoritarian governments can, for awhile, stray into totalitarianism but it is not a possible extended state for a government. Totalitarian regimes can’t exist for a long time because so many people get killed. Eventually the government loses effective control.
Fascism is an authoritarian regime that bends toward private ends. Krupp and IG Farben began preparations for WWII shortly after WWI. Hitler was an evil man, but he was made by the German industrialists rather than the other way around.
Communism is an authoritarian regime that bends to political ends. Stalin took control of an already centralized economy and slammed it into overdrive.
So totalitarianism can be reached by either a leftist or rightist extreme authoritarian regime. It does not belong anywhere along the normal continuum of governance however.
The uber rich will do whatever it takes to maintain their power and lifestyle. It seems to me that a partnership with government is the preferred way of doing this. So we are heading more towards a sort of corpocracy, where the government is simply an apparatus to facilitate the wealth creation of the uber rich. In this sense it deviates from fascism in that power is concentrated within the corporate world, which largely transcends political borders and thus the state.
The old left / right dichotomy was always a bit vague and doesn’t seem to be all that relevant any more.
#54-bobbo: Your question is fundamentally flawed.
You’re asking to compare, as if it was all mutually exclusive, socialism, fascism, communism, capitalism, etc. That’s like asking to pick your favorite restaurant from, say, an apple, mountain dew, french fries and oatmeal.
You can have a fascist communist country (i.e. USSR) or a capitalist-democratic-socialist country (i.e. Norway, Denmark).
I think communism is inherently flawed, as I believe people should be rewarded according to their efforts and competency.
Do I think capitalism is inherently bad? No, but the laissez-faire capitalism is a pipe dream that indubitably leads to a top tier of the population controlling too much resources, shaping politics, tilting the balance and in practice preventing a real free market… and we end up where we are now: 2 Trillion dollars went to the rich via the Bush tax cuts, and without a safe place for that relatively small group to invest (i.e. real estate, hedge funds, etc.) the economy is at a standstill.
Adam Smith, a luminary of capitalism, said “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion”. This is the flip side of the above. Smith saw the need of (oooooh) “redistribution of wealth”.
I don’t presume to know what’s the best system, political or economical. I know the current one is not working for the USA. The economy is bad, health care is a joke, unemployment skyrocketing, education is terrible, and unfortunately we find ourselves in a situation that there’s only one entity in the country big enough to try and fix the mess while it can still be fixed: the government. Creating jobs will stimulate the economy in a way tax cuts can’t (since there’s no place to invest).
#58–arpie==synthesis and application are the benefits of an education==not mindless regurgitation.
I made no mention of anything being exclusive nor did I imply it. It was free form and open for anyone to follow their own perceptions.
Government/Economic theory is not at all like restaurants.
Well, at least you offer that capitalism is not “bad.” and that laissez faire capitalism is a pipe dream==aren’t pipe dreams something that is desirable but unattainable?==Is that what you meant?
Is socialism or communism not bad? Or actually bad? or what?
So–just to do my share, I will posit that the harms of “philosophical socialism” would create the most good and least harm as it controls fewer elements of human life whereas capitalism and communism control the totality?
Of course, no pure form of any system exists and all systems need regulation to prevent their own excesses, but “philosophically” in the real world which system out performs the others and why?
#53 Communists tend to use the word socialism to hide their agenda.
#54 said: “What other systems could also be compared? Barter?”
Funny you should say that. Modern day commies are using barter as a “socialist” way of making bussiness. And I’m not kidding.