Can we discuss the deteriorating situation in the US like adults and not sputter out epithets like "fascist regime"?
Have a look at what's happening in Syria to see what a real dictatorship is like.
Have a look at what's happening in Syria to see what a real dictatorship is like.
Discussing US politics "as adults" means being willing to accept and confront difficult truths... such as the fact that our system is drifting precariously close to what can be best described as "fascist." Placing our hands over our eyes, sticking our fingers in our ears, and pretending that we don't see and hear what is actually happening is to abdicate our responsibility to behave as adults.
Only by those ignorant of what fascism was actually like, and lacking the knowledge and/or imagination to label "bad government" with more appropriate labels.
No one ever talked about denying that there are problems in the US, but coming up with nonsensical, hyperbolic, historically inappropriate labels for them is not a means to direct the debate in a useful direction, either.
Falangist regimes usually have grandiose rhetoric, but unlike fascist states their main enemy is their own breathtaking mediocrity.
--http://www.jamesrmaclean.com/archives/archive_fascism_falang...
Simon Johnson, formerly of the IMF, argues the USA has problems similar to an emerging market in crisis, because the government is unable or unwilling to get tough on its elites, particularly finance.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quie...
However, we've never seen a state like this that has the wealth, power, and technology of the USA. Americans are inventive people and I have no doubt we will be adding another -ist word to our vocabulary after all of this is done.
An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of
government and social organization.
(in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or
intolerant views or practice.
A government, esp. an authoritarian one.
A system or planned way of doing things, esp. one imposed from above.
It's possible that you only used the words because they were correct, and do not share the emotional connection to them that most of your readers will have. If that is true, you should note the common effect of that phrase, and avoid it in the future during rational conversation.
Calling the US fascist as hyperbole for emotional impact is fine. But it sounds like a lot of people believe the US is actually fascist. My grandparents fled across the Austro-Swiss border from a fascist regime. The US isn't fascist.
I think articles like this really need to be read by Americans more often:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/04/20114261271...
He didn't make that claim. He made a specific claim. Rather than debate that claim, you're attacking the word he used. Have you got a better word? As far as I know, the term "Fascist" is the most clinically correct term for that type of system. If someone were to use the less correct, but more emotionally charged term "Nazi", then your line of attack would have some merit.
Ironically, you've made rational discussion impossible because you're using your emotional reaction as an argument against the use of the most accurate term.
I believe this is a tactic. You don't want to admit that this is happening, so you wish to deny anyone the possibility of pointing it out, by insisting that the most appropriate term is "irrational".
The irony, of course, is that this attitude on a mass scale is what allowed the Nazis in germany to obtain so much power. Germans are not genetically fascist, they're just like everyone else. However, like everyone else, they had a very hard time believing that their government could be doing evil, and so they lived in denial. Even after the war, many germans found it difficult to accept that the holocaust had happened.
The idea that fascism, which has happened historically on more than one occasion, is impossible, is perpetuated for ideological reasons. A cynical person might say that those perpetuating the ideology do so because they know their ideology is at its root fascist. (In that case, you would be the victim, not the person I'm accusing.)
If you've got a better term for a society where the economy is privately owned but under absolute control of the government, and the necessary authoritarianism that goes with it, please feel free to propose it.
But your attempt to banish the word created to describe such societies simply because you don't like the implications makes rational conversation impossible.
For instance, rather than discuss the trends we see in the USA, we're dealing with your insistence that we shouldn't use the correct word!
"Fascist" is not the correct word for what's happening. It's a loaded and extreme word. Sure, you can quote an one-sentence online dictionary and use the vagueness of that definition to convince yourself that it is correct. Or you can use an equally simplistic definition like "privately owned but under absolute control of the gov't" and again, claim accuracy. No scholar of political science would ever use a one-line definition for something as culturally and politically significt as fascism.
Even Wikipedia, hardly a controversial source, wouldn't: "Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics."
The discussion is about an important issue: the increasing control of the US gov't and regulatory agencies over the free agency of US citizens. Jumping in and saying "fascist regime" is not furthering rational conversation.
Also, calling somebody on injecting the emotional baggage of that hyperbole is not making "rational conversation impossible".
In another paragraph I was asked if use of euphemism by media was a big part of the problem at hand. I'd say no, it's the opposite: use of extreme polarizing language is a big part of the problem at hand.
I call foul: you say that now, but you're participating in preventing people from using the word according to its simple and straightforward meaning! You can't have it both ways there.
"Also, calling somebody on injecting the emotional baggage of that hyperbole is not making "rational conversation impossible"."
Like heck. You're derailing the conversation and quibbling.
For instance, the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party, also known as the Nazis, were a pro-union, pro-socialism, pro-farmer, party. It seems that the accusation of "right wing" comes from using the term as a synonym for "authoritarian".
The dictionary.com definition is better:
fas·cism [fash-iz-uhm] noun 1.( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. 2.( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism. 3.( initial capital letter ) a fascist movement, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
Note the elements: A. regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. B. complete power C. forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.
(I think the inclusion of "nationalism and often racism" is an editorial lapse here. Mussolini wasn't racist the way the Nazis were, and the role the jews played for the Nazis was an emotional one used to manipulate the country, not one intrinsic to the economic system of fascism.)
A. We have this to a great degree. For every industry there's some government agency that regulates it, and those regulations seem to be unlimited in their potential scope. They may not be completely regimented at this point, but I'm not aware of the supreme court striking down the theoretical power to do so, even when this "Regulation" includes completely shutting down the industry (say marijuana).
B. We've seen a sharp move towards complete power in the US in the past 20 years, accelerating under Bush and Obama. Many laws are passed giving the president more and more dictatorial power, and both presidents have exercised powers they don't have under the law and gotten away with it.
C. I argue that we've seen this with the regulation of the media, preventing anti-government views from getting into the mainstream media, with the "free speech zones" eliminating the idea of free speech by default, and with the censorship of websites.
This shutting down of websites being the initial action that brought us to this discussion, its worth noting that it is a key element of fascism.
While its true the websites being shut down now are not anti-government ones, this is always how they do it. They find some reviled group like "terrorists" or "drug kingpins" (the same role the "jews" played in germany) and then go after them. Nobody's going to defend pedophiles, right? How much internet regulation has been passed with the excuse that its to protect children from pedophiles.
And eventually it becomes fully regulated such that the perspectives are completely censored like they are on the nightly news.
It is not, Mussolini was member of the Italian communist party but decided he wanted to create their own party, also socialist but nationalist.
This way it was totally independent from the socialist International(soviet Russia controlled) because he did not wanted to become a satellite state.
Racism was applied as Mussolini wanted to recover the glory days of the Roman Empire, the Italians as a superior race that "dominates the world".
Writing this from Weimar, Germany: Oh no, certainly not. First thing the Nazis did was shut down the unions, also the communist party.
That's not to say that things are wonderful in the US, but it's just not the same thing, and to make that kind of claim puts you in the same intellectual bucket in my mind as the folks who call Obama a communist.