Fascism US 2013, rather than Germany 1945?

[jasong]

Has the US achieved(not saying it's a good thing) what Germany failed to do in 1945?

[ewmayer]

Why must it be an either/or question? Fascism comes in many forms.

[chappy]

Way back in my younger days we had a rule that the first person to bring up Nazi Germany lost the debate.

But, before I get too far into this discussion, I would like to know just what you think the word facism means.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by chappy

Way back in my younger days we had a rule that the first person to bring up Nazi Germany lost the debate.

But, before I get too far into this discussion, I would like to know just what you think the word facism means.

Ah Benito, where are you in our hour of need?

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by chappy

Way back in my younger days we had a rule that the first person to bring up Nazi Germany lost the debate.

But, before I get too far into this discussion, I would like to know just what you think the word facism means.

Your post doesn't indicate who the 'you' refers to - me or Jason - as for me, as I've noted elsewhere in the Soap Box, I prefer Mussolini's original usage.

[chappy]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Your post doesn't indicate who the 'you' refers to - me or Jason - as for me, as I've noted elsewhere in the Soap Box, I prefer Mussolini's original usage.

mea culpa!

Although I assume that I will agree with about %90 of what you say Ernst, and then will argue ad nauseum about the slim difference, I was in fact referring to JasonG.

The first problem that we have with Fascism is that there is a wide range of political philsophies that get placed under the umbrella term "Fascism" without drawing a meaningful distinction between Nazi-Germanies version and Italy before 1936 version, or Spain until the 1970s.

The difference between them is almost as great as the commonalities.

As far as I can tell all of the "fascist" like elements of society (and there aren't many) in the US come out of the political right at the meeting of the far right libertarians and the vocal militarists.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Your post doesn't indicate who the 'you' refers to - me or Jason - as for me, as I've noted elsewhere in the Soap Box, I prefer Mussolini's original usage.

Sounds about right.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by chappy

mea culpa!

Although I assume that I will agree with about %90 of what you say Ernst, and then will argue ad nauseum about the slim difference, I was in fact referring to JasonG.

The first problem that we have with Fascism is that there is a wide range of political philsophies that get placed under the umbrella term "Fascism" without drawing a meaningful distinction between Nazi-Germanies version and Italy before 1936 version, or Spain until the 1970s.

The difference between them is almost as great as the commonalities.

As far as I can tell all of the "fascist" like elements of society (and there aren't many) in the US come out of the political right at the meeting of the far right libertarians and the vocal militarists.

Oh, I see, so when someone gets a fine of 100-1000 times the proven damage(I use the term "proven" loosely here) when they download a torrent, that just isn't on your radar? The truth is I believe this country(US) is being desroyed by big-money interests, that's what I mean by fascism. If a view is widely held, but the movement lacks the finances to buy votes, then they're just tossed to the wayside by less popular views that happen to have the money.

[chappy]

Originally Posted by jasong

Oh, I see, so when someone gets a fine of 100-1000 times the proven damage(I use the term "proven" loosely here) when they download a torrent, that just isn't on your radar? The truth is I believe this country(US) is being desroyed by big-money interests, that's what I mean by fascism. If a view is widely held, but the movement lacks the finances to buy votes, then they're just tossed to the wayside by less popular views that happen to have the money.

That seems like a rather random example to take (and honestly not the one I thought you had in mind when starting this particular thread.)

Which part of protecting intellectual property rights is fascism again? I mean we can have an excellent discussion about the meaning of making the punishment fit the crime, and about the ability of the wealthy to use their wealth and influence to abuse those who have neither wealth nor influence, but nothing in that discussion is unique to fascism nor even part of a legitimate definition of fascism.

Herein lies the problem. Fascism is not "things I don't like" or "things I disagree with" it is a political science term with meaning and context. So, again, before I get into wasting too much time discussing James Gregor, I thought we might decide what it is you actually want to discuss.

[chappy]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Your post doesn't indicate who the 'you' refers to - me or Jason - as for me, as I've noted elsewhere in the Soap Box, I prefer Mussolini's original usage.

Also, that is one of those great WP pages that collects a great deal of information smoothly and succinctly. Great find!

I'm going to be wasting some precious weekend time reading sources on Fascism. :)

[jasong]

Originally Posted by chappy

That seems like a rather random example to take (and honestly not the one I thought you had in mind when starting this particular thread.)

Which part of protecting intellectual property rights is fascism again? I mean we can have an excellent discussion about the meaning of making the punishment fit the crime, and about the ability of the wealthy to use their wealth and influence to abuse those who have neither wealth nor influence, but nothing in that discussion is unique to fascism nor even part of a legitimate definition of fascism.

Herein lies the problem. Fascism is not "things I don't like" or "things I disagree with" it is a political science term with meaning and context. So, again, before I get into wasting too much time discussing James Gregor, I thought we might decide what it is you actually want to discuss.

Fascism is when people use money, rather than things like sane political discourse, to get their way. However one feels about IP law, fining them 100 times the value of the property is excessive 100% of the time, unless of course there's a minimum payment law. I can imagine fining a large amount for stealing a cheap item from a store since they could just as easily steal something else. But I've seen people fined millions for the proven copyright infringement of 100s of copies of an item.

It extends to other things, but IP law abuse is the situation that offends me the most.

Edit: Second perfect example is the IRS, in this case the government is confiscating money, rather than spending it, but I think it fits the category. A person can lose everything they own if they IRS gets their claws in them, and this includes people that don't own much to begin with, but when politicians decided the IRS needed to be audited, then the result was this approximated quote:"Unfortunately, the IRS doesn't keep records in a form that can easily be brought out and easily audited." If an American citizen used that defense, they'd be hung out to dry by IRS officials.

Simply put, when I say fascism, I mean people using their power to abuse others and our trusted officials standing behind this abuse 100%. It's true for the ironically titled Patriot Act, it's true for the bailed out bankers and it's true for the recently outed PRISM program. In terms of that last, terrorism could kill 100 times as many American citizens as it has and PRISM would still be an abuse of power.

In my strongly held opinion.