Surlethe wrote:So, EugenicHegemony, let me get this straight. You think the United States government is communist?
They have nationalized the entire economy and made it fascist for them and their special interest's and they use nationalized communism on the workers of America. You bet your ass. Have you seen what they've installed in Iraq?
You don't know what 'nationalized' is, I see. The link you provide is fairly hilarious, though. 'No official militias, SO THEY MUST WANT ALL OUR GUNS!!!!!' Oh, public trials are socialist now? Didn't know that.. Thought that was democratic and transparent..
In other words, it's a load of steaming horseshit. Unsurprising from someone arguing by linking instead of speaking for yourself. Whenever you grow a pair and desire to debate instead of link-drop, let us know.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
See, I have a rare advantage here. I have full access to observe the US first hand, yet I'm English, so I'm not 'brainwashed' into communism as our new friend here claims. Ergo, I'll take the central document of Marxism itself, and rebutt. He'll wail and stamp feet a bit, but hey, it's efficient this way.
The Communist Manifesto's How To Make A Communism List.
1.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Not present. I know the lady who owns the building I pay rent in, and she's not the government.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Not present, though our whacky looney here will claim current levels are 'heavy' on his subjective belief.
Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Nope, I still inherited stuff from my Grandma. Lovely china.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
I've known some people who've moved out. They still own their stuff.
Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
The monopoly fails to exist. I can prove this because four seperate banks offered me credit this week.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state
Verizon isn't the state, nor is AT&T. Nor is British Airways, or Northwest, or my personal car.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
The government has utterly failed any attempts at terraforming the large stretches of waste, which in this case would presumably be the deserts.
Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Sadly, no one's conscripted Hegemony into an industrial army where he can be far from where we have to hear him.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country
Rural, suburban, and urban distinctions remain. Farming is still not creating steel i-beams.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
The non-questionable forms(The creation of public schools and stamping out child labour) exist, and why shouldn't they? But we don't send our kids to work in factories as part of education.
And there we go. That's the list. It's a recipe for a dictatorship, but it's not happened.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
You looked at all those links already and came back with nothing to refute with. Big surprise.
It's coercion to take what does not belong to you in a forceful manner. Money is only worth what someone is willing to give you in exchange. The subjective value.
That's why your terrorist government is waging war to make sure their Dollar Hegemony stays on top as the supreme world currency. Your currency is only worth the war you wage. This government has this country so far in debt it's laughable to think any of you are free. You're a slave from the minute your born. Do you think this government will pay off the interest that the FED creates. No, you will, your kids will, and their kids who aren't even born yet.
Oil is worth more than your interest fiat crap, and Iran is next on their chopping block. Iran is OPEC's second largest producer of Oil, and not to mention a wealth of natural gas. They've also taken the Euro over your precious dollar, and so has N Korea. Sadam was going to and your terrorist government made sue that didn't happen.
EugenicHegemony wrote:You have nothing I see. Refute it or sit down.
Mocked it because it's all baseless and semantical, based on bad numbers.
You looked at all those links already and came back with nothing to refute with. Big surprise.
You have no argument of your own, no surprise.
It's coercion to take what does not belong to you in a forceful manner. Money is only worth what someone is willing to give you in exchange. The subjective value.
Congratulations. You understand the basics of economy now. It's been that way since the first tiger skin got swapped for a spear. It's natural.
That's why your terrorist government is waging war to make sure their Dollar Hegemony stays on top as the supreme world currency. Your currency is only worth the war you wage. This government has this country so far in debt it's laughable to think any of you are free. You're a slave from the minute your born. Do you think this government will pay off the interest that the FED creates. No, you will, your kids will, and their kids who aren't even born yet.
You don't know what any of these words mean, I see. Come back when you have a better grasp of English.
Oil is worth more than your interest fiat crap, and Iran is next on their chopping block. Iran is OPEC's second largest producer of Oil, and not to mention a wealth of natural gas. They've also taken the Euro over your precious dollar, and so has N Korea. Sadam was going to and your terrorist government made sue that didn't happen.
I don't care much about the dollar's future. Enough of my assets are tied to the Pound that I'll be fine.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
EugenicHegemony wrote: That's why your terrorist government is waging war to make sure their Dollar Hegemony stays on top as the supreme world currency. Your currency is only worth the war you wage. This government has this country so far in debt it's laughable to think any of you are free. You're a slave from the minute your born. Do you think this government will pay off the interest that the FED creates. No, you will, your kids will, and their kids who aren't even born yet.
The US government is in debt; therefore, it is Communist! Wow! I learn something new every day.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
Surlethe, liked the link to the fascism def. Ever hear of economic fascism? I don't have to "argue" anything as one here already put it. You can read for yourslef. By the way, we've a command economy, and not a free market. A free market is made up of willing buyers and sellers. The price makers are also the buyers not the sellers. That's not the case in the land of the free to do what you're told.
Economic Fascism
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
When most people hear the word "fascism" they naturally think of its ugly racism and anti-Semitism as practiced by the totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. But there was also an economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism," that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler. So- called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a "model" by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called "fascism" but "planned capitalism." The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym "industrial policy" is as popular as ever.
The Free World Flirts With Fascism
Few Americans are aware of or can recall how so many Americans and Europeans viewed economic fascism as the wave of the future during the 1930s. The American Ambassador to Italy, Richard Washburn Child, was so impressed with "corporatism" that he wrote in the preface to Mussolini's 1928 autobiography that "it may be shrewdly forecast that no man will exhibit dimensions of permanent greatness equal to Mussolini. . . . The Duce is now the greatest figure of this sphere and time." Winston Churchill wrote in 1927 that "If I had been an Italian I am sure I would have been entirely with you" and "don the Fascist black shirt." As late as 1940, Churchill was still describing Mussolini as "a great man."
U.S. Congressman Sol Bloom, Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, said in 1926 that Mussolini "will be a great thing not only for Italy but for all of us if he succeeds. It is his inspiration, his determination, his constant toil that has literally rejuvenated Italy . . ."
One of the most outspoken American fascists was economist Lawrence Dennis. In his 1936 book, The Coming American Fascism, Dennis declared that defenders of "18th-century Americanism" were sure to become "the laughing stock of their own countrymen" and that the adoption of economic fascism would intensify "national spirit" and put it behind "the enterprises of public welfare and social control." The big stumbling block to the development of economic fascism, Dennis bemoaned, was "liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights."
Certain British intellectuals were perhaps the most smitten of anyone by fascism. George Bernard Shaw announced in 1927 that his fellow "socialists should be delighted to find at last a socialist [Mussolini] who speaks and thinks as responsible rulers do." He helped form the British Union of Fascists whose "Outline of the Corporate State," according to the organization's founder, Sir Oswald Mosley, was "on the Italian Model." While visiting England, the American author Ezra Pound declared that Mussolini was "continuing the task of Thomas Jefferson."
Thus, it is important to recognize that, as an economic system, fascism was widely accepted in the 1920s and '30s. The evil deeds of individual fascists were later condemned, but the practice of economic fascism never was. To this day, the historically uninformed continue to repeat the hoary slogan that, despite all his faults, Mussolini at least "made the trains run on time," insinuating that his interventionist industrial policies were a success.
The Italian "Corporatist" System
So-called "corporatism" as practiced by Mussolini and revered by so many intellectuals and policy makers had several key elements: The state comes before the individual. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized, autocratic government." This stands in stark contrast to the classical liberal idea that individuals have natural rights that pre-exist government; that government derives its "just powers" only through the consent of the governed; and that the principal function of government is to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of its citizens, not to aggrandize the state.
Mussolini viewed these liberal ideas (in the European sense of the word "liberal") as the antithesis of fascism: "The Fascist conception of life," Mussolini wrote, "stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."
Mussolini thought it was unnatural for a government to protect individual rights: "The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans." "If classical liberalism spells individualism," Mussolini continued, "Fascism spells government."
The essence of fascism, therefore, is that government should be the master, not the servant, of the people. Think about this. Does anyone in America really believe that this is not what we have now? Are Internal Revenue Service agents really our "servants"? Is compulsory "national service" for young people, which now exists in numerous states and is part of a federally funded program, not a classic example of coercing individuals to serve the state? Isn't the whole idea behind the massive regulation and regimentation of American industry and society the notion that individuals should be forced to behave in ways defined by a small governmental elite? When the nation's premier health-care reformer recently declared that heart bypass surgery on a 92-year-old man was "a waste of resources," wasn't that the epitome of the fascist ideal-that the state, not individuals, should decide whose life is worthwhile, and whose is a "waste"?
The U.S. Constitution was written by individuals who believed in the classical liberal philosophy of individual rights and sought to protect those rights from governmental encroachment. But since the fascist/collectivist philosophy has been so influential, policy reforms over the past half century have all but abolished many of these rights by simply ignoring many of the provisions in the Constitution that were designed to protect them. As legal scholar Richard Epstein has observed: "[T]he eminent domain . . . and parallel clauses in the Constitution render . . . suspect many of the heralded reforms and institutions of the twentieth century: zoning, rent control, workers' compensation laws, transfer payments, progressive taxation." It is important to note that most of these reforms were initially adopted during the '30s, when the fascist/collectivist philosophy was in its heyday.
Planned industrial "harmony." Another keystone of Italian corporatism was the idea that the government's interventions in the economy should not be conducted on an ad hoc basis, but should be "coordinated" by some kind of central planning board. Government intervention in Italy was "too diverse, varied, contrasting. There has been disorganic . . . intervention, case by case, as the need arises," Mussolini complained in 1935. Fascism would correct this by directing the economy toward "certain fixed objectives" and would "introduce order in the economic field." Corporatist planning, according to Mussolini adviser Fausto Pitigliani, would give government intervention in the Italian economy a certain "unity of aim," as defined by the government planners.
These exact sentiments were expressed by Robert Reich (current U.S. Secretary of Labor) and Ira Magaziner (current federal government's health care reform "Czar") in their book Minding America's Business. In order to counteract the "untidy marketplace," an interventionist industrial policy "must strive to integrate the full range of targeted government policies-procurement, research and development, trade, antitrust, tax credits, and subsidies-into a coherent strategy . . . ."
Current industrial policy interventions, Reich and Magaziner bemoaned, are "the product of fragmented and uncoordinated decisions made by [many different] executive agencies, the Congress, and independent regulatory agencies . . . There is no integrated strategy to use these programs to improve the . . . U.S. economy."
In his 1989 book, The Silent War, Magaziner reiterated this theme by advocating "a coordinating group like the national Security Council to take a strategic national industrial view." The White House has in fact established a "National Economic Security Council." Every other advocate of an interventionist "industrial policy" has made a similar "unity of aim" argument, as first described by Pitigliani more than half a century ago.
Government-business partnerships. A third defining characteristic of economic fascism is that private property and business ownership are permitted, but are in reality controlled by government through a business-government "partnership." As Ayn Rand often noted, however, in such a partnership government is always the senior or dominating "partner."
In Mussolini's Italy, businesses were grouped by the government into legally recognized "syndicates" such as the "National Fascist Confederation of Commerce," the "National Fascist Confederation of Credit and Insurance," and so on. All of these "fascist confederations" were "coordinated" by a network of government planning agencies called "corporations," one for each industry. One large "National Council of Corporations" served as a national overseer of the individual "corporations" and had the power to "issue regulations of a compulsory character."
The purpose of this byzantine regulatory arrangement was so that the government could "secure collaboration . . . between the various categories of producers in each particular trade or branch of productive activity." Government-orchestrated "collaboration" was necessary because "the principle of private initiative" could only be useful "in the service of the national interest" as defined by government bureaucrats.
This idea of government-mandated and -dominated "collaboration" is also at the heart of all interventionist industrial policy schemes. A successful industrial policy, write Reich and Magaziner, would "require careful co-ordination between public and private sectors. Government and the private sector must work in tandem. Economic success now depends to a high degree on coordination, collaboration, and careful strategic choice," guided by government. The AFL-CIO has echoed this theme, advocating a "tripartite National Reindustrialization Board-including representatives of labor, business, and government" that would supposedly "plan" the economy. The Washington, D.C.-based Center for National Policy has also published a report authored by businessmen from Lazard Freres, du Pont, Burroughs, Chrysler, Electronic Data Systems, and other corporations promoting an allegedly "new" policy based on "cooperation of government with business and labor." Another report, by the organization "Rebuild America," co-authored in 1986 by Robert Reich and economists Robert Solow, Lester Thurow, Laura Tyson, Paul Krugman, Pat Choate, and Lawrence Chimerine urges "more teamwork" through "public-private partnerships among government, business and academia." This report calls for "national goals and targets" set by government planners who will devise a "comprehensive investment strategy" that will only permit "productive" investment, as defined by government, to take place.
Mercantilism and protectionism. Whenever politicians start talking about "collaboration" with business, it is time to hold on to your wallet. Despite the fascist rhetoric about "national collaboration" and working for the national, rather than private, interests, the truth is that mercantilist and protectionist practices riddled the system. Italian social critic Gaetano Salvemini wrote in 1936 that under corporatism, "it is the state, i.e., the taxpayer, who has become responsible to private enterprise. In Fascist Italy the state pays for the blunders of private enterprise." As long as business was good, Salvemini wrote, "profit remained to private initiative." But when the depression came, "the government added the loss to the taxpayer's burden. Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social." The Italian corporative state, The Economist editorialized on July 27, 1935, "only amounts to the establishment of a new and costly bureaucracy from which those industrialists who can spend the necessary amount, can obtain almost anything they want, and put into practice the worst kind of monopolistic practices at the expense of the little fellow who is squeezed out in the process." Corporatism, in other words, was a massive system of corporate welfare. "Three-quarters of the Italian economic system," Mussolini boasted in 1934, "had been subsidized by government."
If this sounds familiar, it is because it is exactly the result of agricultural subsidies, the Export-Import Bank, guaranteed loans to "preferred" business borrowers, protectionism, the Chrysler bailout, monopoly franchising, and myriad other forms of corporate welfare paid for directly or indirectly by the American taxpayer.
Another result of the close "collaboration" between business and government in Italy was "a continual interchange of personnel between the. . . civil service and private business." Because of this "revolving door" between business and government, Mussolini had "created a state within the state to serve private interests which are not always in harmony with the general interests of the nation." Mussolini's "revolving door" swung far and wide.
Signor Caiano, one of Mussolini's most trusted advisers, was an officer in the Royal Navy before and during the war. When the war was over, he joined the Orlando Shipbuilding Company. In October 1922, he entered Mussolini's cabinet, and the subsidies for naval construction and the merchant marine came under the control of his department. General Cavallero, at the close of the war, left the army and entered the Pirelli Rubber Company. In 1925 he became undersecretary at the Ministry of War. In 1930 he left the Ministry of War, and entered the service of the Ansaldo armament firm. Among the directors of the big companies in Italy, retired generals and generals on active service became very numerous after the advent of Fascism.
Such practices are now so common in the United States-especially in the defense industries-that it hardly needs further comment.
From an economic perspective, fascism meant (and means) an interventionist industrial policy, mercantilism, protectionism, and an ideology that makes the individual subservient to the state. "Ask not what the State can do for you, but what you can do for the State" is an apt description of the economic philosophy of fascism.
The whole idea behind collectivism in general and fascism in particular is to make citizens subservient to the state and to place power over resource allocation in the hands of a small elite. As stated eloquently by the American fascist economist Lawrence Dennis, fascism "does not accept the liberal dogmas as to the sovereignty of the consumer or trader in the free market.... Least of all does it consider that market freedom, and the opportunity to make competitive profits, are rights of the individual." Such decisions should be made by a "dominant class" he labeled "the elite."
German Economic Fascism
Economic fascism in Germany followed a virtually identical path. One of the intellectual fathers of German fascism was Paul Lensch, who declared in his book Three Years of World Revolution that "Socialism must present a conscious and determined opposition to individualism." The philosophy of German fascism was expressed in the slogan, Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz, which means "the common good comes before the private good." "The Aryan is not greatest in his mental qualities," Hitler stated in Mein Kampf, but in his noblest form he "willingly subordinates his own ego to the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it." The individual has "not rights but only duties."
Armed with this philosophy, Germany's National Socialists pursued economic policies very similar to Italy's: government-mandated "partnerships" between business, government, and unions organized by a system of regional "economic chambers," all overseen by a Federal Ministry of Economics.
A 25-point "Programme of the Party" was adopt-ed in 1925 with a number of economic policy "demands," all prefaced by the general statement that "the activities of the individual must not clash with the interests of the whole. . .but must be for the general good." This philosophy fueled a regulatory assault on the private sector. "We demand ruthless war upon all those whose activities are injurious to the common interest," the Nazis warned. And who are these on whom "war" is to be waged? "Common criminals," such as "usurers," i.e., bankers, and other "profiteers," i.e., ordinary businessmen in general. Among the other policies the Nazis demanded were abolition of interest; a government-operated social security system; the ability of government to confiscate land without compensation; a government monopoly in education; and a general assault on private-sector entrepreneurship (which was denounced as the "Jewish materialist spirit"). Once this "spirit" is eradicated, "The Party . . . is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest."
Conclusions
Virtually all of the specific economic policies advocated by the Italian and German fascists of the 1930s have also been adopted in the United States in some form, and continue to be adopted to this day. Sixty years ago, those who adopted these interventionist policies in Italy and Germany did so because they wanted to destroy economic liberty, free enterprise, and individualism. Only if these institutions were abolished could they hope to achieve the kind of totalitarian state they had in mind.
Many American politicians who have advocated more or less total government control over economic activity have been more devious in their approach. They have advocated and adopted many of the same policies, but they have always recognized that direct attacks on private property, free enterprise, self-government, and individual freedom are not politically palatable to the majority of the American electorate. Thus, they have enacted a great many tax, regulatory, and income-transfer policies that achieve the ends of economic fascism, but which are sugar-coated with deceptive rhetoric about their alleged desire only to "save" capitalism.
American politicians have long taken their cue in this regard from Franklin D. Roosevelt, who sold his National Recovery Administration (which was eventually ruled unconstitutional) on the grounds that "government restrictions henceforth must be accepted not to hamper individualism but to protect it." In a classic example of Orwellian doublespeak, Roosevelt thus argued that individualism must be destroyed in order to save it.
Now that socialism has collapsed and survives nowhere but in Cuba, China, Vietnam, and on American university campuses, the biggest threat to economic liberty and individual freedom lies in the new economic fascism. While the former Communist countries are trying to privatize as many industries as possible as fast as they can, they are still plagued by governmental controls, leaving them with essentially fascist economies: private property and private enterprise are permitted, but are heavily controlled and regulated by government.
As most of the rest of the world struggles to privatize industry and encourage free enterprise, we in the United States are seriously debating whether or not we should adopt 1930s-era economic fascism as the organizational principle of our entire health care system, which comprises 14 percent of the GNP. We are also contemplating business-government "partnerships" in the automobile, airlines, and communications industries, among others, and are adopting government-managed trade policies, also in the spirit of the European corporatist schemes of the 1930s.
The state and its academic apologists are so skilled at generating propaganda in support of such schemes that Americans are mostly unaware of the dire threat they pose for the future of freedom. The road to serfdom is littered with road signs pointing toward "the information superhighway, health security, national service, managed trade," and "industrial policy."
Fascism Then. Fascism Now?
When people think of fascism, they imagine Rows of goose-stepping storm troopers and puffy-chested dictators. What they don't see is the economic and political process that leads to the nightmare.
by Paul Bigioni
Observing political and economic discourse in North America since the 1970s leads to an inescapable conclusion: The vast bulk of legislative activity favors the interests of large commercial enterprises. Big business is very well off, and successive Canadian and U.S. governments, of whatever political stripe, have made this their primary objective for at least the past 25 years.
Digging deeper into 20th century history, one finds the exaltation of big business at the expense of the citizen was a central characteristic of government policy in Germany and Italy in the years before those countries were chewed to bits and spat out by fascism. Fascist dictatorships were borne to power in each of these countries by big business, and they served the interests of big business with remarkable ferocity.
These facts have been lost to the popular consciousness in North America. Fascism could therefore return to us, and we will not even recognize it. Indeed, Huey Long, one of America's most brilliant and most corrupt politicians, was once asked if America would ever see fascism. "Yes," he replied, "but we will call it anti-fascism."
By exploring the disturbing parallels between our own time and the era of overt fascism, we can avoid the same hideous mistakes. At present, we live in a constitutional democracy. The tools necessary to protect us from fascism remain in the hands of the citizen. All the same, North America is on a fascist trajectory. We must recognize this threat for what it is, and we must change course.
Consider the words of Thurman Arnold, head of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in 1939:
"Germany, of course, has developed within 15 years from an industrial autocracy into a dictatorship. Most people are under the impression that the power of Hitler was the result of his demagogic blandishments and appeals to the mob... Actually, Hitler holds his power through the final and inevitable development of the uncontrolled tendency to combine in restraint of trade."
Arnold made his point even more clearly in a 1939 address to the American Bar Association:
"Germany presents the logical end of the process of cartelization. From 1923 to 1935, cartelization grew in Germany until finally that nation was so organized that everyone had to belong either to a squad, a regiment or a brigade in order to survive. The names given to these squads, regiments or brigades were cartels, trade associations, unions and trusts. Such a distribution system could not adjust its prices. It needed a general with quasi-military authority who could order the workers to work and the mills to produce. Hitler named himself that general. Had it not been Hitler it would have been someone else."
I suspect that to most readers, Arnold's words are bewildering. People today are quite certain that they know what fascism is. When I ask people to define it, they typically tell me what it was, the assumption being that it no longer exists. Most people associate fascism with concentration camps and rows of storm troopers, yet they know nothing of the political and economic processes that led to these horrible end results.
Before the rise of fascism, Germany and Italy were, on paper, liberal democracies. Fascism did not swoop down on these nations as if from another planet. To the contrary, fascist dictatorship was the result of political and economic changes these nations underwent while they were still democratic. In both these countries, economic power became so utterly concentrated that the bulk of all economic activity fell under the control of a handful of men. Economic power, when sufficiently vast, becomes by its very nature political power. The political power of big business supported fascism in Italy and Germany.
Business tightened its grip on the state in both Italy and Germany by means of intricate webs of cartels and business associations. These associations exercised a high degree of control over the businesses of their members. They frequently controlled pricing, supply and the licensing of patented technology. These associations were private but were entirely legal. Neither Germany nor Italy had effective antitrust laws, and the proliferation of business associations was generally encouraged by government.
This was an era eerily like our own, insofar as economists and businessmen constantly clamored for self-regulation in business. By the mid 1920s, however, self-regulation had become self-imposed regimentation. By means of monopoly and cartel, the businessmen had wrought for themselves a "command and control" economy that replaced the free market. The business associations of Italy and Germany at this time are perhaps history's most perfect illustration of Adam Smith's famous dictum: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
How could the German government not be influenced by Fritz Thyssen, the man who controlled most of Germany's coal production? How could it ignore the demands of the great I.G. Farben industrial trust, controlling as it did most of that nation's chemical production? Indeed, the German nation was bent to the will of these powerful industrial interests. Hitler attended to the reduction of taxes applicable to large businesses while simultaneously increasing the same taxes as they related to small business. Previous decrees establishing price ceilings were repealed such that the cost of living for the average family was increased. Hitler's economic policies hastened the destruction of Germany's middle class by decimating small business.
Ironically, Hitler pandered to the middle class, and they provided some of his most enthusiastically violent supporters. The fact that he did this while simultaneously destroying them was a terrible achievement of Nazi propaganda.
Hitler also destroyed organized labor by making strikes illegal. Notwithstanding the socialist terms in which he appealed to the masses, Hitler's labor policy was the dream come true of the industrial cartels that supported him. Nazi law gave total control over wages and working conditions to the employer.
Compulsory (slave) labor was the crowning achievement of Nazi labor relations. Along with millions of people, organized labor died in the concentration camps. The camps were not only the most depraved of all human achievements, they were a part and parcel of Nazi economic policy. Hitler's Untermenschen, largely Jews, Poles and Russians, supplied slave labor to German industry. Surely this was a capitalist bonanza. In another bitter irony, the gates over many of the camps bore a sign that read Arbeit Macht Frei — "Work shall set you free." I do not know if this was black humour or propaganda, but it is emblematic of the deception that lies at the heart of fascism.
The same economic reality existed in Italy between the two world wars. In that country, nearly all industrial activity was owned or controlled by a few corporate giants, Fiat and the Ansaldo shipping concern being the chief examples of this.
Land ownership in Italy was also highly concentrated and jealously guarded. Vast tracts of farmland were owned by a few latifundisti. The actual farming was carried out by a landless peasantry who were locked into a role essentially the same as that of the sharecropper of the U.S. Deep South.
As in Germany, the few owners of the nation's capital assets had immense influence over government. As a young man, Mussolini had been a strident socialist, and he, like Hitler, used socialist language to lure the people to fascism. Mussolini spoke of a "corporate" society wherein the energy of the people would not be wasted on class struggle. The entire economy was to be divided into industry specific corporazioni, bodies composed of both labor and management representatives. The corporazioni would resolve all labor/management disputes; if they failed to do so, the fascist state would intervene.
Unfortunately, as in Germany, there laid at the heart of this plan a swindle. The corporazioni, to the extent that they were actually put in place, were controlled by the employers. Together with Mussolini's ban on strikes, these measures reduced the Italian laborer to the status of peasant.
Mussolini, the one-time socialist, went on to abolish the inheritance tax, a measure that favored the wealthy. He decreed a series of massive subsidies to Italy's largest industrial businesses and repeatedly ordered wage reductions. Italy's poor were forced to subsidize the wealthy. In real terms, wages and living standards for the average Italian dropped precipitously under fascism.
Antitrust laws do not just protect the marketplace, they protect democracy
Even this brief historical sketch shows how fascism did the bidding of big business. The fact that Hitler called his party the "National Socialist Party" did not change the reactionary nature of his policies. The connection between the fascist dictatorships and monopoly capital was obvious to the U.S. Department of Justice in 1939. As of 2005, however, it is all but forgotten.
It is always dangerous to forget the lessons of history. It is particularly perilous to forget about the economic origins of fascism in our modern era of deregulation. Most Western liberal democracies are currently in the thrall of what some call market fundamentalism. Few nowadays question the flawed assumption that state intervention in the marketplace is inherently bad.
As in Italy and Germany in the '20s and '30s, business associations clamour for more deregulation and deeper tax cuts. The gradual erosion of antitrust legislation, especially in the United States, has encouraged consolidation in many sectors of the economy by way of mergers and acquisitions. The North American economy has become more monopolistic than at any time in the post-WWII period.
U.S. census data from 1997 shows that the largest four companies in the food, motor vehicle and aerospace industries control 53.4, 87.3 and 55.6 per cent of their respective markets. Over 20 per cent of commercial banking in the U.S. is controlled by the four largest financial institutions, with the largest 50 controlling over 60 per cent. Even these numbers underestimate the scope of concentration, since they do not account for the myriad interconnections between firms by means of debt instruments and multiple directorships, which further reduce the extent of competition.
Actual levels of U.S. commercial concentration have been difficult to measure since the 1970s, when strong corporate opposition put an end to the Federal Trade Commission's efforts to collect the necessary information.
Fewer, larger competitors dominate all economic activity, and their political will is expressed with the millions of dollars they spend lobbying politicians and funding policy formulation in the many right-wing institutes that now limit public discourse to the question of how best to serve the interests of business.
The consolidation of the economy and the resulting perversion of public policy are themselves fascistic. I am certain, however, that former president Bill Clinton was not worried about fascism when he repealed federal antitrust laws that had been enacted in the 1930s.
The Canadian Council of Chief Executives is similarly unworried about fascism as it lobbies the Canadian government to water down proposed amendments to our federal Competition Act. (The Competition Act, last amended in 1986, regulates monopolies, among other things, and itself represents a watering down of Canada's previous antitrust laws. It was essentially rewritten by industry and handed to the Mulroney government to be enacted.)
At present, monopolies are regulated on purely economic grounds to ensure the efficient allocation of goods.
If we are to protect ourselves from the growing political influence of big business, then our antitrust laws must be reconceived in a way that recognizes the political danger of monopolistic conditions.
Antitrust laws do not just protect the marketplace, they protect democracy.
It might be argued that North America's democratic political systems are so entrenched that we needn't fear fascism's return. The democracies of Italy and Germany in the 1920s were in many respects fledgling and weak. Our systems will surely react at the first whiff of dictatorship.
Or will they? This argument denies the reality that the fascist dictatorships were preceded by years of reactionary politics, the kind of politics that are playing out today. Further, it is based on the conceit that whatever our own governments do is democracy. Canada still clings to a quaint, 19th-century "first past the post" electoral system in which a minority of the popular vote can and has resulted in majority control of Parliament.
In the U.S., millions still question the legality of the sitting president's first election victory, and the power to declare war has effectively become his personal prerogative. Assuming that we have enough democracy to protect us is exactly the kind of complacency that allows our systems to be quietly and slowly perverted. On paper, Italy and Germany had constitutional, democratic systems. What they lacked was the eternal vigilance necessary to sustain them. That vigilance is also lacking today.
Our collective forgetfulness about the economic nature of fascism is also dangerous at a philosophical level. As contradictory as it may seem, fascist dictatorship was made possible because of the flawed notion of freedom that held sway during the era of laissez-faire capitalism in the early 20th century.
It was the liberals of that era who clamoured for unfettered personal and economic freedom, no matter what the cost to society. Such untrammelled freedom is not suitable to civilized humans. It is the freedom of the jungle. In other words, the strong have more of it than the weak. It is a notion of freedom that is inherently violent, because it is enjoyed at the expense of others. Such a notion of freedom legitimizes each and every increase in the wealth and power of those who are already powerful, regardless of the misery that will be suffered by others as a result. The use of the state to limit such "freedom" was denounced by the laissez-faire liberals of the early 20th century. The use of the state to protect such "freedom" was fascism. Just as monopoly is the ruin of the free market, fascism is the ultimate degradation of liberal capitalism.
In the post-war period, this flawed notion of freedom has been perpetuated by the neo-liberal school of thought. The neo-liberals denounce any regulation of the marketplace. In so doing, they mimic the posture of big business in the pre-fascist period. Under the sway of neo-liberalism, Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney and George W. Bush have decimated labor and exalted capital. (At present, only 7.8 per cent of workers in the U.S. private sector are unionized — about the same percentage as in the early 1900s.)
Neo-liberals call relentlessly for tax cuts, which, in a previously progressive system, disproportionately favor the wealthy. Regarding the distribution of wealth, the neo-liberals have nothing to say. In the end, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. As in Weimar Germany, the function of the state is being reduced to that of a steward for the interests of the moneyed elite. All that would be required now for a more rapid descent into fascism are a few reasons for the average person to forget he is being ripped off. Hatred of Arabs, fundamentalist Christianity or an illusory sense of perpetual war may well be taking the place of Hitler's hatred for communists and Jews.
Neo-liberal intellectuals often recognize the need for violence to protect what they regard as freedom. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times has written enthusiastically that "the hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist," and that "McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the U.S. Air Force F-15." As in pre-fascist Germany and Italy, the laissez-faire businessmen call for the state to do their bidding even as they insist that the state should stay out of the marketplace. Put plainly, neo-liberals advocate the use of the state's military force for the sake of private gain. Their view of the state's role in society is identical to that of the businessmen and intellectuals who supported Hitler and Mussolini. There is no fear of the big state here. There is only the desire to wield its power. Neo-liberalism is thus fertile soil for fascism to grow again into an outright threat to our democracy.
Having said that fascism is the result of a flawed notion of freedom, we need to re-examine what we mean when we throw around the word. We must conceive of freedom in a more enlightened way.
Indeed, it was the thinkers of the Enlightenment who imagined a balanced and civilized freedom that did not impinge upon the freedom of one's neighbor Put in the simplest terms, my right to life means that you must give up your freedom to kill me. This may seem terribly obvious to decent people. Unfortunately, in our neo-liberal era, this civilized sense of freedom has, like the dangers of fascism, been all but forgotten.
EugenicHegemony wrote: That's why your terrorist government is waging war to make sure their Dollar Hegemony stays on top as the supreme world currency. Your currency is only worth the war you wage. This government has this country so far in debt it's laughable to think any of you are free. You're a slave from the minute your born. Do you think this government will pay off the interest that the FED creates. No, you will, your kids will, and their kids who aren't even born yet.
The US government is in debt; therefore, it is Communist! Wow! I learn something new every day.
I never said that, now did I. I never said debt equates to communism. I said forced debt is slavery. The U.S. also has installed one of the worst communist Prussian education systems in the world.
EugenicHegemony wrote:Surlethe, liked the link to the fascism def. Ever hear of economic fascism? I don't have to "argue" anything as one here already put it. You can read for yourslef. By the way, we've a command economy, and not a free market. A free market is made up of willing buyers and sellers. The price makers are also the buyers not the sellers. That's not the case in the land of the free to do what you're told.
You don't have to argue? Okay. Your banning poll will be up shortly. You are in violation of D.R. 6 of this forum's policies, which you obviously read to post here.
If you are asked for evidence to support a claim you've made, you should either produce this evidence or concede the point until such time as you can produce this evidence. People who consistently ignore requests for evidence to support their claims (particularly contentious claims) are not looked upon kindly here.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
EugenicHegemony wrote:Surlethe, liked the link to the fascism def. Ever hear of economic fascism?
Provide a definition from a credible source.
I don't have to "argue" anything as one here already put it. You can read for yourslef.
Do you really want to continue copying and pasting instead arguing? We frown upon such behavior here.
By the way, we've a command economy, and not a free market. A free market is made up of willing buyers and sellers. The price makers are also the buyers not the sellers. That's not the case in the land of the free to do what you're told.
Please provide evidence for this assertion; last I checked, I could go to Aldi or Meijer or Wal-Mart or Marsh or a VP and buy a gallon of milk freely.
<snip long-winded copy-and-paste which totally ignores the definition of the word "fascism">
This puts the cart before the horse: the corporate component of fascism is a result of the dictators in power, not an integral part of fascism itself.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
EugenicHegemony wrote: That's why your terrorist government is waging war to make sure their Dollar Hegemony stays on top as the supreme world currency. Your currency is only worth the war you wage. This government has this country so far in debt it's laughable to think any of you are free. You're a slave from the minute your born. Do you think this government will pay off the interest that the FED creates. No, you will, your kids will, and their kids who aren't even born yet.
The US government is in debt; therefore, it is Communist! Wow! I learn something new every day.
I never said that, now did I.
The entire claim you're arguing is that the US is Communist. Don't be a dishonest shit.
I never said debt equates to communism. I said forced debt is slavery. The U.S. also has installed one of the worst communist Prussian education systems in the world.
Because the ability to choose between schools is a signal flag of Communism.
Also, why don't you provide evidence for your assertions, as I've politely asked you?
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
That's a defintion of fascism and I provided an entire piece on economic fascism. You've yet to refute any of it.
Who decides how much you pay for your milk? Not the citizenry. Prices are not regulated by the buyer, and you seem to gloss over the manipulation of supply and demand. Your forced to pay whatever they make you pay. That's not a free market.
1. Abolition of private property Check http://eugenichegemony.blogspot.com/200 ... perty.html
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. (Taxes on things, including property.)
Zoning laws and regulations - the Supreme Court ruled zoning constitutional in 1921.
Federal ownership of land; Bureau of Land Management - in Nevada 87% of land is federally owned.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - broad powers to seize any private property during "emergency."
The Gov can seize any private property for private/Corporatist use.
2. Heavy progressive income tax Check
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. (Taxes on things, including income.) The Sixteenth Amendment classifies income tax as an indirect tax, or tax on a thing, as opposed to tax on a person.
Corporate Tax Act of 1909.
Revenue Act of 1913.
Social Security Act of 1936.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance Check
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. (Taxes on things, including inheritances.)
Estate Tax Act of 1916.
Social Security Act of 1936.
4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels With the new civil disobedience act they can seize any property or assets they please. Check
Confiscation of property of American Indians.
IRS confiscation of property without due process.
Internment of Japanese-Americans during WW II; confiscation of their property.
Confiscation of drug-merchant property.
RICO Act of 1970 (Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organizations) - used as a basis to confiscate property.
5. Central bank Check
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to coin money, regulate the power thereof.
National Bank Act of 1863 - established federal monopoly.
Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 1933.
6. Government control of communication and transportation Check
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to establish post offices and post roads.
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States.
Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 - placed railways under federal regulation; created Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC).
Federal Highway Act of 1916.
Air Commerce Act of 1926.
Federal Radio Commission, 1927.
Federal Communications Commission, 1934.
Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.
Interstate Highway System, 1944.
Federal Aviation Agency, 1958.
Department of Transportation, 1966.
7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture Check
Department of the Interior, 1849 - now includes: Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Department of Agriculture, 1862.
Anti-trust Acts, 1902.
Department of Commerce and Labor, 1903.
Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 - Hoover Dam, Muscle Shoals Project.
8. Government control of labor Check Anyone here see the move to destroy the labor Unions in America?
First labor unions, then called federations, 1820.
National Labor Union, 1866.
American Federation of Labor, 1886.
International Workers of the World, 1905.
Department of Labor, 1913.
Railway Labor Act of 1926.
Civil Works Administration, 1933.
Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 - farmers receive government aid only if they relinquish control of farming activities.
National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
Works Progress Administration, 1935.
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 - set minimum wages.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - effectively the equal liability of all to labor.
Davis-Bacon and Walsh-Healy Acts - require government contractors to pay "prevailing wages."
U.S. Unemployment Service.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China. regional planning Check
Farmers Home Administration (FHA).
Zoning.
Government subsidies favor large agribusinesses
10. Government control of education. Check http://eugenichegemony.blogspot.com/200 ... izens.html
Gradual shift from private education to state funded education began in the New England States in the early 1800s.
Smith-Lever Act of 1914.
Smith-Hughes Act of 1917.
Federal school lunch program, 1935.
Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 - children work only with government approval.
National School Lunch Act of 1946.
National Defense Education Act of 1958.
Federal School Aid Act of 1965.
Just out of interest EugenicHegemony are there any countries out there that you don’t regard as commie-nazi states?
Are there any present day or historical examples of the kind of society you would implement in preference to the commie-nazi dystopian that is the USA or are you working entirely in theory?
Surlethe wrote:
The US government is in debt; therefore, it is Communist! Wow! I learn something new every day.
I never said that, now did I.
The entire claim you're arguing is that the US is Communist. Don't be a dishonest shit.
I never said debt equates to communism. I said forced debt is slavery. The U.S. also has installed one of the worst communist Prussian education systems in the world.
Plekhanov wrote:Just out of interest EugenicHegemony are there any countries out there that you don’t regard as commie-nazi states?
Are there any present day or historical examples of the kind of society you would implement in preference to the commie-nazi dystopian that is the USA or are you working entirely in theory?
I have come up with a few ideas, yes.
1)Strict adherence to the Constitution; otherwise it becomes onerous and government become our master. It's in place more to keep government on a leash with the citizenry holding it; more than it is for the actually citizenry.
2)Abolish the electoral college: ending district voting blocks and ending gerrymandering. (One person one vote)
3)Install IRV or some derivative. (Majority rule no more plurality voting.
4)End compulsory public schooling. (They condition and breed future labour)
5)Install term limits. (Congress has become a lifestyle which we as a working people make possible, nothing more; then that must end. As of now, congress has a 99% incumbency rate. They are royalty, and term limits will end that reign)
6)Decentralize governmental power. (Jefferson's idea, and a real conservative. There are none left in government today)
7)Abolish Supreme Courts. (They're: appointed in a dictatorial fashion, there till they die, and the last law of the land; therefore it's absurd. As of now the more capital you have the better chance of getting appeals and a never ending process ensues. 1-2 appeal limit with no more than a year bewteen appeals .No USSC to dictate the outcome. A jury of your peers is all we need)
Denationalize our economy. (Free unencumbered markets. Use any system you please: Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. If you are a fascist, then you're out of luck. They've forced a command economy on the workers of America, while giving themselves and their special interests a free anarchic market)
Dismantle the Welfare State. (Enough said)
9)Decriminalize drugs. (First the Welfare state must be abolished or we will all continue to pay)
10)Abolish lobbying. (They have become closed society guilds with government for the elite)
11)Wholly cut off government from our economy. (End protectionism)
12)Make it illegal for government to commingle with any private entities and vice versa. (All subsidization will end).
13)Denationalize Globalization.
14)Abolish all Central Banks. (Ending the governmental monopoly on: prices, rents, wages, salaries, capital, inflation, deflation, interest rates, stock market just to name a few. That is our lifeblood and it's not capitalism; it's more like nationalized communism)
15)Abolish income tax (It's a war tax. It was used for the Spanish American war, civil war, WWI just to name a few. One year prior to WWI. Does 1+1=2 for any of you)
16)National plebiscite for foreign war; unless a country is preparing to invade our soil with: tanks, battleships, planes, and infantry. (Irregulars and guerrillas need to be taken with counter intelligence and world police; not exclusive to the U.S. and not their responsibility alone. Large military action is counterproductive to defeating them. If this government wants to use their CIA/FBI or any other murder than have at it. If they want to kill enlisted kids for personal corporatist profit; then they will need to ask the American people first).
17)Open policy. (A potential enemy will know we (all) know: what they're up to, where they are, what they're doing, and where they're going; therefore they have no place to hide)
EugenicHegemony wrote:I'm not being dishonest at all. I said national communist policies. This is not a very well hidden secret.
No because nationalized compulsory education is a communist principal.
Nationalised compulsory education may well be a communist principle it’s also a principle of a great many other widely divergent political theories you muppet, so the fact that a country may have nationalized compulsory education does notautomatically make it communist.
Besides your argument is moot anyway as private schools which follow their own curriculum exist in the US anyway so what’s your point?
EugenicHegemony wrote:That's a defintion of fascism and I provided an entire piece on economic fascism. You've yet to refute any of it.
It's not credible; anyone who thinks socialism is limited to Cuba, China, and Vietnam is a gibbering fool.
Who decides how much you pay for your milk? Not the citizenry. Prices are not regulated by the buyer, and you seem to gloss over the manipulation of supply and demand. Your forced to pay whatever they make you pay. That's not a free market.
And you have yet to provide evidence for a so-called "manipulation" of supply and demand. Shit, you don't even seem to understand sellers are the ones who set the price.
1. Abolition of private property Check http://eugenichegemony.blogspot.com/200 ... perty.html
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. (Taxes on things, including property.)
Zoning laws and regulations - the Supreme Court ruled zoning constitutional in 1921.
Federal ownership of land; Bureau of Land Management - in Nevada 87% of land is federally owned.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - broad powers to seize any private property during "emergency."
The Gov can seize any private property for private/Corporatist use.
Not only are you stupid, you're also a liar: the fact that I own that which I buy is a simple refutation of this preposterous claim. You say that the government owns some property, which is true; and then, you make the dishonest leap to the government owns all property.
2. Heavy progressive income tax Check
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. (Taxes on things, including income.) The Sixteenth Amendment classifies income tax as an indirect tax, or tax on a thing, as opposed to tax on a person.
Corporate Tax Act of 1909.
Revenue Act of 1913.
Social Security Act of 1936.
Oh, no; taxes! How the hell else is the government going to support itself?
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance Check
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. (Taxes on things, including inheritances.)
Estate Tax Act of 1916.
Social Security Act of 1936.
This has nothing to do whatsoever with the abolition of inheritance rights, you moron.
4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels With the new civil disobedience act they can seize any property or assets they please. Check
Confiscation of property of American Indians.
IRS confiscation of property without due process.
Internment of Japanese-Americans during WW II; confiscation of their property.
Confiscation of drug-merchant property.
RICO Act of 1970 (Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organizations) - used as a basis to confiscate property.
And yet, one of my best friends, whose parents emigrated from Taiwan, has a house. Whoops; there goes your bullshit!
5. Central bank Check
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to coin money, regulate the power thereof.
National Bank Act of 1863 - established federal monopoly.
Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 1933.
Oh, no: we have a central bank to regulate inflation! Thus, the United States is Communist!
6. Government control of communication and transportation Check
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to establish post offices and post roads.
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States.
Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 - placed railways under federal regulation; created Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC).
Federal Highway Act of 1916.
Air Commerce Act of 1926.
Federal Radio Commission, 1927.
Federal Communications Commission, 1934.
Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.
Interstate Highway System, 1944.
Federal Aviation Agency, 1958.
Department of Transportation, 1966.
U.S. Constition, Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Dishonest little shit.
7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture Check
Department of the Interior, 1849 - now includes: Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Department of Agriculture, 1862.
Anti-trust Acts, 1902.
Department of Commerce and Labor, 1903.
Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 - Hoover Dam, Muscle Shoals Project.
The existence of thousands of factories across the US is a direct refutation of your preposterous claim.
8. Government control of labor Check Anyone here see the move to destroy the labor Unions in America?
First labor unions, then called federations, 1820.
National Labor Union, 1866.
American Federation of Labor, 1886.
International Workers of the World, 1905.
Department of Labor, 1913.
Railway Labor Act of 1926.
Civil Works Administration, 1933.
Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 - farmers receive government aid only if they relinquish control of farming activities.
National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
Works Progress Administration, 1935.
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 - set minimum wages.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - effectively the equal liability of all to labor.
Davis-Bacon and Walsh-Healy Acts - require government contractors to pay "prevailing wages."
U.S. Unemployment Service.
Holy shit, you think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 creates slave labor? What the hell are you smoking? The fact labor is a choice and not compulsion speaks volumes about your blatant lies.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China. regional planning Check
Farmers Home Administration (FHA).
Zoning.
Government subsidies favor large agribusinesses
And, yet, New York City still exists.
10. Government control of education. Check http://eugenichegemony.blogspot.com/200 ... izens.html
Gradual shift from private education to state funded education began in the New England States in the early 1800s.
Smith-Lever Act of 1914.
Smith-Hughes Act of 1917.
Federal school lunch program, 1935.
Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 - children work only with government approval.
National School Lunch Act of 1946.
National Defense Education Act of 1958.
Federal School Aid Act of 1965.
So why do private schools exist?
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
Jesus H. Fucking Christ, I see you want to abolish mandatory public schooling...does having a population thick as pigshit appeal to you? Then again, looking at your grasp of the english language I can see that it might well be bitterness at a system which has clearly failed you.
Anyway, this is just a quick heads up for you, if you dont get a clue quickly I promise you a most entertaining stay in the Hall of Shame before the Senate get to have their very first real banning poll...wont that be fun?
As for the rest, you seem to have communist and socialist deeply and fundamentally confused. The two are not interchangable. I take it you oppose socialized medicine and welfare too? Why worry about the health and education so long as they're free to pick which ever gutter they want to starve to death in, eh?
It's kind of odd, but I hear much more in terms of echos of Marx in your words than in the actions you accuse the US Gov. of...then again, I'm probably just a pinko-commie-european in your world view, so what would I know.
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
EugenicHegemony wrote:I'm not being dishonest at all. I said national communist policies. This is not a very well hidden secret.
And communist policies entail debt? I defy you to actually provide evidence of national policies which are uniquely communist, motherfucker, and I doubt you'll be able to do so.
No because nationalized compulsory education is a communist principal.
You're a lying little fucker. Nationalized compulsory education is only part of the communist principal
Karl Marx wrote:10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
So why is there no child labor, and why do private schools exist?
Furthermore, why has religion not been abolished? Oh, yes; that's right: the First Amendment, a part of the very Constitution you were just now citing. Liar.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
Plekhanov wrote:Just out of interest EugenicHegemony are there any countries out there that you don’t regard as commie-nazi states?
Are there any present day or historical examples of the kind of society you would implement in preference to the commie-nazi dystopian that is the USA or are you working entirely in theory?
<snip a cut and pasted list of hopelessly idealistic proposals which don’t answer my questions>
I take it then that you concede that you have no historical or contemporary examples to back up any of your ideas, but hey why let that concern you when they all work so well in theory, in your head
EugenicHegemony wrote:I'm not being dishonest at all. I said national communist policies. This is not a very well hidden secret.
No because nationalized compulsory education is a communist principal.
Nationalised compulsory education may well be a communist principle it’s also a principle of a great many other widely divergent political theories you muppet, so the fact that a country may have nationalized compulsory education does notautomatically make it communist.
Besides your argument is moot anyway as private schools which follow their own curriculum exist in the US anyway so what’s your point?
My point is we should all be able to keep our capital and then anyone can afford private school. Not just the rich and then more government redistribution through vouchers. it's absurd. Private school and no public will create a major competitive advantage to the citizenry of any country. especially one such as the U.S. You ignored everything in that article on why that system was installed. It breeds future labor and this has all been documents. NCLB is doing exactly what it set out to do. It's pushing kids out the door and creating this massive consumerist farm we have today.
You asked if I had any ideas and I then posted them. You then acted like a dick. You science fiction geeks are a strange breed.
I'm not advocating violence. The topic of this thread is symbolic by design. I figured the "Independence Day" image would make that quite obvious.
peace
Secret prison in Afghanistan, secret prisons littered throughout Europe (“olde or new"; it doesn’t matter), and now domestic spying sure the raise the hackles of Jefferson to the heights J. Edgar Hoover and Nixon could only have dreamed of. After 9-11 we’ve been hammered with the jingle “connect the dots by the 9-11 Commission, the media, and every politician and political pundit as the phrase is related to the gathering of various disparate pieces of intel. However, there exists a more pressing reason for playing the “connect the dots" game in a new way and that is to examine how the White House has furtively worked to upend our system of checks and balances in such a slick way. Consider this:poof, secret prisons mysteriously materialize, thanks to the help of not “shameful" government employees but of courageous whistleblowers. Poof, war protestors, not the ones throwing malotov cocktails but Quakers, you know, the ones who are committed to non-violent Mahatma Gandi tactics, are being monitored by our Defense Dept. And poof, some of our citizens who may or may not be involved with al-Qaida are being monitored by the NSA in a way that bypasses the FISA court. How disingenuous of the current executive checksigner to tell us on television that “leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it." What he conveniently forgot to mention but thanks to Senator Rockefellor we now know to be true is that the secret information given to the leaders from both parties of the Senate and House intelligence committees is FYI and to be shared even, now get this, even with the other members of the intelligence committees! What’s more important to me is that key word: briefed. Yes, the Congressman are informed of these activities but, now follow the dots, they can not pass judgment on those activities. Which means, there is NO OVERSIGHT. I ask you, where are the Checks and Balances? The FISA Court was implemented as a direct reaction to the overreaching and abuse of Presidential power, as a safeguard to help restore the sometimes precarious balance of the three branches of our government. Let us not forget how disingenuous Presidents can be. Lately he has taken to distancing himself from “those politicians up here in Washington" whenever he wants to point out why he should be trusted more. The last time I looked I thought our President was a former governor of Texas, surely a politician, and, for the past 5 years he’s been, well, our President, with an office in Washington. Does that qualify? Even the likes of John W. Dean, former White House counsel to President Nixon and author of Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, had remarked in an interview with Bill Moyers on the NOW tv program that, “The Bush-Cheney secrecy started long before 9-11. Started long before there was war. There has been only an acceleration and a use, and to me abuse, of secrecy using 9-11 as an excuse to make things more secret that have no business being secret." Connect the dots we must, lest we abrogate our freedoms so dearly won by former patriots of a bygone, but not forgotten era.
Gremlin wrote:Patriot Act 2 121/122 (Allows full panoply of electronic surveillance techniques for not just terrorism crimes, but any offense in the broader list of activities)
125 (Nationwide search warrants for nonviolent acts)
312 (More Surveillance, Longer Surveillance, Less Privacy)
501 (U.S. governments "enemy combatant" definition, see PatAct 802)
I feel this is the most important video anyone here has seen thus far...
I just came across this video today. You (all) know, I and so many other's here, have been saying many of this, and way before this video came along. Common sense, and dissent have become rare in the land of the free to do what you're told. Let's make that history. I see a new generation of anomalies forming. That's what I call them. Kids like Kolt (A 17 year old poster on this site) who are done playing this fixed game, and aren't going to let this traitorous government get away with it any longer. They are growing at an exponential rate, and this government will have no place left to hide their lies.
Link provided in image, and it's a must watch:
This movie is telling us something. What a great illustration.
Let's make some minor changes to Thomas Paine's wise words, shall we.....
Maintaining “the cause of truly a free unencumbered citizenry is in a great measure the cause of all mankind,”
Paine passionately argued for independence from Strong centralized Government and the ability of the young country to prosper unfettered by the oppressive and economically draining traitorous despotic U.S. government.
Guys, this is a really good study I found on hidden taxes. It really shows what our government is really doing to us. If the general public was made aware of this I believe their would be a revolt. You know, we really don't get much from our government for the amount we pay it....
Here's some more. Read and learn or don't bother. The choice is yours...
EugenicHegemony wrote:I'm not advocating violence. The topic of this thread is symbolic by design. I figured the "Independence Day" image would make that quite obvious.
peace
This movie is telling us something. What a great illustration.
Plekhanov wrote:Just out of interest EugenicHegemony are there any countries out there that you don’t regard as commie-nazi states?
Are there any present day or historical examples of the kind of society you would implement in preference to the commie-nazi dystopian that is the USA or are you working entirely in theory?
I have come up with a few ideas, yes.
1)Strict adherence to the Constitution; otherwise it becomes onerous and government become our master. It's in place more to keep government on a leash with the citizenry holding it; more than it is for the actually citizenry.
7)Abolish Supreme Courts. (They're: appointed in a dictatorial fashion, there till they die, and the last law of the land; therefore it's absurd. As of now the more capital you have the better chance of getting appeals and a never ending process ensues. 1-2 appeal limit with no more than a year bewteen appeals .No USSC to dictate the outcome. A jury of your peers is all we need)
Whoops ... is there a contradiction here? Moron.
Denationalize our economy. (Free unencumbered markets. Use any system you please: Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. If you are a fascist, then you're out of luck. They've forced a command economy on the workers of America, while giving themselves and their special interests a free anarchic market)
How the fuck is a Communist market possible in a denationalized economy? Of course, you still rely on the arrogant presumption the economy is "nationalized", though you've done nothing do back up that claim, though I have politely asked you twice to do so.
So, are you going to provide evidence?
9)Decriminalize drugs. (First the Welfare state must be abolished or we will all continue to pay)
Ahh, your posts make so much more sense now. Please, do us all a favor and turn yourself in to the FDA.
11)Wholly cut off government from our economy. (End protectionism)
12)Make it illegal for government to commingle with any private entities and vice versa. (All subsidization will end).
Are you so stupid that you don't realize this will do far more to fulfill Marx's principals than the current government contracts will ever do?
13)Denationalize Globalization.
How the hell can globalization be nationalized the first fucking place?
14)Abolish all Central Banks. (Ending the governmental monopoly on: prices, rents, wages, salaries, capital, inflation, deflation, interest rates, stock market just to name a few. That is our lifeblood and it's not capitalism; it's more like nationalized communism)
Shit, you are dense. Currency is the lifeblood of a real, grown-up economy, and you propose to do away with it?
15)Abolish income tax (It's a war tax. It was used for the Spanish American war, civil war, WWI just to name a few. One year prior to WWI. Does 1+1=2 for any of you)
So? It is also a portion of the government's income, and the US is in debt enough already. Or did you want us to go deeper into debt?
17)Open policy. (A potential enemy will know we (all) know: what they're up to, where they are, what they're doing, and where they're going; therefore they have no place to hide)
And you are tactically and strategically inept, too, I see. Since when has the government been omniscient?
In conclusion, you're obviously not intelligent enough to cobble together an internally consistent alternative to the current US situation, let alone make sweeping proclamations about the nature of the United States' economy and form of government.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
EugenicHegemony wrote:I'm not being dishonest at all. I said national communist policies. This is not a very well hidden secret.
And communist policies entail debt? I defy you to actually provide evidence of national policies which are uniquely communist, motherfucker, and I doubt you'll be able to do so.
No because nationalized compulsory education is a communist principal.
You're a lying little fucker. Nationalized compulsory education is only part of the communist principal
Karl Marx wrote:10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
So why is there no child labor, and why do private schools exist?
Furthermore, why has religion not been abolished? Oh, yes; that's right: the First Amendment, a part of the very Constitution you were just now citing. Liar.
I never said debt equals communism, and why does your pussy ass keep saying that?
I did you stupid mother fucker. It's not verbatim and it sure is close enough to constitute the same polices. The American public would not stand for control of religion. I said polices and then I posted them. You then came back with your worthless opinion, and nothing more. They may not all be implemented in the same fashion, and that doesn't mean anything. They still exist. Mixed economies are not exclusive to the U.S.
Denationalize our economy. (Free unencumbered markets. Use any system you please: Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. If you are a fascist, then you're out of luck. They've forced a command economy on the workers of America, while giving themselves and their special interests a free anarchic market) 
