Okay, I’ll take the sarcasm in the last post for exactly what its worth. I simply get SO frigging frustrated when I get the very frequent impression that you don’t listen to (or read) anything I have to say.
I, however, DO read what you say. I can’t help but notice that when you discuss topics like terrorism, economics, fiscal spending and immigration, you… and nearly every major conservative pundit on the radio today… keep “harking” back to the Reagan administration with weepy-eyed nostalgia. I want to know why this is.
As we have all seen from the posts concerning our original “Presidential Report Cards”, even I… an admitted Reagan skeptic from as far back as 1980 (Jambo will back me up here!)… gave him the highest grade of all the Presidents we studied. I’m not going to listen to any crap about my “liberal” tendencies tainting my opinion here, as there is NO basis for this fear in reality. I am perfectly able to objectively look at the historical facts concerning Reagan and his time in office. I am questioning that ability in those who so frequently rap themselves up in the mantle of “Reagan-ism”.
In the post “Let’s play a game II” the premise was to find real, measurable faults with the policies and programs of the Reagan Administration. I listed 3 of them (with help from James on the last), but got no response other than flippant humor from Ryan. So, now I will ask, from any conservative Republican that might be reading this blog today, to explain why the label “Reagan” in front of words like “conservative” or “Republican” should mean anything to the very issues we are discussing here in 2008?
For example: Ryan wrote: “…if he wins today it will NOT in fact be an endorsement for the "comprehensive/moderate" reform policy he was formerly affiliated with, just the opposite if you believe what he says - and I wouldn't think anyone would vote for him saying "he doesn't mean that." In fact when he was still trying to defend it is when he was polling under 10%, now he claims to be a Reagan conservative at every opportunity, and BAM, he's the front runner with Romney (an actual conservative) nipping at his heels.”
I take this to mean that the harder, more isolationist position McCain is now endorsing is closer to the Reagan position, correct? Reagan would have “secured the border” from further illegal entry, denied amnesty to illegal immigrants already in the country, forced deportation on those found guilty of entering illegally? Of course, this is assuming (hypothetically speaking, of course) that he were President NOW.
Well, if we are going to make assumptions on what Reagan would do NOW, let’s look at what he did THEN, and compare, okay?
November, 1986. Ronald Reagan signs into Law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (Simpson-Mazzoli Act {Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359}), which, for those that don’t know already, granted AMNESTY to as many as 5,689,000 documented illegal immigrants in the United States. This same IRCA 1986 also mandated the REDUCTION of BP and INS personnel of as much as 11% in the 10 years following its becoming law (this facet of the law was struck down by Bush Sr. in 1991, by the way, and he was criticized by the “conservatives” in the party for doing it!). Critics of this Act have noted that Reagan’s signing of this legislation cemented the “amnesty” precedent into the lawmaker’s mind, and that in the 20 years that followed the amnesty, the number of illegals in this country has risen from nearly 6 million to (possibly) as high as 21 million… a 350% increase. Impressive, aint it?
Another example? Okay, let’s talk free trade. Republican candidates, one and all, call for an end to NAFTA and CAFTA as failed programs… none more vocally than Paul, but Romney and McCain have also called for an end to both agreements, and Huckabee is simply too ignorant to discuss it.
So, if NAFTA/CAFTA is such a bad thing, why did Reagan fight for 8 years as President to get it implemented?
That’s right, all you “Reagan-ites” out there, Big Ron was espousing the wonders of free trade as early as his 1st Inaugural Address in Jan. of 1981. He initiated NAFTA with the US/Canadian Free Trade Agreement in 1985, and looked for the inclusion of Mexico into the agreement eventually.
Let’s talk spending. The GOP candidates want to cut taxes and reduce spending… just like Reagan did. Smaller government is better government… and I believe that. I DO! Reagan didn’t, though…
Reagan cut taxes at a time in America when inflation was higher than it had been since 1947, unemployment was more than 11%, and the entire economy was as stagnant as it had ever been. All well and good, and it DID stimulate the economy over the next four years. However, he did NOT reduce the size of government even one IOTA. The cuts he made to social programs and education didn’t even make a dent in the increased cost of defense over the same time period. On average, the Federal Budget under Reagan called for 18% MORE money ever year he was in office (that’s AVERAGE, mind you… not every year literally). “Trickle-down” economics resulted directly in the market crash of ‘87, and that crash had an awful lot to do with Bush Sr. having to raise taxes and LOSE the ‘92 election. Show me ONE example of Reagan reducing either the SIZE or COST of government, even for ONE YEAR of his administration. Don’t bother, you can’t because he DIDN’T! AND Reagan wasn’t a “war time” President like Bush Jr. and the next guy will be, either.
I will leave my comments on terrorism as they stand in the previous posts… I’m too tired to retype them here.
So, tell me that Reagan wasn’t soft on Iran specifically, terrorism in general, illegal immigration and amnesty, big government deficit spending, NAFTA, et al. Explain to me how Romney, Huckabee, Paul or any other conservative out there can call themselves “Reagan-like” in their positions when the historical facts show me that the exact opposite is true?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Slow down cheetoh ...
This fascism discussion isn't some emotional driven bone that I'm picking, thus prhases in capital letters such as "I'LL TRY TO EXPLAIN THIS ONE MORE TIME", are both unneccessary and unwarranted. I was just expressing some thoughts on the issue, which were simply this ...
I think "fascism" has been misidentified as having a particular economic component, as defined as the opposite of past communist regimes. And I have tried to be specific by using the term "Soviet brand communism", so as to avoid your annoing little habit of giving a text book definition of the term "communism"and reiterating for the tenth trillion time that it has never actually existed in that true, pure form.... sheeeesh, we get it already.
And look, this is not some machansia of Ryan's mind - I pointed out that the term has not come to a consensus definition within the historical community to date. Western PhD's of all stripes have argued it means different things, and for a century at least. You have defined it, in my view, as a totalitarian regime without the communist economic attempts. Or, totalitarianism with its capitalism intact. Fine, I disagree, and for this reason - every aspect typically associated with historically labeled "fascist" regimes - opression, strict allegiance, secret police, one party rule, one form of hegemony or another whether it be economic/class based or race based, and getting "them" who opressed "us", again whether steeped in race, religon or economics - can be readily found in both Nazi Germany and the USSR. I think therfore all historically infamous oppressive regimes, be it Stalin, Hitler, Moussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, or Ahmedenajad, employed one brand or another of fascism. Some oprresed and ruled centered around the theme of racial hegemony; some economic hegemony; some religous hegemony. Fascism, in my view, is interchangable with more general terms such as "totalitriansim" and "despotism", thus making the Soviet style communist regimes (not "communism's" text book definition) but another form of fascistic rule.
It's just my opinion, one I have backed up with a reasonable line of thinking, so unbunch your Dora panties and calm down.
Damnit! The spell check is still disabled. I wasn't home-schooled you know, I'm not a spelling bee champion.
I think "fascism" has been misidentified as having a particular economic component, as defined as the opposite of past communist regimes. And I have tried to be specific by using the term "Soviet brand communism", so as to avoid your annoing little habit of giving a text book definition of the term "communism"and reiterating for the tenth trillion time that it has never actually existed in that true, pure form.... sheeeesh, we get it already.
And look, this is not some machansia of Ryan's mind - I pointed out that the term has not come to a consensus definition within the historical community to date. Western PhD's of all stripes have argued it means different things, and for a century at least. You have defined it, in my view, as a totalitarian regime without the communist economic attempts. Or, totalitarianism with its capitalism intact. Fine, I disagree, and for this reason - every aspect typically associated with historically labeled "fascist" regimes - opression, strict allegiance, secret police, one party rule, one form of hegemony or another whether it be economic/class based or race based, and getting "them" who opressed "us", again whether steeped in race, religon or economics - can be readily found in both Nazi Germany and the USSR. I think therfore all historically infamous oppressive regimes, be it Stalin, Hitler, Moussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, or Ahmedenajad, employed one brand or another of fascism. Some oprresed and ruled centered around the theme of racial hegemony; some economic hegemony; some religous hegemony. Fascism, in my view, is interchangable with more general terms such as "totalitriansim" and "despotism", thus making the Soviet style communist regimes (not "communism's" text book definition) but another form of fascistic rule.
It's just my opinion, one I have backed up with a reasonable line of thinking, so unbunch your Dora panties and calm down.
Damnit! The spell check is still disabled. I wasn't home-schooled you know, I'm not a spelling bee champion.
I'll slow down for the thinking impaired ...
Titus wrote ...
So explain The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, in which doors for amnesty are left WIDE open and a suspension of current "enforcement" regulations is immediately called for... which has this particular "mainstream" conservative's name ALL over it.Please... do explain this for me, I can't wait to understand it.
Dufus, it's called politics. We, on the conservative, Reagan "right" are furious at McCain for routinely sticking his finger in our eye over one issue after another. McCain Feingold, a clear offense on free speech, political speech none the less. He was 1 of only 2 Republicans to vote against renewing the Bush tax cuts. He was a cetnral figure in the Senate's "gang of 14" which sought to get "moderate" judges through the Senate regardless of the PoTUS's preferences, and the "biggie", immigration. Of course that bill of 2007 was amnesty. In many forms the most glaring being the "Z Visas" that could be renewed to inifinity with zero requirements like English, health checks, etc.
Now, my point in that post was that he is running AWAY from that bill he coauthored in this primary. In the debates and in his stump speech's he's avoiding it like the plauge and repeats the phrase "I learned my lesson, Americans want the border enforced first", and even went so far in the last debate to state that "that bill (McCain-Kenneddy) will not come up (for a vote) in my administration"
So, if he wins today it will NOT in fact be an endotrsment for the "comprehensive/moderate" reform policy he was formerly affiliated with, just the opposite if you believe what he says - and I wouldn't think anyone would vote for him saying "he doesn't mean that." In fact when he was still trying to defend it is when he was polling under 10%, now he claims to be a Raegan conservative at every opportunity, and BAM, he's the front runner with Romney (an actual conservative) nipping at his heels. Now, I happen to think his suddennly finding his conservative legs is a lot of bull sh**, and he has no intention to govern that way. However, there is enough conservatives within the GOP that do in fact believe him and his conversion and disavowment of McCain-Kenneddy immigration reform that he may win. Do you understand now? A win today won't be an endorsment of that back-door shamnesty bill that he pushed given that he has campaigned for months now on doing the opposite of what that bill proposed.
Furthermore, would he to announce that he was going to reintroduce that bill or any form of it, rather then promising it won't come during his tenure as president, his support would hit the ground faster then my prom date's dress (and believe me, that was fast).
sheeeeesh*
So explain The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, in which doors for amnesty are left WIDE open and a suspension of current "enforcement" regulations is immediately called for... which has this particular "mainstream" conservative's name ALL over it.Please... do explain this for me, I can't wait to understand it.
Dufus, it's called politics. We, on the conservative, Reagan "right" are furious at McCain for routinely sticking his finger in our eye over one issue after another. McCain Feingold, a clear offense on free speech, political speech none the less. He was 1 of only 2 Republicans to vote against renewing the Bush tax cuts. He was a cetnral figure in the Senate's "gang of 14" which sought to get "moderate" judges through the Senate regardless of the PoTUS's preferences, and the "biggie", immigration. Of course that bill of 2007 was amnesty. In many forms the most glaring being the "Z Visas" that could be renewed to inifinity with zero requirements like English, health checks, etc.
Now, my point in that post was that he is running AWAY from that bill he coauthored in this primary. In the debates and in his stump speech's he's avoiding it like the plauge and repeats the phrase "I learned my lesson, Americans want the border enforced first", and even went so far in the last debate to state that "that bill (McCain-Kenneddy) will not come up (for a vote) in my administration"
So, if he wins today it will NOT in fact be an endotrsment for the "comprehensive/moderate" reform policy he was formerly affiliated with, just the opposite if you believe what he says - and I wouldn't think anyone would vote for him saying "he doesn't mean that." In fact when he was still trying to defend it is when he was polling under 10%, now he claims to be a Raegan conservative at every opportunity, and BAM, he's the front runner with Romney (an actual conservative) nipping at his heels. Now, I happen to think his suddennly finding his conservative legs is a lot of bull sh**, and he has no intention to govern that way. However, there is enough conservatives within the GOP that do in fact believe him and his conversion and disavowment of McCain-Kenneddy immigration reform that he may win. Do you understand now? A win today won't be an endorsment of that back-door shamnesty bill that he pushed given that he has campaigned for months now on doing the opposite of what that bill proposed.
Furthermore, would he to announce that he was going to reintroduce that bill or any form of it, rather then promising it won't come during his tenure as president, his support would hit the ground faster then my prom date's dress (and believe me, that was fast).
sheeeeesh*
Communism vs. Fascism... again
Once again, a break down in communication skills is causing us to argue the inarguable here.
We cannot discuss “fascism versus communism” outside of the realm of “IDEOLOGY”. If ideology is defined as a collection of ideas concerning a specific topic, then we can discuss fascism and its attributes (and by extension, communism and it’s attributes) either from an “ideological” point of view, or from an “historical” point of view. There is no other possibility.
Now, knowing that we have ALL (at least the three Bund founders) agreed that true “communism” has never existed on a national level at any point in world history, I fail to see how we can take the “historical” point of view on that side of the coin in this argument. Unless, of course, you have discovered a “communist” system of government that WORKED and failed to tell the world…
So, that said, I am going to try and show you ONE MORE TIME that communism and fascism are NOT interchangeable terms describing totalitarian regimes, and that the “communism” of the USSR was NOT just another “fascist” government calling itself something else.
You seem to agree that fascism requires the State to take the position that ONE group (race, ethnicity, culture, religion, et al) is SUPERIOR to all others, and that it is this superiority that is the primary motivator behind the State’s effort to “regain” that which was taken away-lost to the INFERIOR group or groups. The Nazi’s fundamental drive to eradicate European Judaism to further the third Reich is a sound historical example, and Iran’s fundamental drive to re-establish the Persian hegemony in the region at the expense of Israel is a sound contemporary one. This is a fundamental truth of ALL incarnations of fascism over the last 100 years, in my opinion.
Communism strives, on an ideological level, to remove all boundaries and differences from a society by creating a “class-less” culture in which ALL people of ALL backgrounds are EQUAL, socially, economically, legally, and institutionally. If you have an alternative ideological definition of this socio-political term that I am unaware of, please feel free to share it with us all.
In the USSR, the STATE owned all facets of industry and commerce (outside of some very complicated and convoluted “5 year Plans” that I won’t go into here *shudder*), while in Nazi Germany, NO industry was OWNED by the State or the National Socialist Party. However, ALL the largest and most influential owners of industry were Nazi Party members, by simple yet compelling recruitment practices. Any influence from the Nazis towards industry (and there was mountains of it, I don’t deny) was outside of established institutional control of government. Thus, in Nazi Germany, we see an institutionalized “ruling class” of NSDAP and military elite ALONGSIDE the barons of industry and commerce… a fact that flies in the face of an argument stating that “communism” was another facet of “fascism”.
Both Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s USSR shared many totalitarian features in their respective regimes, no one can deny this fact… but that does not mean that fascism and communism are simply two sides to the same coin. They are not.
We cannot discuss “fascism versus communism” outside of the realm of “IDEOLOGY”. If ideology is defined as a collection of ideas concerning a specific topic, then we can discuss fascism and its attributes (and by extension, communism and it’s attributes) either from an “ideological” point of view, or from an “historical” point of view. There is no other possibility.
Now, knowing that we have ALL (at least the three Bund founders) agreed that true “communism” has never existed on a national level at any point in world history, I fail to see how we can take the “historical” point of view on that side of the coin in this argument. Unless, of course, you have discovered a “communist” system of government that WORKED and failed to tell the world…
So, that said, I am going to try and show you ONE MORE TIME that communism and fascism are NOT interchangeable terms describing totalitarian regimes, and that the “communism” of the USSR was NOT just another “fascist” government calling itself something else.
You seem to agree that fascism requires the State to take the position that ONE group (race, ethnicity, culture, religion, et al) is SUPERIOR to all others, and that it is this superiority that is the primary motivator behind the State’s effort to “regain” that which was taken away-lost to the INFERIOR group or groups. The Nazi’s fundamental drive to eradicate European Judaism to further the third Reich is a sound historical example, and Iran’s fundamental drive to re-establish the Persian hegemony in the region at the expense of Israel is a sound contemporary one. This is a fundamental truth of ALL incarnations of fascism over the last 100 years, in my opinion.
Communism strives, on an ideological level, to remove all boundaries and differences from a society by creating a “class-less” culture in which ALL people of ALL backgrounds are EQUAL, socially, economically, legally, and institutionally. If you have an alternative ideological definition of this socio-political term that I am unaware of, please feel free to share it with us all.
In the USSR, the STATE owned all facets of industry and commerce (outside of some very complicated and convoluted “5 year Plans” that I won’t go into here *shudder*), while in Nazi Germany, NO industry was OWNED by the State or the National Socialist Party. However, ALL the largest and most influential owners of industry were Nazi Party members, by simple yet compelling recruitment practices. Any influence from the Nazis towards industry (and there was mountains of it, I don’t deny) was outside of established institutional control of government. Thus, in Nazi Germany, we see an institutionalized “ruling class” of NSDAP and military elite ALONGSIDE the barons of industry and commerce… a fact that flies in the face of an argument stating that “communism” was another facet of “fascism”.
Both Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s USSR shared many totalitarian features in their respective regimes, no one can deny this fact… but that does not mean that fascism and communism are simply two sides to the same coin. They are not.
Monday, February 4, 2008
By the way ...
"Reagan failures?" The very phrase is an oxymoron. As where "Carter failures" is redundant.
Ronus Magnumus Reagan made no mistakes, zero, none, nada and I won't have one more word of this blasphemy repeated, period.
****
On Wilkow Titus ... don't worry, we already knew you had a vagina. By the way, the argument isn't over "torture", it's defining torture, and I think one could make a legitimate psychological case that precisely BECAUSE McCain was tortured he shouldn't be making that determination as CiC.
And I hope you realize that your exposure to NEPA is rapidly turning you further and further left. At some point I expect to stand up (behind Jambo of course) at your all male Canadian wedding in commie red suits with cycles and hammers dangling from the ceiling, Marx look-alikes juggling, and the whole thing government funded......
****
*sniff* ... Mardi Gras parade floats.
Ronus Magnumus Reagan made no mistakes, zero, none, nada and I won't have one more word of this blasphemy repeated, period.
****
On Wilkow Titus ... don't worry, we already knew you had a vagina. By the way, the argument isn't over "torture", it's defining torture, and I think one could make a legitimate psychological case that precisely BECAUSE McCain was tortured he shouldn't be making that determination as CiC.
And I hope you realize that your exposure to NEPA is rapidly turning you further and further left. At some point I expect to stand up (behind Jambo of course) at your all male Canadian wedding in commie red suits with cycles and hammers dangling from the ceiling, Marx look-alikes juggling, and the whole thing government funded......
****
*sniff* ... Mardi Gras parade floats.
I've always OWNED your ass on this issue Titus ...
... immigration. And it's because I do my homework, i.e. when it comes to the majority of Americans, including legal immigrants, wanting a "closed border first" (to ILLEGALS & drug runners, terrorists, etc, as opposed to any immigrant wishing to migrate here legally) policy.
You've misread the political tea leaves in the following statement my friend...
Another is immigration. In a state where Latino/American voters a huge factor, which GOP candidate came out on top? The one with the most moderate immigration reform position... McCain. I can't help but feel that this give a new light to Ryan's position that the MAJORITY of legal immigrants and native-born Latino/Americans whole-heartedly support the kind of "closed" border mentality that Ryan (and many conservatives) advocate. The results of "Super Tuesday" will make or break my point on this issue, when so many other states with large, LEGAL Latino/American voting blocks have their voices heard.
The reason McCain has surged is because he's running TOWARDS the right. Myself and others (AM radio hosts, Hastert, Gingrich, etc) think its politically motivated and not genuine, but it has been effective with enough Republicans to cause his leap ahead. Examples? Every commercial he runs, of which I have heard/seen many, he refers to himself as "a foot soldier in the Raegan revolution." "Low taxes", "no withdrawl dates in Iraq", echo in every ad spot. And geuss what else is a centerpiece? Titus, he repeats over and over and over at nauseum that he quote, "learned his lesson on immigration and the American people want the border enforced first."
He's said it so much that you could probably google the phrase and his name will come up. He no longer is what you would describe as a "moderate" on this issue and has said so loudly and often. And on that score - on what is moderate and what is on the fringe - it is clear that "border enforcment first" is the moderate position. It is the majority, mainstream postion and the "open borders" bunch like Titus, Hillary & Bush - yes, "dubya" too - are clearly on the fringe and out of the mainstream. Whether McCain does well or it's Romney what will be shown on SUPER TEUSDAY is that a GOP primary candidate can not get our nomination without being mainstream, (read: enforcment first) about the border. Your ass can pucker all it wants tomorrow as you see McCain do well, while you sit there thinking this proves I'm wrong about what a majority of legal immigrants want - but it will prove just the OPPOSITE! McCain had to convert to my side, the majority side, the moderate side, in order to win .... put that in your amnesty Peterson & smoke it.
Oh, and one other thing: Obama uses the phrase "we must enforce our border" repeatedly, even at the Democrat debate in LA the other night with perhaps the MOST liberal audience (half were celebrities, it was LA after all) in attendence. He adds, "done humanely" as a caviat, but "enforcment" is the buzz word nonetheless, and on BOTH sides. You wanna know why? They've researched the same numbers I have .... damn, I love it when I am soooo RIGHT (if you'll excuse the pun).
You've misread the political tea leaves in the following statement my friend...
Another is immigration. In a state where Latino/American voters a huge factor, which GOP candidate came out on top? The one with the most moderate immigration reform position... McCain. I can't help but feel that this give a new light to Ryan's position that the MAJORITY of legal immigrants and native-born Latino/Americans whole-heartedly support the kind of "closed" border mentality that Ryan (and many conservatives) advocate. The results of "Super Tuesday" will make or break my point on this issue, when so many other states with large, LEGAL Latino/American voting blocks have their voices heard.
The reason McCain has surged is because he's running TOWARDS the right. Myself and others (AM radio hosts, Hastert, Gingrich, etc) think its politically motivated and not genuine, but it has been effective with enough Republicans to cause his leap ahead. Examples? Every commercial he runs, of which I have heard/seen many, he refers to himself as "a foot soldier in the Raegan revolution." "Low taxes", "no withdrawl dates in Iraq", echo in every ad spot. And geuss what else is a centerpiece? Titus, he repeats over and over and over at nauseum that he quote, "learned his lesson on immigration and the American people want the border enforced first."
He's said it so much that you could probably google the phrase and his name will come up. He no longer is what you would describe as a "moderate" on this issue and has said so loudly and often. And on that score - on what is moderate and what is on the fringe - it is clear that "border enforcment first" is the moderate position. It is the majority, mainstream postion and the "open borders" bunch like Titus, Hillary & Bush - yes, "dubya" too - are clearly on the fringe and out of the mainstream. Whether McCain does well or it's Romney what will be shown on SUPER TEUSDAY is that a GOP primary candidate can not get our nomination without being mainstream, (read: enforcment first) about the border. Your ass can pucker all it wants tomorrow as you see McCain do well, while you sit there thinking this proves I'm wrong about what a majority of legal immigrants want - but it will prove just the OPPOSITE! McCain had to convert to my side, the majority side, the moderate side, in order to win .... put that in your amnesty Peterson & smoke it.
Oh, and one other thing: Obama uses the phrase "we must enforce our border" repeatedly, even at the Democrat debate in LA the other night with perhaps the MOST liberal audience (half were celebrities, it was LA after all) in attendence. He adds, "done humanely" as a caviat, but "enforcment" is the buzz word nonetheless, and on BOTH sides. You wanna know why? They've researched the same numbers I have .... damn, I love it when I am soooo RIGHT (if you'll excuse the pun).
Further on Fascism ...
I read this twice ...
Take the example of nearly any European fascist state from the last century, and you will see each one has a disproportionate degree of industrial control lying with national, industrial cartels. The control of these cartels (called "corporations" in my poli-sci texts) lies within the controling party of the fascist state... but only through the leaders of those cartels being recruited (or founding) members of the fascist organization. This membership in the controling group (we'll call it the "party", for ease of use) allows nearly unlimited ability to control markets and resources for the expressed profit of the elite, and not for the state or organization.I
Im not saying thematically you're wrong, but let me challenge you on this point (and bare in my mind it is my assertion that Soviet Communism, as practiced, was but another brand of fascism). If a ruling party comes to power then assumes dictatorial control, as did the Nazis, and then recruits captains of industry as means of elite, exclusionary profit, then haven't these "captains" as it were, simply joined the party post take over as a means of maintaining their status? To be more specific, Nazi founders, be it Hitler, or his cofounder which he later dispatched, weren't industrial titans at the onset, they merely assumed governmental control then asserted control over "business" via the later induction of actual corpotate leaders into their party. This, in my view, would be party control of business rather then business control of the state. And in fact there was a Reich position that directed the business community. His name escapes me now but he was on trial at Nuremberg. This would be party control of business in my view, versus business control of the state.
I think that is what you also asserted, the later induction of these corporate leaders lead to exclusionary, elite profits. But, if that is your contention, and I agree it is acurrate, then defining fascism as "business control of the state", as opposed to the communist state control of bussiness" is simply inaccurate historically or definitionally. Yes, the Nazis used their eventual control (in a post government take over through Weimer elections then undemocratic entrenchment) of business for their own aims and ambitions, but to say that this is fascism as defined by "business control of the state" seems, to reiterate, innacurate. It seems more appropriate to label it "single party control of government and corprate direction."
****
Let me add something regarding this extended comment ...
In addition to the several “facts” of fascism I listed in my posts, I need to add this one… that a fascist state focuses its efforts and policies to “right” the perceived wrongs perpetrated on a society or culture by another group or society...
While I admit that the nastalgic references to a "return" to past empires seems strangely embedded in all of your historical references to nation governments typically referred to as "fascist", the reasoning for a need for such a return is without question based on your above statement - a need to right perceived wrongs perpetrated by a specific group. The perverbial "them" totaliarian regimes always refer to. Given that this inherint need to get "them" in order to right perceived wrongs is an aspect so glaring that you found it neccessary to add another post on the subject, let me point out that this EXACT scenario played out as Lenin drew up his list of those that needed to, well, "go." The beugoise, the elitists, the monarchists, THEY were the segment of society that had wronged Mother Russia and Leninist communism sought to right that wrong. It didn't have a nastalgic theme, noted. However, since the impetus is on "change", whether it's nastalgicly based in a want to "revert" back to past glories, or change thematically articulated and executed as forging new societal ground, it is still change based on "they" have wronged "us", and now we will get "them", and change our current course.
So, again I claim that fascism is more aptly afffiliated definitionally with catch-all terms such as "totalitarianism" and "despotism" rather then trying to define it in specific economic terms and as the polar opposite of communism.
By the way, I was right about the Giants ... he,he.
FR
PS> for some reason the spell check wouldn't activate when clicked, so I did my best.
Take the example of nearly any European fascist state from the last century, and you will see each one has a disproportionate degree of industrial control lying with national, industrial cartels. The control of these cartels (called "corporations" in my poli-sci texts) lies within the controling party of the fascist state... but only through the leaders of those cartels being recruited (or founding) members of the fascist organization. This membership in the controling group (we'll call it the "party", for ease of use) allows nearly unlimited ability to control markets and resources for the expressed profit of the elite, and not for the state or organization.I
Im not saying thematically you're wrong, but let me challenge you on this point (and bare in my mind it is my assertion that Soviet Communism, as practiced, was but another brand of fascism). If a ruling party comes to power then assumes dictatorial control, as did the Nazis, and then recruits captains of industry as means of elite, exclusionary profit, then haven't these "captains" as it were, simply joined the party post take over as a means of maintaining their status? To be more specific, Nazi founders, be it Hitler, or his cofounder which he later dispatched, weren't industrial titans at the onset, they merely assumed governmental control then asserted control over "business" via the later induction of actual corpotate leaders into their party. This, in my view, would be party control of business rather then business control of the state. And in fact there was a Reich position that directed the business community. His name escapes me now but he was on trial at Nuremberg. This would be party control of business in my view, versus business control of the state.
I think that is what you also asserted, the later induction of these corporate leaders lead to exclusionary, elite profits. But, if that is your contention, and I agree it is acurrate, then defining fascism as "business control of the state", as opposed to the communist state control of bussiness" is simply inaccurate historically or definitionally. Yes, the Nazis used their eventual control (in a post government take over through Weimer elections then undemocratic entrenchment) of business for their own aims and ambitions, but to say that this is fascism as defined by "business control of the state" seems, to reiterate, innacurate. It seems more appropriate to label it "single party control of government and corprate direction."
****
Let me add something regarding this extended comment ...
In addition to the several “facts” of fascism I listed in my posts, I need to add this one… that a fascist state focuses its efforts and policies to “right” the perceived wrongs perpetrated on a society or culture by another group or society...
While I admit that the nastalgic references to a "return" to past empires seems strangely embedded in all of your historical references to nation governments typically referred to as "fascist", the reasoning for a need for such a return is without question based on your above statement - a need to right perceived wrongs perpetrated by a specific group. The perverbial "them" totaliarian regimes always refer to. Given that this inherint need to get "them" in order to right perceived wrongs is an aspect so glaring that you found it neccessary to add another post on the subject, let me point out that this EXACT scenario played out as Lenin drew up his list of those that needed to, well, "go." The beugoise, the elitists, the monarchists, THEY were the segment of society that had wronged Mother Russia and Leninist communism sought to right that wrong. It didn't have a nastalgic theme, noted. However, since the impetus is on "change", whether it's nastalgicly based in a want to "revert" back to past glories, or change thematically articulated and executed as forging new societal ground, it is still change based on "they" have wronged "us", and now we will get "them", and change our current course.
So, again I claim that fascism is more aptly afffiliated definitionally with catch-all terms such as "totalitarianism" and "despotism" rather then trying to define it in specific economic terms and as the polar opposite of communism.
By the way, I was right about the Giants ... he,he.
FR
PS> for some reason the spell check wouldn't activate when clicked, so I did my best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
