8 ms·

USA is already a fascist state by Mussolini's definition. In the future , there will be no need for conspiracy, corporation will run the show directly , when al

by camus 13y ago

USA is already a fascist state by Mussolini's definition. In the future , there will be no need for conspiracy, corporation will run the show directly , when all states are bankrupts. That's the only likely future for mankind.

mseebach 13y ago
> USA is already a fascist state by Mussolini's definition. Orwell (1944): "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'" The fascist state was very much totalitarian, and the relationship with corporations wasn't conspirational, they were co-opted into the state for the benefit of the state's goals. Individuals were enabled and allowed to attain wealth through this scheme, but that doesn't mean they ran the show, at all.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  Chomsky: "The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies." The corporate state is very much totalitarian, and the relationship with politicians isn't conspirational, they are co-opted into the "holistic system of systems" for the benefit of corporate goals. Individuals are enabled and allowed to attain wealth and fame through this scheme, and are allowed to choose drape colors, but that doesn't mean they run the show, at all.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    What nonsense. The United States, for all it's faults, is not a totalitarian state. Read a book, FFS. Edit: Terms like "Totalitarian", "Fascist" and "Communism" have real, historical backgrounds. When they are casually applied where they don't belong, they derail the discussion (much like "Nazism", hence Godwin's Law) and prevent a real debate about real issues.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      The United States, for all it's faults, is not a totalitarian state. Read a book, FFS. How about we start small, and read the posts we're replying to, hmm? "Totalitarian", "Fascist" and "Communism" have real, historical backgrounds. Yes, and? Where did I mention any of these? Books may be too heavy to me, but I can parse single sentences from Wikipedia, such as this one from the page about totalitarianism: The term 'an authoritarian regime' denotes a state in which the single power holder - an individual 'dictator', a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite - monopolizes political power. However, a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life including economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens You see, the difference is basically that you put down slave uprisings, but don't care what color their underpants are, or wether they like you, or what they think - only in so far as that affects performance. Not sure where "making people wear flair", nodding to buzzwords or Japan fit in there, but at any rate totalitarianism, in comparison with simply controling the jugulars and assholes of golden gooses, is a silly and ineffective thing. It even sucks as strawman.
    - ferdo 13y ago
      > The United States, for all it's faults, is not a totalitarian state. The US has the highest prison population per capita on the planet. It is most assuredly well on the road to totalitarianism.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Corporations are creatures of the government; they can't be any more of a pure tyranny (or authoritarian regime -- tyranny really ought to be reserved for rule by military force, which while certainly common in top-down authoritarianism, is decidedly less common in corporations) than the government sponsoring them (they can be more of a current tyranny/authoritarianism than the government as a whole, but they can't be "pure" tyranny unless the government is, since any democratic capacity in the government can be applied to its control of the corporations it charters.)
    - unethical_ban 13y ago
      Until the corporate influence over federal politics makes them the master of their creators. In effect, they are the government, shaping law and jurisprudence to their necessity.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Until the corporate influence over federal politics makes them the master of their creators. No, even in that case, they still have no less potential for democracy than the government chartering them.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      If I have a dog and treat it as property (instead of a friend maybe), that relationship is certainly tyranny -- one gets to command, the other gets to listen or else. That I might sometimes pretend to be nice to it when others are paying attention, or when I'm afraid the dog might run away to someone else, is kinda offset by the fact that I am actively trying to make both of that impossible. Sure, it is currently impeded by factors of the world it's embedded in, but in spirit it's still tyranny. Just recall how capitalism started out, and how much struggle it took to inject even the most rudimentary sanity and dignity into it. People got killed over that stuff. Now we have the constant backlash, always smiling with eyes that don't partake; just like some people want to see women back in the kitchen, others would love to have free reign back over the people who work for them. And goddamnit, if that isn't gobbled right up by some. You can bicker about the words "pure" and/or "tyranny" all you want, but the point would be the same if he had said "have a strict top-down flow of authority", and then what? Same point, "requiring" a whole new set of responses.

by camus 13y ago

mseebach 13y ago

> USA is already a fascist state by Mussolini's definition. Orwell (1944): "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'" The fascist state was very much totalitarian, and the relationship with corporations wasn't conspirational, they were co-opted into the state for the benefit of the state's goals. Individuals were enabled and allowed to attain wealth through this scheme, but that doesn't mean they ran the show, at all.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
Chomsky: "The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies." The corporate state is very much totalitarian, and the relationship with politicians isn't conspirational, they are co-opted into the "holistic system of systems" for the benefit of corporate goals. Individuals are enabled and allowed to attain wealth and fame through this scheme, and are allowed to choose drape colors, but that doesn't mean they run the show, at all.
- mseebach 13y ago
  What nonsense. The United States, for all it's faults, is not a totalitarian state. Read a book, FFS. Edit: Terms like "Totalitarian", "Fascist" and "Communism" have real, historical backgrounds. When they are casually applied where they don't belong, they derail the discussion (much like "Nazism", hence Godwin's Law) and prevent a real debate about real issues.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    The United States, for all it's faults, is not a totalitarian state. Read a book, FFS. How about we start small, and read the posts we're replying to, hmm? "Totalitarian", "Fascist" and "Communism" have real, historical backgrounds. Yes, and? Where did I mention any of these? Books may be too heavy to me, but I can parse single sentences from Wikipedia, such as this one from the page about totalitarianism: The term 'an authoritarian regime' denotes a state in which the single power holder - an individual 'dictator', a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite - monopolizes political power. However, a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life including economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens You see, the difference is basically that you put down slave uprisings, but don't care what color their underpants are, or wether they like you, or what they think - only in so far as that affects performance. Not sure where "making people wear flair", nodding to buzzwords or Japan fit in there, but at any rate totalitarianism, in comparison with simply controling the jugulars and assholes of golden gooses, is a silly and ineffective thing. It even sucks as strawman.
  - ferdo 13y ago
    > The United States, for all it's faults, is not a totalitarian state. The US has the highest prison population per capita on the planet. It is most assuredly well on the road to totalitarianism.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Corporations are creatures of the government; they can't be any more of a pure tyranny (or authoritarian regime -- tyranny really ought to be reserved for rule by military force, which while certainly common in top-down authoritarianism, is decidedly less common in corporations) than the government sponsoring them (they can be more of a current tyranny/authoritarianism than the government as a whole, but they can't be "pure" tyranny unless the government is, since any democratic capacity in the government can be applied to its control of the corporations it charters.)
  - unethical_ban 13y ago
    Until the corporate influence over federal politics makes them the master of their creators. In effect, they are the government, shaping law and jurisprudence to their necessity.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Until the corporate influence over federal politics makes them the master of their creators. No, even in that case, they still have no less potential for democracy than the government chartering them.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    If I have a dog and treat it as property (instead of a friend maybe), that relationship is certainly tyranny -- one gets to command, the other gets to listen or else. That I might sometimes pretend to be nice to it when others are paying attention, or when I'm afraid the dog might run away to someone else, is kinda offset by the fact that I am actively trying to make both of that impossible. Sure, it is currently impeded by factors of the world it's embedded in, but in spirit it's still tyranny. Just recall how capitalism started out, and how much struggle it took to inject even the most rudimentary sanity and dignity into it. People got killed over that stuff. Now we have the constant backlash, always smiling with eyes that don't partake; just like some people want to see women back in the kitchen, others would love to have free reign back over the people who work for them. And goddamnit, if that isn't gobbled right up by some. You can bicker about the words "pure" and/or "tyranny" all you want, but the point would be the same if he had said "have a strict top-down flow of authority", and then what? Same point, "requiring" a whole new set of responses.