are we neo-fascist yet?

[djAdvocate]

conservatives: reassure me.  tell me why i should NOT be concerned.

i offer this from Wikipedia:

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[7] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[7] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[8][9][10][11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[12]

there is very little in this that does NOT resemble the current political environment in the US, imo.

what differences, if any, do y'all see?

[dondub]

Denial is more that a river in Egypt. Didn't I read that somewhere?

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Do you really expect any traction on this?

Similarly to my thread on NC no longer considered a democracy, if a perversion of our democratic principles favors their ideology, they won't care, and refuse to even admit the loss is happening.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 31, 2016 15:08:58 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Do you really expect any traction on this?

Similarly to my thread on NC no longer considered a democracy, if a perversion of our democratic principles favors their ideology, they won't care, and refuse to even admit the loss is happening.

i don't know why people are so opposed to self examination.  it is the only way to achieve greatness, imo.

i guess we are destined to be small.  sad.

edit: i didn't answer your question, did i?  yes, i expect the absolute best from everyone.  that is how i am built.  and yes, i am often disappointed, to answer the anticipated follow up question.

[Phoenix84]

Dec 31, 2016 13:18:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

conservatives: reassure me.  tell me why i should NOT be concerned.

i offer this from Wikipedia:

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[7] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[7] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[8][9][10][11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[12]

there is very little in this that does NOT resemble the current political environment in the US, imo.

what differences, if any, do y'all see?

The biggest?  That we aren't a one party state.

In addition, we don't have a "strong leader" as defined by your excerpt (i.e. a dictator and martial government).  We have a elected president and civilian control over the military.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 31, 2016 16:53:44 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Dec 31, 2016 13:18:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

conservatives: reassure me.  tell me why i should NOT be concerned.

i offer this from Wikipedia:

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[7] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[7] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[8][9][10][11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[12]

there is very little in this that does NOT resemble the current political environment in the US, imo.

what differences, if any, do y'all see?

The biggest?  That we aren't a one party state.

In addition, we don't have a "strong leader" as defined by your excerpt (i.e. a dictator and martial government).  We have a elected president and civilian control over the military.

we kind of ARE a one party state, Phoenix84.  i can argue this TWO ways.

1) the way Paul argues it.  Jefferson's party was the Democratic Republicans.  those parties split during the civil war, but since then one half or the other of that party has run everything.  if you CHOOSE to view it this way (as the UNIPARTY, as Paul puts it), then we really ARE a one party state. 
2) with the GOP running pretty much everything in 30 states right now, it is arguable from that standpoint, as well.

are there differences?  sure.  but they are becoming increasingly subtle.

i find your second objection interesting, in that people were declaring Obama was a fascist for his executive orders for years before this election, with little or no objection on the part of conservatives on this board.  the president has had sweeping powers since WW2, and i think this subject is debatable, as well.

here is the definition of NEO-FASCIST, for those that are interested.  it dispenses with your objections:

Neo-fascism is a post–World War II ideology that includes significant elements of fascism. Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, populism, anti-immigration policies or, where relevant, nativism, anti-communism, anti-socialism, anti-Marxism, anti-anarchism and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy.

[billisonboard]

Dec 31, 2016 16:53:44 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

... civilian control over the military.

This becomes a little less distinct with Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 31, 2016 17:09:54 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Dec 31, 2016 16:53:44 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

... civilian control over the military.

This becomes a little less distinct with Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense.

good catch.  we have not had civilian control of the military since WW1. 

[Tennesseer]

Dec 31, 2016 13:18:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

conservatives: reassure me.  tell me why i should NOT be concerned.

i offer this from Wikipedia:

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[7] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[7] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[8][9][10][11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[12]

there is very little in this that does NOT resemble the current political environment in the US, imo.

what differences, if any, do y'all see?

I suspect this every time Ddm.E posts.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 31, 2016 20:22:07 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Dec 31, 2016 13:18:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

conservatives: reassure me.  tell me why i should NOT be concerned.

i offer this from Wikipedia:

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[7] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[7] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[8][9][10][11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[12]

there is very little in this that does NOT resemble the current political environment in the US, imo.

what differences, if any, do y'all see?

I'm not a conservative, so, I'll start with the definition of fascism, acting as though I know what I'm taking about.

The passage from Wiki above is not a bad stab at it.  It misses the close collaboration between business and government that is seen, particularly in the German model. 

In the "real" world there have been few examples of true fascist governments, most famously of course, Germany and Italy of the 1930's and 1940's.  Spain was also fascist at this time, after their revolution in the 1930's.  Some Latin American countries have arguably had fascist juntas of various models.  In practice all fascist governments have been a bit different models, but all have been dictatorships, and all have seen close alliance between government, military, and native large businesses.

Several countries have been accused of having latent fascist overtones, including ours, Great Britain, and Russia.  IMO only Russia comes close out of the three, currently.  However as Patriots it is our job to fret about the possibility, as we do have latent tendencies.     


But, I'm not a conservative.  

well, since you already chimed in, how about "neo-fascist" in post 5? 

[Phoenix84]

Dec 31, 2016 17:02:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 31, 2016 16:53:44 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

The biggest?  That we aren't a one party state.

In addition, we don't have a "strong leader" as defined by your excerpt (i.e. a dictator and martial government).  We have a elected president and civilian control over the military.

we kind of ARE a one party state, Phoenix84 .  i can argue this TWO ways.

1) the way Paul argues it.  Jefferson's party was the Democratic Republicans.  those parties split during the civil war, but since then one half or the other of that party has run everything.  if you CHOOSE to view it this way (as the UNIPARTY, as Paul puts it), then we really ARE a one party state. 
2) with the GOP running pretty much everything in 30 states right now, it is arguable from that standpoint, as well.

are there differences?  sure.  but they are becoming increasingly subtle.

i find your second objection interesting, in that people were declaring Obama was a fascist for his executive orders for years before this election, with little or no objection on the part of conservatives on this board.  the president has had sweeping powers since WW2, and i think this subject is debatable, as well.

here is the definition of NEO-FASCIST, for those that are interested.  it dispenses with your objections:

Neo-fascism is a post–World War II ideology that includes significant elements of fascism. Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, populism, anti-immigration policies or, where relevant, nativism, anti-communism, anti-socialism, anti-Marxism, anti-anarchism and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy.

Yes, I agree there are certain merits to the argument that was can be considered a uniparty state to a certain degree.  But there are still two distinctly different parties running in national elections.  With a president and congress that change from election to election.  Until that changes, I don't see how it can be argued we're a dictatorship with a lot of credibility.

The republicans run things now, but democrats ran things mostly for the last eight years.  Why weren't we fascist then, but happen to be under a different party?

I think deminmaine is right.  We've seen very few examples of true fascist governments in modern times.  

[Phoenix84]

Dec 31, 2016 17:02:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 31, 2016 16:53:44 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

The biggest?  That we aren't a one party state.

In addition, we don't have a "strong leader" as defined by your excerpt (i.e. a dictator and martial government).  We have a elected president and civilian control over the military.

we kind of ARE a one party state, Phoenix84 .  i can argue this TWO ways.

1) the way Paul argues it.  Jefferson's party was the Democratic Republicans.  those parties split during the civil war, but since then one half or the other of that party has run everything.  if you CHOOSE to view it this way (as the UNIPARTY, as Paul puts it), then we really ARE a one party state. 
2) with the GOP running pretty much everything in 30 states right now, it is arguable from that standpoint, as well.

are there differences?  sure.  but they are becoming increasingly subtle.

i find your second objection interesting, in that people were declaring Obama was a fascist for his executive orders for years before this election, with little or no objection on the part of conservatives on this board.  the president has had sweeping powers since WW2, and i think this subject is debatable, as well.

here is the definition of NEO-FASCIST, for those that are interested.  it dispenses with your objections:

Neo-fascism is a post–World War II ideology that includes significant elements of fascism. Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, populism, anti-immigration policies or, where relevant, nativism, anti-communism, anti-socialism, anti-Marxism, anti-anarchism and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy.

Despite the "anti" in front of these things, i don't think all of them are necessarily bad.  Like any idea, they can be taken to extremes, but I think what you call "anti immigration" many others may call "legel enforcement of immigration policy."  What some may call as "anti-communism/socialism" others might call "pro capitalist."  And "ultranationalsim" might be viewed positivly as loving one's country.

And the only attacks on democracy have been from the left trying to to find ways to stall or overturn the results of the election, or otherwise damage and de legitimize the president elect.

If we stop holding elections, you might have a point.

[tallguy]

The election of Donald Trump (or the loss by Hillary Clinton, if you want to look at it that way) does not by itself make us a fascist country.  What the election of Trump does is push us even more in the direction that conservatives were already moving.  Look at North Carolina and the political abuses occurring there.  

If today's social conservatives were offered the choice of, "You can be in power, but the U.S. will be a fascist state rather than a free society," the majority would think they just won the lottery.  If you offered them that power and said, "We just won't call it fascism" there would be a virtual stampede to vote yes.    

[zibazinski]

Jan 1, 2017 12:31:52 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The election of Donald Trump (or the loss by Hillary Clinton, if you want to look at it that way) does not by itself make us a fascist country.  What the election of Trump does is push us even more in the direction that conservatives were already moving.  Look at North Carolina and the political abuses occurring there.  

If today's social conservatives were offered the choice of, "You can be in power, but the U.S. will be a fascist state rather than a free society," the majority would think they just won the lottery.  If you offered them that power and said, "We just won't call it fascism" there would be a virtual stampede to vote yes.    

Why do you think that is?

[tallguy]

Jan 1, 2017 12:34:01 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Jan 1, 2017 12:31:52 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The election of Donald Trump (or the loss by Hillary Clinton, if you want to look at it that way) does not by itself make us a fascist country.  What the election of Trump does is push us even more in the direction that conservatives were already moving.  Look at North Carolina and the political abuses occurring there.  

If today's social conservatives were offered the choice of, "You can be in power, but the U.S. will be a fascist state rather than a free society," the majority would think they just won the lottery.  If you offered them that power and said, "We just won't call it fascism" there would be a virtual stampede to vote yes.    

Why do you think that is?

The second part?  Generally, because they either don't understand or don't care that a free society must be free FOR all, or it is not free AT all.  They are wonderful at thinking that anything they think or believe is both right and good.  They are not as wonderful at thinking any other viewpoints valid as well.  The key to a free society is not that we allow those things we agree with.  It is that we allow those things that we don't.  (Given, as always, that those things do not infringe on the rights of another.)  If someone's choice does not harm anyone else, then allow it, even if we don't agree with it.  But that is anathema to social conservatives.     

[Phoenix84]

Jan 1, 2017 12:31:52 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The election of Donald Trump (or the loss by Hillary Clinton, if you want to look at it that way) does not by itself make us a fascist country.  What the election of Trump does is push us even more in the direction that conservatives were already moving.  Look at North Carolina and the political abuses occurring there.  

If today's social conservatives were offered the choice of, "You can be in power, but the U.S. will be a fascist state rather than a free society," the majority would think they just won the lottery.  If you offered them that power and said, "We just won't call it fascism" there would be a virtual stampede to vote yes.    

Just because you say it's fascist doesn't make it so.

But if you really believe it, go ahead and kill some people or blow something up since this is a fascist state and you obviously have no other choice.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 1, 2017 0:01:36 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Dec 31, 2016 17:02:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

we kind of ARE a one party state, Phoenix84 .  i can argue this TWO ways.

1) the way Paul argues it.  Jefferson's party was the Democratic Republicans.  those parties split during the civil war, but since then one half or the other of that party has run everything.  if you CHOOSE to view it this way (as the UNIPARTY, as Paul puts it), then we really ARE a one party state. 
2) with the GOP running pretty much everything in 30 states right now, it is arguable from that standpoint, as well.

are there differences?  sure.  but they are becoming increasingly subtle.

i find your second objection interesting, in that people were declaring Obama was a fascist for his executive orders for years before this election, with little or no objection on the part of conservatives on this board.  the president has had sweeping powers since WW2, and i think this subject is debatable, as well.

here is the definition of NEO-FASCIST, for those that are interested.  it dispenses with your objections:

Neo-fascism is a post–World War II ideology that includes significant elements of fascism. Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, populism, anti-immigration policies or, where relevant, nativism, anti-communism, anti-socialism, anti-Marxism, anti-anarchism and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy.

Despite the "anti" in front of these things, i don't think all of them are necessarily bad. 

that has nothing to do with the question.  i was simply asking if our politic environment resembled that description.

Like any idea, they can be taken to extremes, but I think what you call "anti immigration" many others may call "legel enforcement of immigration policy."  What some may call as "anti-communism/socialism" others might call "pro capitalist."  And "ultranationalsim" might be viewed positivly as loving one's country.

And the only attacks on democracy have been from the left trying to to find ways to stall or overturn the results of the election, or otherwise damage and de legitimize the president elect.

i don't believe that is what "the left" was doing.  it is not an attack on the system to use the checks and balances in the system to confirm the results.  it is actually HONORING the system.  if you view it that way, then any RESISTANCE to that can easily be seen as an "attack on the system", Phoenix.  i hope you can see that.

If we stop holding elections, you might have a point.

if we stop holding elections, it will be too late. 

if you are in a crosswalk, and you see that a car is not going to stop for you, do you keep walking and get hit?

[tallguy]

Jan 1, 2017 13:03:20 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jan 1, 2017 12:31:52 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The election of Donald Trump (or the loss by Hillary Clinton, if you want to look at it that way) does not by itself make us a fascist country.  What the election of Trump does is push us even more in the direction that conservatives were already moving.  Look at North Carolina and the political abuses occurring there.  

If today's social conservatives were offered the choice of, "You can be in power, but the U.S. will be a fascist state rather than a free society," the majority would think they just won the lottery.  If you offered them that power and said, "We just won't call it fascism" there would be a virtual stampede to vote yes.    

Just because you say it's fascist doesn't make it so.

But if you really believe it, go ahead and kill some people or blow something up since this is a fascist state and you obviously have no other choice.

What?  Does the phrase "non sequitur" mean anything to you?  

[djAdvocate]

Jan 1, 2017 13:03:20 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jan 1, 2017 12:31:52 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The election of Donald Trump (or the loss by Hillary Clinton, if you want to look at it that way) does not by itself make us a fascist country.  What the election of Trump does is push us even more in the direction that conservatives were already moving.  Look at North Carolina and the political abuses occurring there.  

If today's social conservatives were offered the choice of, "You can be in power, but the U.S. will be a fascist state rather than a free society," the majority would think they just won the lottery.  If you offered them that power and said, "We just won't call it fascism" there would be a virtual stampede to vote yes.    

Just because you say it's fascist doesn't make it so.

But if you really believe it, go ahead and kill some people or blow something up since this is a fascist state and you obviously have no other choice.

you're really not hearing the message.  tg didn't say "it's fascist".

and your second reply is ghastly, Phoenix.  can you please refrain from advocating terrorism on this thread?  thanks in advance.

[djAdvocate]

let's just go down the list for the incoming administration, rather than arguing about the general definition:

ultranationalism: i think that the incoming administration is the most nationalistic in my liftetime.  not sure whether it qualifies as "ultra" or not, but i am sure it does to some.
populism: unquestionable.  there was left AND right populism in this election to a degree not seen since WW2.
anti-immigration policies: again, unquestionable.  without further comment, even.
nativism: absolutely.  no question.
anti-communism:not a feature, only because this term is no longer used as it once was.
anti-socialism: absolutely
anti-Marxism: not a feature, but only because most Americans don't understand this term.
anti-anarchism:  here is where the definition breaks down.  this movement is fairly anti-government, as well.  what they propose to replace it with is unknown.
and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy: it depends on how you look at it.  so, this is also a debatable point.

so, of these nine attributes, there are 7 that are key parts of the incoming administration, and 2 that are either debatable or NOT a feature of the incoming administration, depending on what course of action they take.  the key is really whether we continue to respect the institutions, or start to dismantle them.

[zibazinski]

[djAdvocate]

Jan 1, 2017 13:56:19 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

care to elaborate? 

[zibazinski]

You are absolutely right!

[djAdvocate]

Jan 1, 2017 14:01:11 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

You are absolutely right!

happy new year, zib!

[zibazinski]

I'm counting on it.

[djAdvocate]

i'd be happy just seeing us not go down the drain. 

[zibazinski]

If we aren't yoked by commitments to others and start getting serious about jobs for citizens and stop wasting money on bs, it'll start. He's got a lot of hard work and I don't think he can do it. His own party will sabotage him along with dems because he's not "one of them."

[djAdvocate]

i know most of you probably don't care, but my thread title was based on Zippy The Pinhead.

anyone know that reference?

[zibazinski]

Nope. I assumed you were trying to label people that don't care about being called racist, sexist, homophobic, or whatever by trying the neo fascist card.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 1, 2017 16:05:01 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Nope. I assumed you were trying to label people that don't care about being called racist, sexist, homophobic, or whatever by trying the neo fascist card.

nope.  nationalism is not necessarily bigoted, so it would be stupid for me to do that.



edit: i just went back and looked at the OP to make sure there was no implication of your laundry list of bigotries in it.

there isn't.  so, is this how the next (8) years is going to go?  every time we ask something that has nothing to do with bigotry,
are you going to accuse us of asking whether you are bigots?