[Peace-discuss] Mean Streets (2) (David Sirota on Populism, too)

[unionyes]

Fascism is primarily ( along with many other characteristics ) the merger of the corporate sector and the state...
ie. " The Corporate State " to quote Mussolini.

Which one could make a good arguement that this is what has happened here in the U.S. .over the last thirty years and in particular the last 10-12 months.

One common objective of every Fascist state, is the destruction of independent Labor Unions and the substitution of corporate government controlled organizations that are called " unions " or " worker's associations " etc. where the members have no control of the organization and are in fact controlled or at least sanctioned by this organization for the benefit of the employers and / or the governmnet.

Again, a good arguement could be made that this above scenario describes many so called " unions " in the U.S. at the current time.

Now that I am thinking about it, one could also describe another aspect of Fascism that exists currently in the U.S.....
A one party state ! 
That is, the two major parties ( who have tremendous advantages over the small parties in terms of their ability to control 99.9 % of elected offices ) who are both funded by corporate money and control who gets to participate in television debates and in effect prevents any third party from receiving national televion exposure because of the astronomical cost of television commercials, and the refusal 99% of the time by the corporate media to allow free coverage of third party candidates ( except when they dispariage them ) on the PUBLIC airwaves they control.

David J.
  
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: E. Wayne Johnson 
  To: C. G. Estabrook 
  Cc: 'peace-discuss' ; LAURIE SOLOMON 
  Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 12:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Mean Streets (2) (David Sirota on Populism, too)


  I don't trust Krugman any more than I trust Obama and Bernanke.

  Pareto, Amoroso, Gini, and Mussolini had more in common than just being Italian.

  They knew what they meant when they said Proudly that they were Fascists.  They were good statisticians too, innovative in the math tools they created, rather than innovative in the Mark Twain judgment of statisticians.  Amoroso's biography of Pareto considers Pareto as a sort of Fascist God, and Gini wrote a book called something like "The Scientific Basis for  Fascism", but later became discouraged about Fascism because its authoritarian hand interfered with his work.

  Orwell on the other hand offers a more ambiguous observation that does indeed illustrate the problems of connotation:

  The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. – George Orwell, What is Fascism?. 1944.[52]

  Orwellian confusion aside, there are useful definitions of fascism ---
     (1). A political regime, usually totalitarian, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or
         religion above individual rights. Originally only applied (usually capitalized) to Benito Mussolini's Italy.
     (2). By vague analogy, any system of strong autocracy or oligarchy usually to the extent of bending and breaking the law, race-baiting and violence against largely unarmed populations

  >From my point of view, the Clinton-Bush-Obama administration is rather strongly committed to definition (1), and one major theme for Mr. Obama is to accelerate the process.

  Let's hang around and see what happens next.

  C. G. Estabrook wrote: 
    I think he's often quite good -- e.g., today's column: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1&em 

    Obama's 100 Daze has had produced two principal things: the restoration of Wall Street wealth and dead people in AfPak.  Krugman describes the former. 

    --CGE 

    E. Wayne Johnson wrote: 

      One might wonder how much Krugman's Nobel Prize cost and where the money to buy it came from but on the other hand part of it is sort of easy to guess and we might not want to know the gory and  sordid  details of every event.  That could be too much information. 

      Paul Krugman is certainly an easy guy to dislike, as everyone agrees. 

        Ben Bernanke's maiden Congressional testimony as chairman of the Federal Reserve was, everyone agrees, superb. He didn't put a foot wrong on monetary or fiscal policy. 








------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Peace-discuss mailing list
  Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
  http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.4/2082 - Release Date: 4/27/2009 6:19 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090427/ba786ab5/attachment-0001.htm