By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.
-The Southern Manifesto, Cong. Rec., 84th Cong. 2d Session, Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956)
‘This was an activist court that you saw today. Anytime the Supreme Court renders something constitutional that is clearly unconstitutional, that undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court. I do believe the court’s credibility was undermined severely today.”
-Michele Bachmann (R. Minn.), June 26 2012
Most people are familiar with the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al., 349 U.S. 483 (1954), in which a unanimous Supreme Court summarily outlawed public school segregation by tersely declaring, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” 349 U.S. at 495. But many people do not know that Brown involved a consolidation of cases from four states. The “et al.” in the style refers to decisions on similar facts in Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. And the response of Virginia to the ruling in Brown provides an interesting comparison with the actions leading to the current government shutdown.
In 1951 the population of Prince Edward County, Virginia was approximately 15,000, more than half of whom were African-American. The county maintained two high schools to accommodate 386 black students and 346 white students. Robert R. Moton High School lacked adequate science facilities and offered a more restricted curriculum than the high school reserved for white students. It had no gym, showers or dressing rooms, no cafeteria and no restrooms for teachers. Students at Moton High were even required to ride in older school buses.
Suit was filed in federal district court challenging the Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions mandating segregated public schools. Although the trial court agreed that the school board had failed to provide a substantially equal education for African-American students, it declined to invalidate the Virginia laws, concluding that segregation was not based “upon prejudice, on caprice, nor upon any other measureless foundation,” but reflected “ways of life in Virginia” which “has for generations been a part of the mores of the people.” Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 103 F. Supp. 337, 339 (E.D. Va. 1952). Instead, the court ordered the school board to proceed with the completion of existing plans to upgrade the curriculum, physical plant and buses at Moton High School. When the plaintiffs took an appeal from the decision, the Democratic machine that had for many years controlled Virginia politics under the firm hand of Sen. Harry Byrd had little reason to believe that “ways of life” that had prevailed since the end of the Reconstruction era would soon be declared illegal.
When the Brown decision was announced, the reaction in Virginia was shock, disbelief and anger. Reflecting the prevailing attitudes, the Richmond News Leader railed against “the encroachment of the Federal government, through judicial legislation, upon the reserved powers of the States.” The Virginia legislature adopted a resolution of “interposition” asserting its right to “interpose” between unconstitutional federal mandates and local authorities under principles of state sovereignty. And Sen. Byrd organized a campaign of opposition that came to be known as “Massive Resistance.”
In August of 1954 a commission was appointed to formulate a plan to preserve segregated schools. Late in 1955, it presented its recommendations, including eliminating mandatory school attendance, empowering local school boards to assign students to schools and creating special tuition grants to enable white students to attend private schools. Enabling legislation was quickly adopted and “segregation academies” began forming around the state. Subsequent legislation went even further by prohibiting state funding of schools that chose to integrate.
In March of 1956, 19 senators and 77 house members from 11 southern states signed what is popularly known as “The Southern Manifesto,” in which they declared, “Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.”
Throughout this period the Prince Edward County schools remained segregated, but when various court rulings invalidated Virginia’s various attempts to avoid integration, the school board took its final stand. It refused to authorize funds to operate any schools in the district, and all public schools in the county were simply closed, and remained closed from 1959 to 1964.
There are striking similarities between Sen. Byrd’s failed plan of Massive Resistance and Republican efforts to prevent implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There was widespread confidence among conservatives that the Supreme Court would declare the Act unconstitutional. When that did not occur, legislators such as Michele Bachmann, quoted above, attempted to deny the legitimacy of the Court’s ruling. Brent Bozell went further, denouncing Chief Justice Roberts as “a traitor to his own philosophy,” hearkening back to the days when southern roadsides were replete with billboards demanding the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
The House of Representatives has taken over 40 votes to repeal the ACA, quixotic efforts pursued for reasons known only to John Boehner and his colleagues. And in accordance with the Virginia legislative model, the House has attempted to starve the ACA by eliminating it from funding bills. Following the failure of these efforts, Republicans have elected to pursue the path ultimately taken by the school board of Prince Edward County and have shut down the government.
Even the strategy followed by Republicans is largely a southern effort. Approximately 60% of the Tea Party Caucus is from the South. Nineteen of the 32 Republican members of the House who have been instrumental in orchestrating the shutdown are from southern states. It is hardly surprising therefore, that the current impasse is characterized by the time-honored southern belief in nullification theory as a proper antidote to disfavored decisions by a congressional majority.
In reflecting upon the experience of Virginia many years later, former Gov. Linwood Holton noted, “Massive resistance … served mostly to exacerbate emotions arrayed in a lost cause.” Republicans would do well to ponder the wisdom in that observation.
No, no, no, David.
Thank you for acknowledging that you’re either dumb enough or arrogant enough to think education is ever complete.
Education is a journey, not a destination.
Gene H wrote: “Education is a journey, not a destination.”
Very true. I have always embraced this concept.
Gene: I don’t fall into either Feasible or Pragmatic; I don’t think. My approach is that while the Free Market works (is not harming people) the Free Market reigns, when it fails, we socialize that part of the market.
So an example of something life-critical I would not socialize right now is groceries. It seems to be a competitive market, prices are low, I know the margins are thin, and (other than SNAP type assistance to those in need) I would not socialize the grocery market. It is true that people need food to survive, and the grocery market could theoretically be monopolized and start charging astronomical prices for flour and eggs, but until that happens I see no reason to introduce government control.
On the other hand, I would probably socialize banking functions. I would not have done so 40 years ago, but at this point, I think the free market has failed, and they have begun oppressing people, bankrupting them, and causing tangible harm at a rate I think warrants intervention.
In general, though, I would not socialize big industry. Like the airline industry; we can provide medical emergency aircraft, and our own military aircraft. But the incidents where somebody’s life is ruined because they could not fly are either non-existent or easily handled by emergency services, there is no need to socialize commercial airlines. Or car companies, for that matter (and I would not have bailed them out; at best I would have fired all of the leadership, let the investors take their losses, and provided a government loan to non-managerial employees that wanted to buy the remnants at bankruptcy pricing to continue, they could elect or hire management; or something along those lines).
I believe in socialization of “natural” monopolies, like electric, sewage, water, roads, public transport, sanitation, and more recently, network access. Some of that I think should be provided free (through progressive taxation) and some I think should be provided at either cost or partial cost.
I am mostly opposed to central planning, however, and extremely opposed to government ever earning a profit on anything. The profit motive creates an inherent conflict of interest and reduction in aid. The goal of any government entity should be to do the most good it can within the budget provided with nothing left over.
And I also don’t favor government monopoly; if private sector business can find a way to compete with the government’s at cost service, that is good: It gives us a benchmark to beat. Or they offer things we won’t; in Norway a private for-profit hospital offers private suites and apartments, private doctors and nurses, 24-hour chef service, and they compete successfully against good, free medical care. That kind of thing doesn’t bother me. I am not opposed to luxury in that arena, I am only opposed to complete denial of care or substandard care. Sharing a room with three other patients is not substandard care.
No, the collective has no Rights. Only individuals have Rights, because only individuals require guarantees of protection from the police, the courts, the military, and only individuals need the promise that the violators of their Rights will be punished and brought to Justice.
Tony C.
Damn – I’m impressed with this statement.
“No, the collective has no Rights. Only individuals have Rights, because only individuals require guarantees of protection from the police, the courts, the military, and only individuals need the promise that the violators of their Rights will be punished and brought to Justice.”
Should it be lawful contract? or by social contract subject to it being a constituted government?
Tony C wrote: “No, the collective has no Rights.”
How then do you deal with taxation? Are you saying that the power to tax is not a right of the collective?
In the past, you have indicated that an individual does not have the right to form police, courts, or military. Where does the right to form these come from if not from the collective? I know you do not believe in God, so in your worldview, the right cannot come from God.
No, they don’t. Even you description is opposites. And Fascism doesn’t “inspire them to work in the interest of the State,” it colludes with them so they both profit at the expense of the populace, which is thereby subjugated.
Socialism ensures corporations (and the State) do NOT subjugate the populace.
Tony C wrote: “Fascism doesn’t “inspire them to work in the interest of the State,” it colludes with them so they both profit at the expense of the populace, which is thereby subjugated.”
What is your source of information? I am starting to think you only read what socialists say about fascism rather than reading the fascist sources directly. Nobody more directly defined fascism than Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile in the essay written for the Italian Encyclopedia that was entitled, “The Doctrine of Fascism.” Have you read it? It is only 21 pages long. You can download it from the following link:
https://archive.org/details/DoctrineOfFascism
There is no doubt that fascism has sought to repudiate and distance itself from socialism. The primary basis for this is that fascism is against viewing history as a struggle between economic classes. Fascism sees Marxian Socialism as erring by being materialistic. Fascism does not believe that socialism adequately recognizes the human spirit and motivation for labor, and fascism is against democracy and majority rule because it does not believe that the majority represents all the people.
In like manner, socialism attempts to repudiate and distance itself from fascism, primarily on the basis of being against authoritative rule and power / action being coupled with that authority. Fascism sees imperialism as good, as indicating a vitality of the people, whereas socialism perceives imperialism as oppressive and immoral, as a tool of subjugation against the will and freedom of others. Socialism also objects to fascism because fascism is against trade unions and supports the success of businesses and corporations. It seeks to bring along the working class by helping them understand the difficulties of running a business. Fascism is against the idea of universal suffrage being the simple solution to the inequality of men, whereas many forms of socialism embrace universal suffrage as a right of the people.
Despite differences, however, there are similarities in these philosophies, despite both sides trying to repudiate the other. Such is not surprising because all fascist regimes were born from socialism.
The similarity between fascism and socialism is the focus on the collective rather than the individual. This is the point that Bron has raised, which unfortunately falls upon deaf ears, upon the ears of those who limit their education only to those sources with which they already find agreement.
When you claim that fascism colludes with corporations so that they both profit at the expense of the populace, you seem to be ignoring the basic tenets of fascism as the populace being represented by the State. Following are quotes from “The Doctrine of Fascism” indicating the connection between the populace and the State:
“the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people.”
“Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual.”
“Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.”
“Fascism desires the State to be strong and organic, based on broad foundations of popular support. … A State based on millions of individuals who recognize its authority, feel its action, and are ready to serve its ends is not the tyrannical state of a mediaeval lordling. It has nothing in common with the despotic States existing prior to or subsequent to 1789. Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers.”
“The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves the individual adequate elbow room. It has curtailed useless or harmful liberties while preserving those which are essential. In such matters the individual cannot be the judge, but the State only.”
“The State … safeguards and transmits the spirit of the people, elaborated down the ages in its language, its customs, its faith. The State is not only the present; it is also the past and above all the future. Transcending the individual’s brief spell of life, the State stands for the immanent conscience of the nation.”
Now once you understand this doctrine of fascism which equates the will of the people as being embodied in the State, you should be able to understand how the following quotes show fascism to embrace businesses and corporations as being beneficial to the people, not to select individuals who own them.
“The Ministry of Corporations is an institution in virtue of which, in the centre and outside, integral corporation becomes an accomplished fact, where balance is achieved between interests and forces of the economic world. Such a glance is only possible within the sphere of the state, because the state alone transcends the contrasting interests of groups and individuals, in view of co-coordinating them to achieve higher aims. The achievement of these aims is speeded up by the fact that all economic organizations, acknowledged, safeguarded and supported by the Corporative State, exist within the orbit of Fascism; in other terms they accept the conception of Fascism in theory and in practice.”
“We have constituted a Corporative and Fascist state, the state of national society, a State which concentrates, controls, harmonizes and tempers the interests of all social classes, which are thereby protected in equal measure. Whereas, during the years of demo-liberal regime [called Libertarianism today], labour looked with diffidence upon the state, was, in fact, outside the State and against the state, and considered the state an enemy of every day and every hour, there is not one working Italian today who does not seek a place in his Corporation or federation, who does not wish to be a living atom of that great, immense, living organization which is the national Corporate State of Fascism.”
Clearly, the ideology of fascism is that businesses and corporations work with passion and zeal for the betterment of all the people in society. It is in this way that fascism is aligned with socialist ideology.
Again, let me repeat, there are differences. Fascism roots for the success of the businesses and perceives the success of business as a success for all the people. In contrast, socialism claims a class struggle exists, that interests of the owners of business are against the interests of the working class. Traditionally, socialism roots for the success of the working class and assumes that the businesses will succeed if the working class succeeds. Therefore, trade unions and strikes are viewed as good by socialists and bad by fascists. But the differences do not deny the similarities that both are more concerned with the collective rather than the individuals.
On a side note, following is a quote that reminds me of your past descriptions of our current government. I wonder if you see it:
“Democratic regimes may be described as those under which the people are, from time to time, deluded into the belief that they exercise sovereignty, while all the time real sovereignty resides in and is exercised by other and sometimes irresponsible and secret forces. Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical, and destructive than one, even if he be a tyrant.”
Davidm2527 – That was a very good analysis on fascism and it coincides with much I’ve read on the subject. We must understand that one man, such as Mussolini, does not necessarily determine the predominant elements for the definition of a term like fascism. The working mechanisms and results of statist policies will be different in each nation state depending on many considerations such as culture, economic resources, those in leadership positions and such.
Fore instance, does the debasement of a nations currency through fractional banking and deficit spending have an oppressive effect on certain Citizens within a nation state? Of course. Various socialistic polices effect different individuals in different ways. Does it place a overall oppressive burden on the majority? It surely would depend on the levels of both, in relation to GDP.
At what point a nation state goes from providing for the general welfare to being oppressive is going to be different in each nation state and it is going to effect different people in different ways.
That’s why I use the phrase “sliding scale” for fascism because the level of oppression is going to be different in different nation states and will change based on the enactment of various social policies set by those in the ruling oligarchy. The motivation of political leadership is never going to be the same in each country so therefore it appears trying to use specific results and political motivations is unwarranted or unnecessary to understanding fascism as they are going to be different from country to country.
One person may also call a drug prohibition oppressive and others will say that it’s in the best interest of the majority. The resultant negative ramifications of the war on drugs is surely causing some severe social problems. One can surely argue that the socialistic policy of the war on drugs is causing us to be a greater fascist state? Once again, it is each persons perception of the effects of social policies on society.
No one can set in stone the definition of fascism. We know that when rights are usurped to such levels that it’s becomes oppressive to the majority, many call that fascism. How each individual perceives this is going to be different. The levels of taxation and regulation required to administer and enforce the various social polices is a factor in the determination. If there is not taxation or regulation in a society that is called either libertarianism or communism. You don’t need taxation in a communist society because the government already owns the means of production and therefore control all profits and disbursements.
One think that we must do is eliminate the concept of dictatorship, that one person can single handedly rule an entire nation. If one person is thought to have done so, I can assure you that there are those than that are perhaps even hiding in the background. Behind every authoritarian leader there must be an oligarchy that is involved in ruling the society and the so-called mighty man potentate is generally the spokesperson for the group.
DavidM: The point was that socialism makes policies that emphasize the rights of the State, which is viewed as the collective will of all the people. In this way, democratic socialism leans toward fascist ideology.
No it doesn’t, the State does not have Rights. In fact it is impossible for a State to have Rights, it only has obligations. A Right is something the people agree to NOT PUNISH using the State. Your right to free speech (excluding some specific types of speech like incitement or fraud or threats) is a binding agreement by the people that the police and courts will not punish you for, or prevent you from, saying what you will to anybody you care to address.
Your right to be free from search without a warrant is (or used to be) a binding agreement by the people that their police and courts will not search you without first presenting cause to a court to search you.
The State doesn’t need Rights, it does not have to be protected from the police and courts and military, it IS the police and courts and military.
The state is the servant of the people, and implements their collective will, but you have no Rights that are not granted by that collective will. As the Founders said all your rights do not have to be enumerated. But you do not have any Rights if the collective will has made a legal (and Constitutional) demand upon you or has passed a valid Law restricting you.
Other than un-Constitutional acts, it is impossible for the State to be violating your Rights in favor of “the people.” You do not have any such Rights.
You are completely wrong, Socialism and Fascism are nearly opposites, Socialism impairs corporate rule and Fascism embraces it, just like Free Markets do.
Tony C wrote: “… it is impossible for a State to have Rights, it only has obligations.”
Please help me understand your terminology. Is it possible for the people as a collective to have rights? Or, are rights only to be found within each individual?
Tony C wrote: “Socialism impairs corporate rule and Fascism embraces it…”
I understand where you are coming from with this statement, but it seems pretty clear to me that both systems behave in the same way towards corporations, only with different attitudes. Socialism has the attitude of impairing or repressing owners of corporations, whereas Fascism embraces an optimistic attitude of action toward working with corporations, inspiring them to work in the interest of the State rather than in the interest of individual owners.
Your lack of understanding is not my problem, David.
A table is still not a cathedral. A tool is not the end project. Humans have eyes and cats have eyes but they do not see in the same spectrum. Your similarity is superficial and the result of specious reasoning based in half-understanding. It’s roughly analogous to saying all UFOs are beige and all telephones are beige therefore all telephones must be UFOs.
G’nite gents.
Smaug of Word Press is getting hungry for comments to eat.
So have a good weekend all.
davidm2575 1, November 22, 2013 at 5:47 pm
Dredd wrote: “What is this type of government:”
”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
This principle is embodied in every government.
====================================
Giving the benefit of the doubt that it is a “principle”, a government employee who laid the foundation for the “ideology” that infected them said:
(The Ways of Bernays). An old-timey conservative pointed out:
(ibid). The lack of agreement on anything except one’s personal opinion and ragged self-support rhetoric to protect it, like it was a favorite pet, gives credence to that observation of American “intellectualism”, a.k.a. self-massaging noise.
Also known as illusion.
On a practical point, I’m an autodidactic polymath so continuing education for me is a state of being in my case. You’ll pardon me if I don’t find anything of educational value in your statements except to use them as a bad example.
Gene H wrote: “I’m an autodidactic polymath so continuing education for me is a state of being in my case.”
Thank you for confirming that your knowledge is incomplete. We all know that already, but at times your comments caused me to suspect that you perhaps thought yourself to be omniscient.
By the way, I think perhaps you meant “free-market socialism” when you juxtaposed the phrases “planned socialism” and “market socialism.”
“Can you explain how you separate the good and rights of all from the interests of the State?”
Why, yes. I can. Can you?
“How does Socialism make POLICY if not through the State?”
The goal is not the mechanism.
“Why vote at all in democratic socialism if the State does not represent the good and rights of all? ”
Because a properly functioning democracy represents the will of the people.
And as for the rest of your gibberish?
That’s adorable.
Gene H responded:
==============
“Can you explain how you separate the good and rights of all from the interests of the State?”
Why, yes. I can. Can you?
“How does Socialism make POLICY if not through the State?”
The goal is not the mechanism.
“Why vote at all in democratic socialism if the State does not represent the good and rights of all? ”
Because a properly functioning democracy represents the will of the people.
And as for the rest of your gibberish?
That’s adorable.
================================
Your comments are self contradictory and completely useless.
Also:
“The point was that socialism makes policies that emphasize the rights of the State, which is viewed as the collective will of all the people. In this way, democratic socialism leans toward fascist ideology.”
Is nonsense. Socialism makes policies the emphasize the good and the rights of all, not the state unless you are talking about a state directed economy which is not the same thing as market socialism – that’s planned socialism. That’s not what either of us are advocating.
Half knowledge is a dangerous thing, David.
Thank you for illustrating that half knowledge is half ignorance on a daily basis.
Gene H wrote: “Socialism makes policies the emphasize the good and the rights of all, not the state…”
Can you explain how you separate the good and rights of all from the interests of the State?
How does Socialism make POLICY if not through the State?
Why vote at all in democratic socialism if the State does not represent the good and rights of all?
Gene H wrote: “Half knowledge is a dangerous thing, David.”
You illustrate this principle rather well, but I would rather someone have half knowledge like you than be ignorant. Please continue in your education.
What is this type of government:
(Saint Warmonger The Hero).
Dredd wrote: “What is this type of government:”
”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
This principle is embodied in every government.
“You are just being obtuse and slow to understand.”
No. I understand perfectly.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
Fascism and socialism as independent terms can describe either a political or an economic system. Why? Because both terms are informed by different political ideologies and different economic models. There are many different forms of socialism informed by different political ideologies, such as democratic socialism, religious (or theocratic) socialism, anarchistic socialism and even (gasp) libertarian socialism. Marxism/Communism some might include in that list, but in the end that is a misnomer as Marxism/Communism view socialism as an intermediate step toward Communism and not an end form in and of itself. Fascism on the other hand comes in two basic politically ideological flavors: nationalistic and corporatist; and a third option that blends nationalism and corporatism. Their only real commonality is the use of a mixed economy. However, the end goals of any planning in a mixed economy between fascism and any form of socialism are (as Tony has pointed out) distinctly different even if they can draw from the same economic model toolbox. You can use a hammer to build a table or a cathedral, can you not? But a table is not a cathedral. Economic models are tools. What is important is how and to what end they used.
A mixed economic model is not one monolithic thing. There are many different kinds of mixed economic models but they all fall in to two rough groups: market socialism and planned socialism. What Tony and I are talking about is some form of market socialism (although our specifics may differ, I suspect Tony is more in the feasible socialism school of thought where I’m more in the pragmatic market socialism camp, but I could be overstating that case – but I digress). Why? Because market socialism is the model that has worked so well elsewhere in practice. Politically though, we both are strongly democratic – something you clearly are not with your oligarchical equal sufferage gibberish.
So no.
I’m not obtuse. I’m direct in my understanding of the nuances of political science and economics and their nexus. Nor am I slow to understand. I have literally years of training and experience in the critical examination of all things political, legal and economic. Unlike you, I actually know what I’m talking about in detail. That’s why I know you’re full of crap and find your conflations so amusing, David.
DavidM: Socialism is an economic system that advocates for social ownership of the means of production.
Not necessarily ALL the means of production. We can advocate for Socialized Medicine and the social (not necessarily governmental) ownership of Hospitals and a Health service without advocating for the social ownership of McDonald’s. We can advocate for the social ownership of a national credit union without advocating for the social ownership of Apple.
Norway or Denmark that explicitly call themselves Socialist do not believe the government OR Society should own ALL the means of production. You are using a definition that does not apply to our philosophy, and in your arguments pretending we believe in that definition when you know that we do not.
Tony C wrote: “Not necessarily ALL the means of production.”
Thanks, Tony. I do recognize this. My main point was that socialism is an ECONOMIC SYSTEM, and when I said “ownership” I had in mind the idea of regulation even though ownership might technically be in the hands of an individual. Usually I try to say “ownership or regulation” to avoid this confusion, but I slipped up here. I tried in the past to get you to understand my concept of how regulation decreases ownership, but failing that, I have to be more careful with my word choices.
The point was that socialism makes policies that emphasize the rights of the State, which is viewed as the collective will of all the people. In this way, democratic socialism leans toward fascist ideology.
Bron’s Libertarian Philosophy does not recognize a Right of people to not be blackmailed for their life’s earnings in order to save their life. It does not recognize that a contract made under duress is not a valid contract.
If you are lying on the street and bleeding to death, you do not have a real choice between taking the ambulance to the E.R. or dying in the street. It is the same choice one is given by a mugger with a gun: Give me all your money or die. It isn’t a real choice, it is a mugging. If the mugger holds a gun on you and says “sign this contract or die,” it isn’t a valid contract.
In the Free Market philosophy, similar levels of coercion exist. Work or starve, regardless of the work conditions or endangerment involved. If you don’t like handling carcinogens, you are fired. If you refuse to sexually service the boss, you are fired. Anything goes, there is no regulation. The “Free” part only applies to the powerful in the Market, which is the rich and the owners, it is an effective “Slave Market” for everybody else that cannot afford to live without work, and will never be paid enough to do anything but survive another day, because when all the rich are allowed to collude they make sure nobody gets paid a dime more than they absolutely need. In fact they can pay less than that and “loan” the workers the rest that they need so they will be contractually indebted to work for them for life.
Indentured servitude (often converted as above into white slavery) was in use in the colonies and then the USA from the 1700s to as late as 1917. Your “ideal period” of free markets fits in there, this is the type of practice you advocate by putting up 1800 to 1900 as your shining example of “freedom.”
Tony C wrote: “Bron’s Libertarian Philosophy does not recognize a Right of people to not be blackmailed for their life’s earnings in order to save their life. It does not recognize that a contract made under duress is not a valid contract.”
I await Bron’s response to this with much interest.
My reply to Gene is lost in WordPress. Can somebody fish it out?
DavidM: The central tenet of Fascism is that corporations and the government work hand in glove (or hand in puppet) to maximize the income of corporations and government at the expense of the people governed.
The central tenet of Democratic Socialism as I envision it (and I know others envision it and practice it in other countries) is that the government prevents Corporations from enjoying certain forms of profit, particularly those in which the citizen is effectively coerced or the corporation would enjoy naturally monopolistic pricing, that effectively subjugate citizens to the corporate will. The government employees do not profit from such public services, they are paid much as our military gets paid, namely modest wages compared to the corporate workers and nobody gets rich or make millions (Even four star Generals in charge of a hundred thousand ’employees’ (troops), the approximate equivalent of a corporate CEO, only get paid about $240K a year, and civil service pay scales are quite similar).
Democratic Socialism doesn’t “lean” toward Fascism, it directly opposes certain kinds of corporations and restrains others to prevent them from profiting from harm.
If any political philosophy leans toward Fascism, it is economic Libertarianism and Free Markets [distinct from civil Libertarianism], that let Corporations do whatever they want without restraint, including forming Trusts and Monopolies that let them collaborate, price fix, and suppress new competition by all means necessary in order to exploit citizens for profit without regard to the harm they cause.
It is precisely that political philosophy that Corporations have managed to buy in this country by bribing politicians and why we are becoming a Fascist State. It is why Banks can successfully repossess homes without any documentation, it is why Banksters that committed fraud and continue to commit usury do not go to jail, it is why the rich need not fear court as much as the poor, it is why property is being seized under eminent domain in order to sell it to for-profit corporations. Because we’ve been bought.
The proper role of Government is to oppose the predations of corporations, and that is precisely what Democratic Socialism can do, and what Free Markets and a lack of regulations does not do.
Tony C wrote: “The central tenet of Fascism is that corporations and the government work hand in glove (or hand in puppet) to maximize the income of corporations and government at the expense of the people governed.”
Not completely true. Fascism has government take over printing of money and lends it interest free. Nevertheless, fascism does differ from democratic socialism in that fascism does not accept equalitarian ideas. Fascism embraces social darwinism instead.
Tony C wrote: “Democratic Socialism doesn’t “lean” toward Fascism, it directly opposes certain kinds of corporations and restrains others to prevent them from profiting from harm.”
The way that democratic socialism leans toward fascism is in the fact that State rights trump individual rights. It views the State as representing the will of the people. Mussolini wrote in rather strong terms how Fascism is against the libertarian views of someone like Bron. I will offer a quote from Mussolini to illustrate, but there may be some confusion over the change in meaning for the word liberalism. Classical liberalism was basically what we call libertarian today. They argued for small government and free markets. Today liberalism argues for big government and more government control; hence, it leans toward fascism. Following is the quote where Mussolini takes a strong stand against libertarianism (which he refers to as liberalism in the quote):
“Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts.”
In so far as fascism diminishes the importance of individual rights, it runs parallel to socialist policies which act for the good of the State over the needs, desires, or wants of the individual. It follows the principle: your rights end where my rights begin.
** Gene H. “Fascism and socialism are both political science terms and economic terms.
But please continue to make up your own definitions.
It’s funny. ” **
Hi Gene H, Ha Ha
Hell I’m also getting forgetful at times.
>> Soviet Union
Country
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics abbreviated to USSR or the Soviet Union, was a socialist state on the Eurasian continent that existed between 1922 and 1991, governed as a single-party state by the Communist Party with Moscow as its capital. Wikipedia <<
“My thoughts:
Fascism is political label whereas Socialism is an economic label.”
And your thoughts would be wrong.
Fascism and socialism are both political science terms and economic terms.
But please continue to make up your own definitions.
It’s funny.
DavidM wrote: “Fascism is political label whereas Socialism is an economic label.”
Gene H wrote: “Fascism and socialism are both political science terms and economic terms.”
You are just being obtuse and slow to understand.
Fascism addresses government in all aspects, such as foreign affairs, war, and education, and it deals with a way of thinking among members of society. In the doctrine of fascism, economics is secondary. Wikipedia says: “Historians and other scholars disagree on the question of whether a specifically fascist type of economic policies can be said to exist. Payne, Paxton, Sternhell, et al. argue that while fascist economies share some similarities, there is no distinctive form of fascist economic organization.[2] Feldman and Mason argue that fascism is distinguished by an absence of coherent economic ideology and an absence of serious economic thinking. They state that the decisions taken by fascist leaders can not be explained within a logical economic framework.[3]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
Socialism, on the other hand, addresses none of these non-economic issues of government. Socialism is an economic system that advocates for social ownership of the means of production. Wikipedia says: “Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] “Social ownership” may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Hey Gene H.
Here’s wiki: Fascist ideology consistently invokes the primacy of the state. Leaders such as Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany embodied the state and claimed indisputable power. Fascism borrowed theories and terminology from socialism but applied them to what it saw as the more significant conflict between nations and races rather than to class conflict, and focused on ending the divisions between classes within the nation.[12] It advocates a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[13] Fascism supports what is sometimes called a Third Position between capitalism and Marxist socialism.[14]”
In the above definition, look at that, it indicates a mixed economy with similarities to socialism – the use of taxation and regulation just like I said. The authors consider it an economic term just like I do. All one must do now is determine who belonged to the oligarchies that Hitler and Mussolini belonged to. One can go on thinking the fallacious notion the there are or have been dictators so powerful and mighty, that they alone can rule an entire country. However it is not hard to show that there is an oligarchy behind every powerful political leaders in history.
_____________________________________________________________
This is a very good link – http://anesi.com/Fascism-TheUltimateDefinition.htm
Whoever put it together did as good a job as anyone can. It states:
“Statism: Promoting a high degree of state intervention in personal, social, or economic matters. Belief that the state can accomplish anything.”
If you read this you should come to the conclusion that we are “in deed” a fascist oligarchy, or a the least very close to one, just as I’ve been saying.
Gene H. Go figure you’re wrong about it’s use as an economic term but as you can see this author likes some definitions by some people better than others. Obviously, some believe like I do that it’s not a finite definition.
To me it’s a concept and we have several government models to look at. The common theme was “periods of economic instability”. Statism and corporations appear to be a major part of the puzzle during these times. Break it down to the basic common denominators.
Getting caught up in the desired mission of the various political figures involved, is going to take away from understanding the working mechanisms of the system. Hitler wanted a great race. so what – he stilled used excessive levels of taxation and regulation to get the money.
La Raza is the Latino term for “The Race” highly embraced especially by the Mexicans. Try to weed out all the propaganda that can be interpreted in different way by different people.
When you read the “anesi” link, you can see some common denominators to the current U.S. socio-economic conditions.
The key to me is at what point does an economic system go from capitalism to fascism and why? Is it less socialism that causes it or more socialism. Something is causing it. Obviously you know my perspective on what I think has to occur to get to that point. Surely, It could be the amount of protectionism given to the major corporations at least as part of the problem. I think a number of things have to be in place for it to occur.
Except as has been explained to you numerous times, history tells a different story, Bron. The Nazis promised socialism and delivered fascism. The prime piece of evidence was their purging the party ranks of socialists during the Night of the Long Knives. Consider too that Hitler openly embraced the model of Italian Fascism and did so to some consternation and upset within the party who even if they were not socialists were objecting on the grounds that it was a “corrupting foreign influence”.
Things are defined by what they are in action, not a self-applied label. Nazism may have “worn the t-shirt” of socialism to gain power, but underneath they were wearing a different outfit altogether and what they delivered wasn’t socialism. It was fascism.
No amount of attempted historical revisionism will change that fact.
No amount of you wrongly conflating the terms will change that fact.