Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Trebor

Obama's Fascist Economy

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

"Barack Obama and his minions in the administration as well as many Democrats in the Congress are often described as Socialists, or in the extreme as Marxists. However, their actions and strategy are straight out of the fascist economic playbook. They have become the modern reincarnation of the fascist mindset, without the militarism of Italy and Germany, that dominated Europe in the 1920s and '30s.

"Over the past seventy years, the left and their allies in the media have succeeded in labeling fascism as a right-wing or conservative philosophy when it in reality was an offshoot of socialism. Socialism/Marxism seeks the total control of a society's economy through complete state control of the means of production and income. Fascism seeks that same control, indirectly by the state domination of private ownership, as well as controlling individual income and wealth through taxation and regulation."

"Obama's Fascist Economy" By Steve McCann, September 21, 2011 (The American Thinker)

Edited by Trebor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The implication of this article (dare we call it, "rightist spew"?) is that somehow the democrats are the only such Fascists in the USA.

In particular his quick historical review jumped from FDR to Obama, quietly missing about 60 years of varying degrees of republican control and influence. The mixing of private and public control continues to this day, when every speaker at last night's Republican debate firmly committed themselves to various tenants of Fascism.

As for socialism "versus" fascism, why again do we care about the difference? When being attacked by a shark, I don't think, "hey, is that a Hammerhead or is that a Great White?"--I just swim for my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, pretty much anyone who uses the term "Fascist" to describe an opponent is pretty much given up any pretense at making a real argument. Orwell put it best:

It will be seen that, as used, 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.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never quite understood the categorization of fascism as a "right wing" ideology.

I've always though of fascism as being any form of government control over the private lives of individuals, and socialism being a particular brand of fascism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascism as a term is simply weasel language intended to mean something bad about the person your using it against. It can be applied to anything from republicans to democrats, the papacy to the wbc, from the US to the middle east, from my cats to my dogs.

You can use it against anyone who does something you don't like, because that action you don't like is therefore oppressive to you. It's a pretty good hallmark of the beginning of a rant not worth listening to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascism as a term is simply weasel language intended to mean something bad about the person your using it against. It can be applied to anything from republicans to democrats, the papacy to the wbc,

That's not true, but it is an understandable conclusion since it is often used incorrectly, in the same was that "National Socialism" has been.

The ambiguity stems from the facts of its creation in early 1900's Italy. It was a conglomeration of left and right wing ideas and methods on a backdrop of statism and extreme nationalism. This allows people to find an aspect of fascism in either of the parties in the US, quite easily, and then accurately make a comparison. So, for example, you could look at the way that Bush's prescription drug program "protects" the private property of drug companies and properly call it a fascist policy or you could look at Obama's mandate that we purchase health insurance for the good of the country and likewise, accurately call it a fascist policy. Neither are policies that would have given Mussolini any pause.

A perfect example would be the Kilo Supreme Court decision that held it as proper to use eminent domain to take people's homes away at a court mandated price to give the land to Walmart, since this increase in taxes was better for the country. You can see elements of free markets, state control, the good of the nation, and elitist pull pedaling ensconced neatly inside the one act.

The US for the past 50 years has been mostly indistinguishable from Fascist Italy with the exception of the nationalism. The US seems to have little patriotism left in it, let alone Nationalism but utilizes most of the same policies of psuedocapitalism where markets are allowed to exist at the descetion of the government so long as they are politically relevent and hand most of the proceeds over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to defend fascism as a definable term then please provide a definition. Fascism is a term that has been abused so frequently that its now just a soft piece of silly putty that can be put into any hole. Based on your own usage Fascism seems to be any kind of authoritarian government that does not operate under consensus.

Which is like every government in existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for; Definitions can be found on the internet quite easily.

It's a historical term that references a particular historical party in a particular place. As such, it has meaning, in the same way that Republicans and Democrats have meaning in spite of the ambiguity that must necessarily occur when referencing a large group of people. Differences between individuals in the party does not mean that no similarities exist or no guiding principles can be found. And it does not for example, imply that I can't listen to a policy maker like Mccain or Romney and think that they seem to be quite democratic in their views.This ambiguity does not equate to meaninglessness. It's just ambiguity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok, well yeah if you use it like that (a historical party at a historical place) its not called fascism (with a little f) but Mussolini's Italian Fascism. Its a proper noun, referring to a unique thing. And it makes about as much sense to call obama a Fascist (with a big F) as it does to say that he got in a time machine, went back in time to the 30s, and joined up with Mussolini and Co.

Edited by emorris1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok, well yeah if you use it like that (a historical party at a historical place) its not called fascism (with a little f) but Mussolini's Italian Fascism. Its a proper noun, referring to a unique thing. And it makes about as much sense to call obama a Fascist (with a big F) as it does to say that he got in a time machine, went back in time to the 30s, and joined up with Mussolini and Co.

Ok, if I were to say Mit Romney is basically a Democrat, pointing to his pro-choice stance and his crafting of the original obamacare in his home state of Mass., it would make sense even though he was never actually a Democrat. The implication is that he has a lot in common with the Democratic party. More really than the Republicans.

Likewise, if I say Obama is a Fascist, I mean that he has more in common with that ideology than others. If you don't see the similarities between his government take over of the banking industry, auto industry, Health care industry, government employee unions, his involvement with Solyndra,(off the top of my head) and Mussolini's corprativism, I stand aghast. They're identical. Under both men, corporations are theoretically, arms of the state, for the good of the country, but end up being tools of the leader's ideology, whereby he implements his own agenda rewarding political supporters and punishing supporters of political opposition. I mean, common, Obama gave 1/2 billion dollars to that one environmentalist criminal meanwhile tying up almost all oil drilling with barely legal moratoriums and drilling rights removals, which are outright theft in all essentials. The man is a Fascist, capitol F or no. I don't mean that as a slur. It's just a fact that his policies are indistinguishable from Mussolini's. Fortunately for him, far too few learned enough in history to realize that what he's doing has all been done before so he should be able to carry on unscathed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, if I were to say Mit Romney is basically a Democrat, pointing to his pro-choice stance and his crafting of the original obamacare in his home state of Mass., it would make sense even though he was never actually a Democrat. The implication is that he has a lot in common with the Democratic party. More really than the Republicans.

Likewise, if I say Obama is a Fascist, I mean that he has more in common with that ideology than others.

There is a lot more meaning to fascism than just corporatism. Even a cursory look at wikipedia indicates that fascism is an integrated philosophy of government and society, while Obama does not seem to following those ideals of fascists. I mean, sure, there are perhaps some fascistic policies, but it's really empty to say that Obama is a fascist. It's the same as calling him a Nazi. It's simply incorrect. Fascism is a specific kind of philosophy. You're using the popular meaning of simply corporatism, which is exactly what Orwell was speaking against doing in the quote above. Even if you meant "most like" a fascist than any other political philosophy, you're still missing just about everything else about fascism besides corporatism that made it so destructive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

If my historical understanding of fascism is flawed, I'd like to be informed. As I said, only corporatism really applies in this sense: "Fascism advocates a state-directed, regulated economy that is dedicated to the nation that supports the use and primacy of regulated private property and private enterprise contingent upon service to the nation or state". Even still, welfare statist is probably the best term to use here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that that's a fair definition, so I guess that our reading of it is different. Through the fed and literally millions of lines of regulation I would argue that we do have a state directed regulated economy that uses "regulated private property." In simpler terms, you can do whatever you want so long as it is something they do agree with and you give the majority of you profits to them to spend for the common good. That's what we have now and that is certainly what Obama wants more of and has created more of. I would agree that "welfare statist" applies, except few know what that means(spell check doesnt even recognize it) and their is really very little difference between the terms. The "Statist" in him wants to control my actions and the welfarist in him want to use me to make the nation(or maybe world if hes one of those types) better. the only significant difference i see is that a welfare statist borrows the emphasis of "helping the poor" from communist ideology, though I view that as primarily a ruse to stuff everything they want down our throats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, what you arrive at is a distinction without a difference. The endpoints have different names, but the means are essentially identical. It becomes more about marketing at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, what you arrive at is a distinction without a difference. The endpoints have different names, but the means are essentially identical. It becomes more about marketing at that point.

That's a good way of putting it and represents how I feel. Calling it a welfare state or any other pleasant sounding thing is, in my opinion, a clever way of avoiding calling a spade a spade. The fiction that there is a difference is totally a political necessity since the term Fascist, like Nazi, has become totally(and rightfully demonized) but not a fiction I'm willing to help them carry on pretending about.

If I develop a new economic system called Fidgetalism which consists of state ownership of all means of production, except the production and sale of paper clips, which will be privately run, then no one can call it Communism because communists don't advocate the private manufacture and sale of paper clips, right?

The essentials need to be kept in sight when dealing with these context based ambiguities otherwise the field becomes a murky marsh that protects the evil through camouflage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fiction that there is a difference is totally a political necessity since the term Fascist, like Nazi, has become totally(and rightfully demonized) but not a fiction I'm willing to help them carry on pretending about.

But that's really counter to the entire Orwell quote. The issue is not demonization of fascism, but blowing other issues out of proportion with the term fascist. Obama pales in comparison to Mussolini and *real* fascists. Distinction isn't political necessity, since it's absolutely relevant to the ways totalitarianism grows. Economic policies are insufficient, so it is valuable to know the ideological underpinnings (which Obama lacks). I don't even see that much ambiguity, fascism was also about militarism and indoctrination along with big emphasis on nationalism. I'll just repeat what emorris said: Orwell put it best.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's really counter to the entire Orwell quote. The issue is not demonization of fascism, but blowing other issues out of proportion with the term fascist. Obama pales in comparison to Mussolini and *real* fascists. Distinction isn't political necessity, since it's absolutely relevant to the ways totalitarianism grows. Economic policies are insufficient, so it is valuable to know the ideological underpinnings (which Obama lacks). I don't even see that much ambiguity, fascism was also about militarism and indoctrination along with big emphasis on nationalism. I'll just repeat what emorris said: Orwell put it best.

I understand the quote, and I agree that the term is used too loosely, but you are mistaken to think that there is some large gap between Obama and Mussolini. I can only guess that you have lumped him and it into a category synonymous with Nazism due to his a WW2 alliance choice. He wasn't a racist at all, there were only like 40 death sentences during his 20 years in power, he did not execute Jews or even deport them as Hitler desired, he eradicated organized crime, was was anti-socialist(for the wrong reasons of course)...in general, just a mixed bag politician during a war.

I don't mean to sound like a fan of the guy. I'm no less an enemy of him as an enemy of rights, than I am of Obama, but not much more either.

Militarism and indoctrination are not what fascism was about. Those are only methodologies(both of which I'd note are alive and well in the US by pointing to the fact that we spend nearly half of all military dollars worldwide and keep 90% of our population forcibly held in state run propaganda camps until their 18th birthday and longer with their consent.) Again, nationalism is not a part of his creed, which is unfortunate since it at least has a history of having benefits for its own nation as opposed to his ideological replacement of altruism, which is consistently bad for everyone.

Again, I understand the overuse of the term, but in this, the dissimilarities are not as great as, I get the impression, you think them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×