| Corporatism |
| Written by Xenu |
| Tuesday, 19 April 2011 00:16 |
|
cor·po·rat·ism (noun, /ˈkôrp(ə)rəˌtizəm/): The control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
Drop your gas guzzling car and check out these gas sipping scooters; Go-Ped Super GSR46R, Go-Ped GSR Cruiser, and X-Treme XG-550. 
|
| Last Updated on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 20:42 |
Comments
I would also say I disagree with any kind of patriotism/nationalism, regardless of its democracy, and I would disagree with orthodox churches (not just judaism or eastern christianity), as I think natural affection for one's culture and land and natural spirituality are retarded by these into forces that can be fascistic.
Eco's point is that none of the things he lists in 1995 constitute fascism in itself; it's how they are integrated into a state apparatus. That is the difference here: yes, we might have fascists, but they are not in control and they are meeting resistance AND (most importantly) the game is rigged against them in the long run. (I believe this is essentially Chomsky's point on American freedom.)
We're talking past one another. All of these examples of fascism, but you are talking about degree.
America has not become a totalitarian state, but we're definitely tipping towards a model of fascism. And if you read the stuff put out by Dominionists, they are preaching a full on theocratic fascism.
I'm way out left myself, and it really concerns me how much the Bush administration and the current GOP, in combination with the SCOTUS Citizens United case have pushed us towards out-and-out fascism.
Read my article. Every assertion I make is linked to a news article. Read it, check the articles, then say whether you agree with my assessment.
First, I am in Wisconsin and I went to High School with Paul Ryan. I am quite familiar with the events there, and the GOP in WI. As much as I strongly disagree with Scott Walker and Ryan, they are not fascists. If you think they are, you really need to travel and see what a strong-arm government looks like. Some friends and I sneaked into the Wisconsin Senate and had an 'interview' with police, but nothing happened to anyone I know, unlike my activist friends in Saudi Arabia and China, where I usually work.
"I read the Eco article in full. He is talking about EXACTLY the same points that I and Lawrence W. Britt cover."
And yet Eco would never call Wisconsin or the US fascist states. I know, I've met the guy. He's as leftist as I am.
Sorry, NKorea is fascist; America is not.
Because the comments don't allow enough characters to reproduce the essay. It develops each of the points at length and gives cited examples of how they're happening in America today.
Quoting Jason Cullen:
Are you familiar with the recent events in Wisconsin? Are you aware of a place called Benton Harbor? Have you noticed the GOP's War on Women?
Quoting Jason Cullen:
I must respectfully continue to disagree. I read the Eco article in full. He is talking about EXACTLY the same points that I and Lawrence W. Britt cover.
If you refuse to read my essay, there's really no way to debate it with you.
In brief:
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
...etc.
Your 14 points could be thrown at any nation. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy did not mix religion with their power, and PR China controls religion. The claims of cronyism, corruption, sexism, and human rights abuses could be directed at any western democracy on the planet. These problems (and problems they are) are not indicative of a fascist state. They blur distinctions and make North Korea and France the same kind of system. Who are we going to call non-fascist: Costa Rica and nobody else? Everything you list in your 14 points could have been directed at the UK in WWII, and the UK was clearly different than Germany or Italy or Japan.
Like Akita, you haven't told me anything. You say I haven't read your article; well, why would I? Why not make your argument here instead of saying 'I disagree'. Chomsky points out that the US has many more freedoms than even some democratic nations, and more than soft dictatorships like PR China and Singapore. If the US is fascist, what do you call PR China? You can't say they are remotely similar. If you want to criticize aspects of it, fine. But 'fascism' isn't correct. PS Read the Eco article.
In brief:
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
My essay takes each of these points and illustrates how they are operating today in America.
Jason, I'm with Akita on why we need to use correct terms. Based on your comments, I'm pretty sure you have not read my essay at gunnora.livejournal.com/.../ (also available on Facebook at facebook.com/.../... )
Akita, I have made an argument. You have not; you have merely asserted that the fascism is the 'proper term'. Simply saying "not it's not" doesn't empower any debate at all.
I find Umberto Eco's discussion of the word "fascism" in European languages useful (pegc.us/.../eco_ur-fascism.pdf); I also do not see how the US government in any way resembles autocratic states. It doesn't even come close to 'soft dictatorships' such as Singapore or PR China. Unless you can explain that, you're just botching the word and not doing anything for debate.
RSS feed for comments to this post