The United States is very quickly becoming an ever more scary looking country. From the outside, it appears to be converting itself into a full-on fascist regime, hostile to insiders and outsiders alike. The walls are going up, the spy-cams and wiretapping are springing up. The SOPA/PIPA powered nation-wide firewall is being constructed. Local authorities are increasingly becoming subservient to a centralized federal authority (DHS). And it's all being fueled by propaganda politics, big businesses lobbying, and the rich. The country appears to be going completely crazy.
I particularly enjoyed the all-male congressional panel on the morality of contraception they had the other day. One woman tried to testify but was deemed "unqualified." Well played.
Also, who else is looking forward to the war with Iran? I hear it's going to be in HD this time.
Well, the only Presidential candidate in the US who isn't down with the Patriot Act and its provisions, and doesn't believe the US should be engaged in worldwide wars (aka "police actions"), is routinely dismissed as "crazy" by both major parties. Tells you a lot about the USA.
Well, the only Presidential candidate in the US who isn't down with the Patriot Act and its provisions, and doesn't believe the US should be engaged in worldwide wars (aka "police actions"), is routinely dismissed as "crazy" by both major parties. Tells you a lot about the USA.
While I agree with your general sentiment, I want to add that Ron Paul is not the only such candidate for President in the US. If one expands their worldview to include "3rd Party" candidates, there are a few guys pursuing, for example, the Libertarian Party nomination, who hold views very similar to Ron Paul. Gary Johnson and Thomas Hill come to mind.
Of course it's easy to convince oneself that "3rd party" candidates don't matter and to exclude them from the conversation, but that just feeds into a self-fulfilling prophecy, IMO.
Third-part candidates don't matter because of the structural gerrymander.
Including them in the conversation is like including me, a non-citizen in the conversation - I don't matter because I'm not remotely electable, and neither are they.
Can we discuss the deteriorating situation in the US like adults and not sputter out epithets like "fascist regime"?
Discussing US politics "as adults" means being willing to accept and confront difficult truths... such as the fact that our system is drifting precariously close to what can be best described as "fascist." Placing our hands over our eyes, sticking our fingers in our ears, and pretending that we don't see and hear what is actually happening is to abdicate our responsibility to behave as adults.
Only by those ignorant of what fascism was actually like, and lacking the knowledge and/or imagination to label "bad government" with more appropriate labels.
No one ever talked about denying that there are problems in the US, but coming up with nonsensical, hyperbolic, historically inappropriate labels for them is not a means to direct the debate in a useful direction, either.
I agree that some people are ignorant of what fascism was actually like, and I'll add that the real issue isn't the historical context of what happened in Pre-WWII Italy or Nazi Germany, but the present day context of what is happening in the US.
The Hobson's Choice blog argues that America is heading towards what he calls a "Falangist" state. This is the kind of government often seen in Latin America or Africa in the 20th Century. Falangism does not regiment society like fascism. It's a loose coalition of business, religious, and government elites, all of them corrupt and often working at cross-purposes.
Falangist regimes usually have grandiose rhetoric, but
unlike fascist states their main enemy is their own breathtaking mediocrity.
Simon Johnson, formerly of the IMF, argues the USA has problems similar to an emerging market in crisis, because the government is unable or unwilling to get tough on its elites, particularly finance.
However, we've never seen a state like this that has the wealth, power, and technology of the USA. Americans are inventive people and I have no doubt we will be adding another -ist word to our vocabulary after all of this is done.
An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of
government and social organization.
(in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or
intolerant views or practice.
re·gime/riˈZHēm/
Noun:
A government, esp. an authoritarian one.
A system or planned way of doing things, esp. one imposed from above.
I don't think you can get a more succinct description of what's happening to the United States.
When you say "fascist regime" you are invoking emotional connection to Mussolini Italy or Nazi Germany. Citing the technical definition of the word doesn't change the intention of the rhetoric. Many emotional appeals use technically correct words.
It's possible that you only used the words because they were correct, and do not share the emotional connection to them that most of your readers will have. If that is true, you should note the common effect of that phrase, and avoid it in the future during rational conversation.
When euphemism detracts from the meaning or content of a message, its use is harmful. Your use of the phrase "fascist", regardless of its accuracy (which I debate, but this isn't about semantics), did not add to the content of your message. In fact it detracted significantly, substituting a tired "U.S.->Nazi" cliché in place of whatever message you intended.
"substituting a tired "U.S.->Nazi" cliché in place of whatever message you intended."
He didn't make that claim. He made a specific claim. Rather than debate that claim, you're attacking the word he used. Have you got a better word? As far as I know, the term "Fascist" is the most clinically correct term for that type of system. If someone were to use the less correct, but more emotionally charged term "Nazi", then your line of attack would have some merit.
Ironically, you've made rational discussion impossible because you're using your emotional reaction as an argument against the use of the most accurate term.
I believe this is a tactic. You don't want to admit that this is happening, so you wish to deny anyone the possibility of pointing it out, by insisting that the most appropriate term is "irrational".
The irony, of course, is that this attitude on a mass scale is what allowed the Nazis in germany to obtain so much power. Germans are not genetically fascist, they're just like everyone else. However, like everyone else, they had a very hard time believing that their government could be doing evil, and so they lived in denial. Even after the war, many germans found it difficult to accept that the holocaust had happened.
The idea that fascism, which has happened historically on more than one occasion, is impossible, is perpetuated for ideological reasons. A cynical person might say that those perpetuating the ideology do so because they know their ideology is at its root fascist. (In that case, you would be the victim, not the person I'm accusing.)
If you've got a better term for a society where the economy is privately owned but under absolute control of the government, and the necessary authoritarianism that goes with it, please feel free to propose it.
But your attempt to banish the word created to describe such societies simply because you don't like the implications makes rational conversation impossible.
For instance, rather than discuss the trends we see in the USA, we're dealing with your insistence that we shouldn't use the correct word!
My argument is that use of the word "fascist" itself prevents us from rational discourse of the trends and problems at hand by driving us to extreme positions.
"Fascist" is not the correct word for what's happening. It's a loaded and extreme word. Sure, you can quote an one-sentence online dictionary and use the vagueness of that definition to convince yourself that it is correct. Or you can use an equally simplistic definition like "privately owned but under absolute control of the gov't" and again, claim accuracy. No scholar of political science would ever use a one-line definition for something as culturally and politically significt as fascism.
Even Wikipedia, hardly a controversial source, wouldn't: "Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics."
The discussion is about an important issue: the increasing control of the US gov't and regulatory agencies over the free agency of US citizens. Jumping in and saying "fascist regime" is not furthering rational conversation.
Also, calling somebody on injecting the emotional baggage of that hyperbole is not making "rational conversation impossible".
In another paragraph I was asked if use of euphemism by media was a big part of the problem at hand. I'd say no, it's the opposite: use of extreme polarizing language is a big part of the problem at hand.
"My argument is that use of the word "fascist" itself prevents us from rational discourse of the trends and problems at hand by driving us to extreme positions."
I call foul: you say that now, but you're participating in preventing people from using the word according to its simple and straightforward meaning! You can't have it both ways there.
"Also, calling somebody on injecting the emotional baggage of that hyperbole is not making "rational conversation impossible"."
Like heck. You're derailing the conversation and quibbling.
I didn't say Nazi. I said fascist. If I mean the "United States is converting toward a right-wing authoritarian regime", then fascism is the correct word for this. Arguing the semantics of this word, or saying I shouldn't use that word because of its associations, really does not make my opinion less valid, and doesn't make any argument to the contrary.
Fascism is characterised by promoting the state over individual interests, the forcible suppression of the opposition, all generally accompanied by a suspension of the rule of law. Some of this is happening here, but it's a long way down the slippery slope.
Calling the US fascist as hyperbole for emotional impact is fine. But it sounds like a lot of people believe the US is actually fascist. My grandparents fled across the Austro-Swiss border from a fascist regime. The US isn't fascist.
You're arguing a point I never made. I said the United States is "converting toward" fascism. I really think that the majority of Americans have no idea what fascism really is, because they're so engrossed inside a propaganda machine that makes the current political situation seem completely normal.
I think articles like this really need to be read by Americans more often:
If you think the US is like Italy in the 1930ies, you're completely ignorant of the history of this country. Italy, I mean. I live here, and my wife's grandparents lived through that.
That's not to say that things are wonderful in the US, but it's just not the same thing, and to make that kind of claim puts you in the same intellectual bucket in my mind as the folks who call Obama a communist.
This seems to be an ideological definition. I'm really curious where you obtained it. It is the perspective of leftists-- an ideological perspective-- that "fascism" is "right-wing".
For instance, the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party, also known as the Nazis, were a pro-union, pro-socialism, pro-farmer, party. It seems that the accusation of "right wing" comes from using the term as a synonym for "authoritarian".
The dictionary.com definition is better:
fas·cism [fash-iz-uhm]
noun
1.( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2.( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3.( initial capital letter ) a fascist movement, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
Note the elements:
A. regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.
B. complete power
C. forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.
(I think the inclusion of "nationalism and often racism" is an editorial lapse here. Mussolini wasn't racist the way the Nazis were, and the role the jews played for the Nazis was an emotional one used to manipulate the country, not one intrinsic to the economic system of fascism.)
A. We have this to a great degree. For every industry there's some government agency that regulates it, and those regulations seem to be unlimited in their potential scope. They may not be completely regimented at this point, but I'm not aware of the supreme court striking down the theoretical power to do so, even when this "Regulation" includes completely shutting down the industry (say marijuana).
B. We've seen a sharp move towards complete power in the US in the past 20 years, accelerating under Bush and Obama. Many laws are passed giving the president more and more dictatorial power, and both presidents have exercised powers they don't have under the law and gotten away with it.
C. I argue that we've seen this with the regulation of the media, preventing anti-government views from getting into the mainstream media, with the "free speech zones" eliminating the idea of free speech by default, and with the censorship of websites.
This shutting down of websites being the initial action that brought us to this discussion, its worth noting that it is a key element of fascism.
While its true the websites being shut down now are not anti-government ones, this is always how they do it. They find some reviled group like "terrorists" or "drug kingpins" (the same role the "jews" played in germany) and then go after them. Nobody's going to defend pedophiles, right? How much internet regulation has been passed with the excuse that its to protect children from pedophiles.
And eventually it becomes fully regulated such that the perspectives are completely censored like they are on the nightly news.
The 1920's and 1930's Italian and German interpretation of fascism clearly isn't relevant today. The exact definition fascism is by no means definitive, but I consider the broad definition that Google provides to be concise and relevant to what's currently happening and accelerating in the US:
This why you can't judge the world by watching TV.
It is really sad to see normally intelligent people go batshit crazy and start spewing nonsense. Europeans should know better than to throw around the word fascist. I am so sick of whining Europeans that I would almost support stalling the U.S. economy just to drive the E.U. into a ditch.
I think if you want to point out the flaw in someones argument you could do better than to go down the exact same road they took.
You effectively claim that the US does not need the EU and that you could afford to drive the EU 'into a ditch' out of spite, when in fact the economies are now so interlinked that if the one suffers the other suffers right along with it. The current crisis is a nice example of that.
Effectively it is a single giant economy with lots of subtle and not well understood dependencies, wrecking one on purpose will likely wreck the other one as well.
Besides that, you are painting all Europeans with the same brush and that is just as stupid as those that like to paint all of the US with one brush.
America is not 'the evil empire' (and neither is Europe), but on both sides of the Atlantic there is plenty of stuff going on that does not have the interests of the general public at heart. I don't mind those that expose those things, and I don't mind people trying to avoid making past mistakes again. They're braver than me in many respects.
We're moving into uncharted territory with respect to the amount of impact surveillance technology and anti-terrorism measures have on the lives of ordinary citizens. It remains to be seen if the net result of that is beneficial or not (I'm skeptical and I think that it will be a net negative). The United States seems to me to be the party pushing most aggressively to achieve this with the EU following along and sometimes trying to outdo its counterparts.
What bugs me is that there is no - or very little - accountability on this front and the extent to which commercial interests and political interests are entwined. It may take a lot of work to undo the damage that we're doing to ourselves and our societies. To polarize that into a US vs Europe debate is silly at best and 'batshit crazy' at worst. Please don't add fuel to that particular fire.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, and of course your right. But these fascist claims go unanswered here too often and I shouldn't have to dispute it point by point. It's ludicrous.
>you are painting all Europeans with the same brush and that is just as stupid as those that like to paint all of the US with one brush.
Well I did qualify it with 'whining'. Particularly the ones whose sense of entitlement has become so bloated.
My 'E.U. in a ditch' was too much, I have no beef with Europe, just calling out bullshit.
But these fascist claims go unanswered here too often and
I shouldn't have to dispute it point by point.
Except you didn't dispute it at all. Instead of making any sort of insightful argument you said it is sad, and I am batshit crazy, spewing nonsense, and that you want to sabotage the European economy. This is really not a good way to make an argument.
You conveniently left out the most important part when you quoted me. It's ludicrous.
I know you are intelligent, and said as much, because I read some of your other comments. Unless you work for the Chinese government, the fact that you persist with this idea that America is a fascist country makes me think that something is dreadfully wrong somewhere. It was morning here and I was drinking coffee, maybe it was late there and you were drinking scotch. I'm sorry if I offended you.
>Do you actually believe America is a fascist country?
If it were we wouldn't be having this conversation. But likewise, I don't think it's the greatest country on earth either (nor can I think of any way such a concept would be meaningful really). To me, it is simply a first world county; it has its good points and its bad points. There are a lot of scary things happening in the western world right now and many of them are spearheaded by the US.
1) For admitting, if reluctantly, that America is not fascist.
2) The link
I did not claim we were the greatest country, whatever that means, but I can't fathom the 'America is the worst thing since AIDS' attitude on HN. In the next breath they complain its hard to get here.
How many civil liberties need to be eradicated before you're living in what could be described a fascist regime?
Or a better way to come to think about it is to ask yourself how many civil liberties have been gained compared to how many have been lost over the past 10 years. And do you see this trend continuing?
"This why you can't judge the world by reading pamphlets. It is really sad to see normally intelligent people go batshit crazy and start spewing nonsense. White Rose should know better than to throw around the word "evil." I am so sick of whining White Rose that I would almost support stalling the German economy just to drive the White Rose into a ditch."
It could be, but US has much more influence on the world, and it used to be the beacon of freedom. So all this is happening in the country that was supposed to be the most free in the world. Whether it's more fascist or less fascist than other countries, that's besides the point. They are already fascist enough, and the trend is going up, not down. And the fact that this is happening, while it's still the most powerful country in the world, scares the hell out of everyone else.
No, the US narrative is that it thinks the rest of the world looks on it as a beacon of freedom. A lot of countries do not think "do what the USA does" is a good idea. (Just look at labour law or socialism for one example)
I's sorry, what? Can you please provide some examples of developments in Australia that in any way match what the parent was describing? Or have you been misled to believe that our Internet is filtered in any way?
Australia has the sanest political climate of any developed country I've lived in, in large part thanks to compulsory and preferential (ranked) voting. Sure there's things like the manufactured boogeyman of "boat people", the lingering spectre of racism, and increasingly vocal tea-party-like factions, but not nearly to the same extent as in the US, UK, or even Canada.
There's mandatory Internet censorship in Australia, in a sense that it's funded by the government and users have no choice except to leave. It's a form of making censored Internet subscriptions cheaper than Internet Freedom subscriptions that will lead those ISPs to exit market. Heard of NBN? What if the government says that ISPs must have 'appropriate criminal filters' in place to be eligible for NBN access? Look to UK for more (Remember Wikipedia being blocked?).
Both parties have been known to support the ability to declare war without parliament (USA/UK need to ask). It's controversial to be in the parties and support parliamentary requirement to go to war.
There's many secret copyright enforcement meetings and rumours are abound that they are discussing ways to use the piracy phenomenon as a form of economic bogeyman to spy on small businesses for the big businesses. Not only that, but there's implications that the government likes the ability to spy and restrict opposition groups. Even The Pirate Bay colourfully said that copyright lobby is so powerful that ISPs are forced to attend 'optional meetings to discuss ways of reducing copyright infringement'.
Did you know that police can now issue $1320 on-the-spot fines and confiscate all electronic equipment deemed involved in piracy? It's per infringement, so 100 pictures can easily become a $132k fine.
> There's mandatory Internet censorship in Australia, in a sense that it's funded by the government and users have no choice except to leave.
This is simply not true. There are two ISPs: Telstra and Optus, who voluntarily block websites from a list provided by the government. However, I don't know anyone who actually uses those ISPs, and they're more expensive to boot. The other major ISPs, such as iiNet and Internode, have no intention of implementing the filter, and in fact actively and successfully fight government interference in court. They're also cheaper, and in my experience provide superior customer service.
If the government decides to impose restrictions on NBN access, the latter group of ISPs are highly likely to fight it in court, and are quite likely to win.
And furthermore, given the fragile position the Labor party is currently in, it has shelved its plans for mandatory filtering, and is unlikely to reintroduce them, as it alienates their voter base, who are increasingly driven toward the Green Party, which is now in a position of significant influence and vocally opposes Internet censorship.
> Both parties have been known to support the ability to declare war without parliament
While Australia doesn't require parliamentary approval to go to war, the countries that do, the US in particular, don't seem to pay that rule much heed, so I'm not sure how much would change if such a rule was on the books.
> There's many secret copyright enforcement meetings and rumours
They can meet in secret as much as they want, but fortunately, they cannot pass laws in secret. Until a bill is introduced, such meetings are of no concern, nor are they in any way unique to Australia.
> Did you know that police can now issue $1320 on-the-spot fines and confiscate all electronic equipment deemed involved in piracy?
No I did not, and could not find any sources to corroborate that, nor examples of such fines actually being issued. Can you provide some links to that effect?
> The other major ISPs, such as iiNet and Internode, have no intention of implementing the filter, and in fact actively and successfully fight government interference in court.
They may be expensive in some aspects, but they have a duopoly over cable among other competitive advantages. Even gamers/buyers like it due to lower ping in some cases.
iiNet and Internode are becoming one ISP, so they're two brands soon. iiNet seems to offer policing users with copyright infringement notices as a compromise due to relentless lobbyists. Again, I believe these compromises are a result of political tactics of Door in Face technique [1] and Overton window technique [2].
Labor party does not care if there's many surveys, polls, rallies against it. They're still considering the mandatory filter. I have similar concerns about the Liberal party wanting an Internet filter since they publicly stated that Labor's Internet Filter is not effective enough. Fortunately, they are not accepting an Internet Filter for now.
> While Australia doesn't require parliamentary approval to go to war, the countries that do, the US in particular, don't seem to pay that rule much heed, so I'm not sure how much would change if such a rule was on the books.
Democrats and Republicans jointly voted for the Iraq War. I'm not sure why you say they're avoiding that. Labor party was vocal in their opposition to Iraq war. If they were actually trying to gain votes, then well done. Seems like a cheap tactic that would be absolved with the parliamentary requirement.
> They can meet in secret as much as they want, but fortunately, they cannot pass laws in secret. Until a bill is introduced, such meetings are of no concern, nor are they in any way unique to Australia.
There are secret international collaborative exercises such as ACTA that erode Internet Freedom that were only initially exposed due to Wikileaks. That said, the results of such secret meetings, the government comes out adamant that copyright is a fundamental right over Internet Freedom and other rights.
This trend appears to be happening in Canada, UK, and EU simultaneously. The G8 are coordinating their authoritarian efforts in a way that is completely unprecedented. Like a lot of things the US is probably the one pushing for this on its "friends".
I feel things have calmed down in the UK on that front since TB got booted out. Personally I thought the height of that was when David Blunkett was home secretary.
Who authorised the police to use water cannon and fire arms on protesters in the UK then? Your comment looks like political bias. Both governments ratchet up the attacks on its people. Government is the problem, not which one.
I think its about time to realise that the ruling classes see it as us and them. We the people are the enemy of governments. It does not matter which party we are talking about.
